Transcription du comité 1994-août-23 | Assemblée législative de l'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

Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee, business steering committee

David Hambley, chair

Doug Gilbert, consultant

Ted Nixon, consultant

Steve Cryne, consultant

Peterborough and District Labour Council

Neil McMahon, vice-president

Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto

Steve Lowden, president

Donna Cansfield, president, Ontario Public School Boards' Association

David Brady, member, human resources committee

Heinz-Georg Stork

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 134

Terry Wilfong, representative

Bruno Macri

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Fred Upshaw, president

Ontario Physiotherapy Association

Signe Holstein, executive director

Karen Webb, chair, Workers' Compensation Board committee

Ana Pavela

Custom Door and Lock Service

Roy Boisclair, service manager

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

Tom Kukovica, Canadian director

Pearl MacKay, coordinator, health and safety education and research

Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups

Karl Crevar, president

Nicanor Iglesia; Franco Lombardo

Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation

Jim Yarrow, chair

Les Liversidge, chair, business section committee

Andy George

Whitby Injured Workers Group

Crystal George, representative

Federation of Temporary Help Services

Stephen Jones, president

David Stark, staff member

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183

Roger Quinn, social services director

Keith Cooper, coordinator, legal affairs and public relations

Michael O'Brien, representative

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

Chair / Président: Vacant

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

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

*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

*Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener NDP)

Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

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

*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

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

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

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

White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Huget

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Mr Klopp

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

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Mitchell Toker, manager, workers' compensation, Ministry of Labour

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

Staff / Personnel:

Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1003 in room 151.

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

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

The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): I call this meeting to order. We'll be continuing with our public deliberations on Bill 165.

PREMIER'S LABOUR-MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE BUSINESS STEERING COMMITTEE

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our first presenters, the Premier's labour council business steering committee. Good morning. As you're aware, you'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you could leave a little time for some questions from each of the caucuses. Please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Mr David Hambley: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is David Hambley. I am the chair of the business steering committee of the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee. With me today at the table are colleagues that I'll introduce shortly. I would like to point out we have many more supporters in the audience.

About 18 months ago the Premier of Ontario asked the PLMAC, as it is known, for advice on how the government could reform the Ontario workers' compensation system. The business steering committee was assembled. It is a cohesive alliance of major business organizations which supported the business caucus of the PLMAC. We are active in representing the employer community's views on workers' compensation issues.

With me today are Doug Gilbert on my left, a lawyer with Heenan Blaikie; Ted Nixon on my right, an actuary with William M. Mercer; and Stephen Cryne, executive director of the Employers' Advocacy Council. These people are technical experts who have participated on the business steering committee and advised the PLMAC throughout the process.

Together our alliance represents over 85% of Ontario's diverse employer base, including many large Ontario corporations and small businesses. At the outset, the Premier asked business and labour to work together to produce a reform system to do two things: (1) pay injured workers fairly, providing a balanced approach to the problems plaguing the system and (2) meet the test of being financially sound.

The business community spent thousands of hours developing a comprehensive package of reforms that, if acted upon, would have eliminated the unfunded liability, secured future benefits for workers, improved vocational rehabilitation and placed the system on a secure footing while improving the climate for business investment in the province of Ontario. A copy of the business proposal is attached to this submission and you will see this proposal many times in the next few weeks during your hearings.

The government chose not to act on those proposals, but rather they requested that business and labour try to provide a consensus package of reforms. We were told that if business and labour did not, government would act to develop its own solution.

This ultimatum lead to further meetings between senior business and labour representatives in March 1994 at which time an accord was reached. The accord was immediately hailed as a success by the government of Ontario. While everyone wasn't happy, there was support in the business and labour communities. However, support for the accord evaporated in the business community when the government debased the agreement by altering it. When the parties couldn't agree on the government's new interpretation, the government proceeded to introduce Bill 165.

Bill 165 is not a product of the bipartite group that the government asked and received advice from, this despite the fact that the PLMAC process produced an accord that had substantial support in both the labour and employer communities. The proposed solution in the form of Bill 165 is a clear misunderstanding of the PLMAC proposal. This is the very group from which the Premier sought advice. The bill will not address the fiscal crisis of the system nor the lack of financial responsibility or accountability that exists.

The government's actions have now produced a package of reform that does little to restore the lack of confidence that all stakeholders have with the system. It has destroyed any confidence that we had for the success of bipartitism at this level.

The cornerstone of the business steering committee's original proposals and the accord is the purpose clause, one that is quite different from that which appears in Bill 165. Financial responsibility, which put balance in the system, has been removed from it despite the accord. The labour people to this day will agree with business that the purpose clause as written in the accord is acceptable.

I will now ask Mr Gilbert, who is a distinguished counsel practising in the area of workers' compensation law and who provided technical support, to speak. He brings extensive experience based on work within the Ministry of Labour and private practice. He will advise the standing committee on the importance of including the purpose clause in Bill 165 as we had proposed.

Mr Doug Gilbert: My purpose is to explain to you why the purpose clause is important to the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee, to the management members of that group and to the business community at large.

Before I begin, I think it's important to spend a moment to remind ourselves of how the PLMAC was created and why it was created. The PLMAC was established after the introduction of Bill 40 at a time when there was considerable acrimony in the province between business and labour. I think, fairly seen, the PLMAC was intended to serve as a bridge between the two labour market parties and an attempt to bring them back together towards a better relationship and a relationship in which consensus could be reached on some of the important labour issues facing the province. That was the reason the group was created in the first place.

It was against that backdrop that it really received its first formal assignment, and that was from the Premier, which was to consider ways to reform the workers' compensation system. The Premier in charging the group with this responsibility gave them a fairly limited time frame; I think it was approximately six months. The Premier also gave the group a fairly specific set of instructions in terms of what they were to look at and what they were to report back on.

1010

If you look at our document -- I think it's numbered document 2, the one with the green cover -- on the second page of this document you will see our summary of the instructions that the Premier gave the group when it was given the task of considering reforms to the Workers' Compensation Act. The mandate from government is listed on the left-hand side, "Balance worker and employer interests; provide a financially responsible system; address governance; ensure a competitive system; improve cash flow and achieve savings." Those were the directions that this group took from the Premier as it went about to do its work and report back with recommendations.

These directions from the Premier I think reflect the basic underlying purpose and intent of the workers' compensation program since its inception in 1915. Those purposes are really twofold: to compensate injured workers and to create and sustain a viable insurance program for employers. Those are the two underlying purposes of the statute, and I think you will see in this list of instructions from government those themes being advanced.

With these instructions, the business members of the PLMAC met throughout the summer to develop recommendations in a number of areas. One of the things that concerned the group was, how do you refocus, how do you redirect the workers' compensation system which, according to the Premier's instructions and according to any objective assessment, is in serious financial trouble? What do you do to refocus the system so that it can sustain itself and continue to provide an acceptable level of benefits for workers?

The business representatives on the group looked to the government's own example, its own model that it followed when the government was reforming the Labour Relations Act. If we look at the discussion paper that preceded the reforms of the Labour Relations Act, we see in that discussion paper concern on the part of the government that the act isn't providing the access to organizing that it was intended to provide. The service sector is falling behind. Employees don't have the right to participate in the workplace as they should. All of those were perceived flaws in the existing Labour Relations Act as the government viewed that statute.

So what did it do? One of the ways it attempted to refocus the Labour Relations Act was to introduce a purpose clause. An old statute, a new government and a new direction, they introduce a purpose clause for the purpose of refocusing the administration of the statute in a way which the government saw fit.

We see in the Labour Relations Act purpose clause precisely those objectives: enhancing access to organizing, promoting collective bargaining and encouraging employee participation. That's what the government thought had to be done to modernize the statute and it chose a purpose clause to bring it off. So when the business members of the PLMAC set about their task, they looked to a purpose clause as well as the mechanism for refocusing the Workers' Compensation Act.

There was an initial draft of a purpose clause which you'll find in this document at page 5. On the Premier's further instructions, the business community met with the representatives on the PLMAC from labour to negotiate a compromise document, and you'll see that document. The product of the negotiations with labour is the single page on your desk that was handed out this morning.

This was the product of two days of intense negotiations in March of this year involving business representatives, also involving senior labour representatives, Mr Wilson from the OFL, Mr Pomeroy from the CWC and Mr Gerard from the Steelworkers, among others. This was the document that at the end of those discussions both sides were prepared to live with in terms of the purpose clause that would be suitable to refocus the Workers' Compensation Act.

I just want to spend a moment reviewing the elements of this agreement. First of all, you'll see that it begins with an understanding on financial responsibility that in decision-making and in the operation of the system, it's important that there be a financial responsibility framework. The introduction continues, "The underlying premise of the FRF and the governance process puts ultimate accountability for the system on government."

We then proceed to the content of the purpose clause itself, and you'll see that there are elements in the draft which capture the interests of the worker, the employer and the public's interest in a sound workers' compensation program. They are, I think, fairly read, a reflection of what the Premier instructed this group to do at the outset.

It begins with clause (1): The purpose of this act is "To provide fair compensation, health care benefits, rehabilitation services and return-to-work opportunities for workers." Obviously, that's recognition of the worker's interest in the system.

Clause (2): "To require the board of directors to exercise the highest level of financial responsibility and accountability in administering the workers' compensation system in Ontario." Obviously, that's the public interest: Make sure that the administrators of the system understand what's expected of them as they go about their business.

Clause (3): "To ensure that any proposed change to benefits, services, programs or policies under the act is thoroughly analysed in order to evaluate the overall consequences of the proposed changes on workers and employers and report the same to the provincial government." The employer's interest and the worker's interest in understanding the impact of change before change is made is obviously essential to a viable insurance program.

Finally, in clause (4), the interest of the worker, the public interest and the employer's interest are intertwined. It tells the decision-maker under the statute that they must consider the relationship between work injury and the workers' compensation system to ensure that advances in health sciences are reflected in benefit and program changes and also to make a continuing effort to improve the efficiency of the system.

This draft was intended to achieve the balance that the Premier asked the PLMAC to consider and make recommendations on. It was intended to enhance financial responsibility and to ensure that the system remained a viable insurance program for employers. Exactly what the Premier directed is reflected in this draft, and again I repeat, this isn't an employer document. This is the product of an accord with labour.

When you compare this draft purpose clause to the clause that found its way into the bill, you'll see two basic features have been dropped: public interest and the employer interest in impact assessment. When you look at page 1 of Bill 165, the purposes of the act are stated to be (a) to provide fair compensation, (b) to provide health care benefits, (c) to provide rehabilitation services and return-to-work opportunities. You have really a one-sided provision that found its way into the bill, unsatisfactory to achieve the objectives which the PLMAC set out to achieve.

Some would say, and I think Mr Thomas said yesterday, that this purpose clause is sufficient, that all that should be in a purpose clause is found in this language that's in Bill 165. With respect, I disagree with that. I think that's wrong and it's wrong for this reason. First, it interprets the purpose of workers' compensation to begin with. It's, as I said, benefits but also a viable insurance program. The purpose clause of Bill 165 misses the second point, and obviously that's fundamental.

Some will also argue that, "Some of the employer interests in the PLMAC draft have found their way into the bill in other places, and so we've taken care of your concerns." I don't dispute that those provisions perhaps belong in the substantive provisions of the act as well, but they don't work to achieve the objective we're seeking to achieve.

When you take just one example -- and I'll conclude so that others can speak -- of what I mean, if you look at page 5 of the bill, it deals with impact assessments. Purportedly this provision is a substitute for the impact assessment language in the original purpose clause. It says, "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." Well, it's a circular argument. It's a loop. It takes you back to the purpose clause in Bill 165, which is solely focused on the worker's interest. So it doesn't achieve what the original accord was intended to achieve.

1020

I just would conclude with the observation that, as we set out to achieve a bipartite governance of the Workers' Compensation Board, to fail to implement an accord reached with business and labour is a very bad signal. It's a very bad way to begin. It's not the message that you want to send to the business community if you truly want them to be involved and committed to the bipartite system of governance.

With that, I'm going to turn it to over to Ted Nixon, who will speak to some of the more practical aspects of financial responsibility.

The Vice-Chair: You have about four minutes left.

Mr Ted Nixon: Fine. As a practical matter the financial responsibility aspects generated by the purpose clause would manifest themselves in several identifiable ways. It would mean that policy developments, major WCAT leading case rulings and legislative changes having cost impact would require a thorough cost analysis before approval. Now the government does the same thing in all its ministries where it's accountable directly for revenue and expenses in health and education. Why not have the same discipline in the workers' compensation system?

Secondly, the financial responsibility issues would establish something like three critical financial parameters: the ratio of assets to liabilities, this funding ratio we all hear about, annual operating deficits and pure net cash flow as three critical barometers of the financial health of the system, and it would help to set targets for each of them so that they could be improved, the same way that other provinces, such as Alberta, BC and New Brunswick have done.

To date, in my opinion, the government and at least half of the workers' comp board of directors and most of the senior management at WCB do not understand the critical importance of these parameters to the health of the system.

Thirdly, I think financial responsibility would require the board to get on with completing the assessment rate policy and funding policy program. At the moment we're basically running a pay-as-you-go system and that isn't going to work. It basically means that the last employer in in certain industries is going to pay the whole price for all the prior costs. It's not acceptable. Employers accept the pre-funding concept. We've got to get on with it and get it implemented. This would stop the notion that the financial situation isn't critical until a cheque bounces.

Fourth, the financial responsibility framework would require the board to perform an annual gain and loss analysis, understand why financial results don't match expectations for the year and would help in taking corrective action.

As you know, the current situation's disgraceful. You've seen lots of numbers on the $11.7-billion debt. The funding ratio is the worst of any of the provinces. We've only got enough assets for two or three years' worth of benefit payments. You've heard lots about how the unfunded liability optimistically might grow to $31 billion, which is why we came up with a lot of the proposals we did, sitting around in a four-part working group, remember, with government, business, labour and the board. All agreed on the assumptions that would go into those projections.

The $3.3-billion immediate savings that were in our proposals have been whittled back to about $700 million, yet we continue to see each year the board runs $200 million to $300 million higher in its operating deficit than it ought to be running based on the liability projections it sets and the assessment rates it's setting. If you put in the financial responsibility framework, it'll improve the security and benefits for injured workers and it'll do it at a competitive employer cost. It's really interesting that in provinces which have healthy financial situations they have minimal confrontation over workers' compensation.

Now Steve Cryne's going to bring to a conclusion our comments quickly.

The Vice-Chair: Half a minute. We have a busy schedule.

Mr Steve Cryne: Yes, I understand, thank you, Mr Chair. Bill 165 does not reflect the agreement reached between business and labour, even in the areas where there was no misunderstanding between what business and labour said.

The bill does not achieve the objectives set by the Premier when he asked business and labour to produce a new system which would pay injured workers fairly and meet the test of being financially sound. Under this bill workers will continue to face uncertainty about the security of their benefits and employers will continue to face increased WCB costs as the increased debt is passed on to future generations of employers, who will most likely be far fewer in number.

All this government has done is given us more regulations and penalties in the area of vocational rehabilitation and re-employment. They've not given us the tools in which to bring workers back into the workplace. In short, Bill 165 is not a solution.

The steering committee requests your committee to recommend to the government that Bill 165 be withdrawn and the proposals of the business steering committee, which are attached with the written submission that you have received this morning, form the basis of any further legislation with regard to the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Hambley, Mr Gilbert, Mr Nixon and Mr Cryne, for taking the time out and giving us your presentation this morning.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Chairman, I was not part of the steering committee that negotiated the agreements for times of presenters and everything else, but I just want the record to show that I think it's really a shame that we have this amount of talent come before us, with the knowledge they have on workers' compensation, and not allow them the time to present fully what they would like to present, and particularly the time for myself and I'm sure Ms Witmer to ask questions and delve into some of the issues.

I think they and other groups, many other groups, bring tremendous knowledge. They've done a lot of work and they should be congratulated for the work that they've done. I'm sure they're very frustrated to get direction directly from the Premier's office on what he, as the surrogate Minister of Labour, is looking for, then have him bail out on you the way he did. But I thank you for your presentation.

The Vice-Chair: Just a reminder, Mr Mahoney, that when the subcommittee originally met, we did agree on 30-minute presentations, but the response was overwhelming for presenters so it was agreed by the subcommittee that we would reduce it to 20-minute presentations to allow more people to present.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it just shows probably what will turn out to be the total ineffectiveness of these hearings and a total waste of time.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would concur, as I decided the same thing. It certainly was extremely unfortunate that we have before us today the Premier's handpicked business advisers and they have only an allocation of 20 minutes and we have absolutely no time to ask them the questions that obviously need to be asked. I would hope that's taken into consideration.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I don't know where you guys were on that committee --

The Vice-Chair: Order. Mr Turnbull.

Mr Klopp: -- the majority and the opposition parties.

Mr Mahoney: You guys run that committee and you know it.

Mr Klopp: Give me a break, Steve.

The Vice-Chair: Order. Mr Turnbull.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Chair, I would suggest that in view of the importance of this particular presentation and the expertise that they can bring to this subject, as has been pointed out, because these are, after all, the people who the Premier asked to help to solve the problem, we should in fact allow a certain amount of extra time even if that eats into our lunch period so at least we can have some questions answered.

The Vice-Chair: I think, as with other committees, it would be a real problem if we elevated or diminished any of the presenters' presentations.

Mr Turnbull: Excuse me. Are we suggesting that we put the people who were chosen by the Premier to solve the problem on the same plateau as people -- I've noticed, for example, that the Canadian Auto Workers are presenting to us three or four times during the course of these hearings around the province. I'm not taking anything away from them, but are we suggesting they should have three shots at it whereas these people, who were asked by the Premier, are given 20 minutes? Am I to understand that you won't allow a few extra minutes?

The Vice-Chair: As always the Chair is in the hands of the committee. But I might remind you that we did vote on the subcommittee report yesterday which said that it would be 20-minute presentations.

Interjection: Do you have a problem?

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): No, I've got no problem.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, you have a problem.

The Vice-Chair: Once again, thank you for your presentation.

PETERBOROUGH AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenters are from the Peterborough and District Labour Council.

Interruption.

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. There can be no comments. This is a session of the House and the people sitting in the visitors' gallery aren't allowed to comment.

Mr Mahoney: This is Bob Rae's Ontario. Sit down and shut up.

Mr Klopp: Mr Chair, I notice that during our hearings down the road that there are times that haven't yet been filled, so I'm sure, like any other group, people can ask to come back on or whatever, and I'm sure that's what we can do.

The Vice-Chair: Good. Good morning. I would like to welcome you this morning. As you're aware, you're allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave a few moments for questions and comments from each of the caucuses.

Mr Neil McMahon: As you can see, it's a very short presentation. I am Neil McMahon, I'm the vice-president of the Peterborough and District Labour Council and I'm speaking on behalf of the labour council this morning. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Peterborough labour council and say a few words on proposed Bill 165.

1030

Ontario's web system is apparently in crisis. Employers and politicians would have us believe that this is due to fraud, mismanagement, high benefit levels and malingering workers. The true reason for crisis is simple: the employers want to decrease benefit levels and, therefore, their costs. They speak of the Workers' Compensation Board's unfunded liability but, if employers paid their assessments, this liability would vanish and the board would not be in crisis.

The Workers' Compensation Board was established as a program whereby work-related disabilities would be compensated. In practice, the government and the board are selective as to what types of disability will be compensated, making the worker the enemy.

Experience rating programs encourage employers to challenge entitlement decisions, appeals, and hiding of claims in non-union workplaces. Unscrupulous employers influence workers not to file claims and are rewarded for non-claims. And I don't say all; I just say some employers. The system also encourages unwarranted claims against the second injury and enhancement fund as a way to reduce employer claim costs and frequency, driving costs up for honest employers.

Now, some of the things that we hope will be definitely entrenched in this bill: The COLA increases are an absolute necessity for the future wellbeing of injured workers and for the municipalities in which they live. We all know that Brian Mulroney had to back down from de-indexing of old age benefits, and Bob Rae will have to do the same. Municipalities will suffer because more persons will have to apply for welfare because their benefits will not allow them to survive.

The makeup of the board does not include injured worker groups' representatives.

The only sure and certain way of reducing costs is by stringent enforcement of the health and safety provisions in the workplace, and bringing these people back to work.

In conclusion, the Workers' Compensation Board no longer responds to the needs of the injured workers that it was designed to serve. It is riddled with inadequacies ranging from administrative delays, policy development, benefit levels and entitlements. Injured workers face harassment from employers, the Workers' Compensation Board claims are hidden by employers, and re-employment is quite often denied.

I thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We have about five minutes for each caucus. Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: I'd like to ask you to expand on the statement that if employers paid their assessments, the unfunded liability would vanish. What do you mean?

Mr McMahon: There are about 700,000 workers in Ontario who do not have workers' compensation coverage, like banks and so on and so forth. There are 20,000 employers that don't pay it at all.

Mr Mahoney: That 20,000 is an estimate. If there were 20,000 companies that you could nab, do you really think that would wipe out $11.5 billion in unfunded liability?

Mr McMahon: It would go an awful long way.

Mr Mahoney: I don't think it would go anywhere near as close. I take it that you're opposed to the Friedland formula, the funds, the 75% minus 1%, cap of 4% --

Mr McMahon: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: -- you're opposed to that. You want 100% indexation for all pensions including the 40,000 workers who, I think we all agree, were disadvantaged and are getting the $200-a-month supplement. You want everybody, 100% indexation.

Mr McMahon: Why should it not be, sir?

Mr Mahoney: No, I just want to be clear what it is you're looking for. So that's going to increase the costs. So you've magically eliminated the unfunded liability in one fell swoop and you've increased the costs with the indexation. I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying.

The health and safety provisions in the workplace. Do you have any experience with the health and safety agency and how it's functioning?

Mr McMahon: No, I don't, sir. I'll be honest with you there.

Mr Mahoney: I see. Could you tell me how you think the health and safety provisions should be better enforced? Specifically, what provisions are you talking about?

Mr McMahon: Well, as I said, I'm not on any health and safety committees. We do have people that are there, so I could not answer that for you, sir, but I do know one thing. I'm a retired transit driver after 25 years. We had a system whereby if your bus was not figured safe to drive, it would be put in an encircled area, but instead of that, what happened was they would turn around then and the next guy would come in and they'd say: "The brakes are a little bad, but you can take it out." That was not supposed to be done. Finally, they brought one of the ministry people in from Transportation and they kind of cleared that up for us. So those are the kind of things. That bus was unsafe. A person almost had an accident with that bus because it was not left in the circle till it was checked. It was used because we didn't have enough buses.

Mr Mahoney: Do you see anything in Bill 165, the bill we're dealing with today, that will ensure, I'm using your words here, "stringent enforcement of health and safety provisions in the workplace"?

Mr McMahon: Yes, what I just finished telling you about, that bus. I should --

Mr Mahoney: What about Bill 165? That's what I'm trying to get at. What is there in Bill 165 that does anything to ensure stringent enforcement of health and safety?

Mr McMahon: If there isn't anything, it should be there. Is that not right?

Mr Mahoney: Absolutely, but I'm trying to understand --

Mr McMahon: I don't see anything there. Is that what you want me to say?

Mr Mahoney: I want you to say what you believe.

Mr McMahon: That's what I think.

Mr Mahoney: You don't see anything in the bill that addresses health and safety?

Mr McMahon: No, not right now.

Mr Mahoney: So you're unhappy with this bill?

Mr McMahon: Not all of it. I think a lot of it is great, but then there are things that I --

Mr Mahoney: But you're unhappy with the de-indexing. You consider that a pretty major item?

Mr McMahon: That's right.

Mr Mahoney: You're unhappy with any attempts to address health and safety in the workplace. You don't see anything in the bill, I presume, that would in fact fine the 20,000 companies, so there's nothing there to generate additional income to deal with the unfunded liability. There's nothing in the bill, from your perspective, that would include those 700,000 workers who -- those workers in the banks, the insurance companies. Not that I'm supportive of that, but I want to be very clear. You don't see anything in the bill that addresses that, so I can only assume, sir, that from your presentation, representing the Peterborough and District Labour Council, that you would concur with the former presenters who suggested the bill should be withdrawn, because it does not appear to address one single issue of concern of your labour council that you've raised today.

Mr McMahon: I don't say the bill should be withdrawn. I think it can be changed. In fact, I teach labour and the law in the high schools in Peterborough for the Ontario Federation of Labour. I have a pen here that was given to me by them and what it says on it is, "Give wind and tide a chance to change." I think that speaks quite clearly on your bill. Anything can change, is that not right?

Mr Mahoney: Oh, yes.

Mr McMahon: Even a bill can be changed. We found that out quickly not too long ago.

Mr Mahoney: But I guess where I'm having some difficulty is that you have addressed all of the major issues in this short presentation, and I appreciate the brevity in giving us an opportunity to question you, and I don't mean to cross-examine.

Mr McMahon: That's quite all right. I don't mind.

Mr Mahoney: And I apologize if I'm taking that tack. I don't mean to. I want to clearly understand that you, representing one of the labour councils in this province, when I read this presentation, I don't see that you are satisfied with any of this. Now, has your council met and put forward amendments to the bill that you'd be asking perhaps the government or the opposition parties to introduce?

Mr McMahon: No, we haven't. We don't meet in the summertime, as you know. We don't have meetings. We just have executive board meetings.

Mr Mahoney: We don't meet in the summertime either, but here we are.

Mr McMahon: We are now and it doesn't give the labour councils much chance to operate because everybody's on holidays. In fact, the president of the council is on holidays. That's why I'm here.

Mr Mahoney: Thanks for coming.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Witmer.

Mrs Witmer: Do you realize that you have made some very serious, unsubstantiated allegations?

Mr McMahon: We feel they are substantiated.

Mrs Witmer: You have given absolutely no proof.

Mr McMahon: I'm not so sure about that.

Mrs Witmer: I don't see any evidence here, and I'm very concerned about these unsubstantiated allegations. It appears that you have tarred all employers in this province with a pretty black brush.

Mr McMahon: No, I didn't say "all." I did not say "all." In fact I made the statement that I did not say "all." I said "some" employers.

1040

Mrs Witmer: I'll tell you, if you take a look at this one-page presentation, I see a lot of unsubstantiated allegations. I think if people are going to be making this type of a statement you also have to have the proof to substantiate these allegations.

Mr McMahon: There's pretty good proof when there's 20,000 employers who don't pay anything to the compensation board. There are 700,000 people who aren't covered.

Mrs Witmer: But that's not the issue. That's not the issue with Bill 165. Have you heard the employees?

Mr McMahon: Speak of this?

Mrs Witmer: Asking for coverage by workers' compensation?

Mr McMahon: Oh, yes.

Mrs Witmer: They've approached you and --

Mr McMahon: Yes. We've had people say to us, "Why are we not covered?" I said: "We don't do that. We can't do that for you."

Mrs Witmer: It's unbelievable that you feel that the unfunded liability would totally disappear if employers paid their assessments. Do you not feel employers are paying enough assessment at the present time?

Mr McMahon: The ones that aren't paying at all are the ones I'm talking about.

Mrs Witmer: But we're not talking about bringing more people into the system; we're talking about the system as it presently exists.

Mr McMahon: Madam, what I'm trying to tell you is that if you bring everybody in, this compensation system won't be in the state it's in now.

Mrs Witmer: I can't believe that you really believe what you're saying.

Mr McMahon: Oh, yes, I believe it. I wouldn't be reading it if I didn't.

Mrs Witmer: I can assure you that bringing more people into the system is not going to solve the problem of the unfunded liability.

Mr McMahon: You don't think that 20,000 more organizations paying into this compensation would not be of any value, that it would not bring it down?

Mrs Witmer: Not the way this system is presently being run and the lack of financial accountability, the mismanagement and the fraud. There would be absolutely no improvement; in fact, there would be further chaos.

Mr McMahon: Can you give me proof of that?

Mrs Witmer: I conclude my comments. Thank you.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Mr Chair, with all due respect, I think this isn't the kind of question that delegates -- it's not to get into a debate with them.

The Vice-Chair: Yes, Mr Ferguson. Thank you.

Mr Ferguson: We didn't ask them to come to debate the matter. We asked them to come and express their views and opinions and that's what everybody has done.

Mr Mahoney: And then we can question them.

Mr Ferguson: I'm sorry, Mr Chair, but I'm really concerned about the tone that this is taking. We still have --

Mr Mahoney: In Bob's Rae's Ontario you can't ask questions?

Mr Ferguson: No, you can ask questions, but these people have come to express their views, not to be interrogated. This is not a court of law. This individual, this presenter, didn't make any allegations. He voiced his opinion, much the same as the previous presenters, who did not provide any financial data to back up their opinions either.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Ferguson. Mr Hope.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, the premiums would be about $500,000 per company --

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order. Mr Hope.

Mr Hope: I just wanted to ask some general questions. After the minister had made his comments to us as a committee, the opposition, especially the Liberal Party, said that there are companies out there who top up WCB.

In your knowledge in the Peterborough area, are there companies in the area that top up on top of an employee's pay to make 100% earnings?

Mr McMahon: I don't know that. Sorry.

Mr Hope: No, that's fine. I guess if the Davis government during 1972 would have made sure that instead of dumping it on the unfunded liability and putting the proper assessment fees in place, yes, the crisis situation that we're faced with today probably would not be there, and I think that's important. You did raise the issue about employers and I believe it was the lack of a Conservative government back in those days to take appropriate action instead of political gain during that opportunity to stay competitive with the eastern provinces.

Do you think Ontario has the most expensive and generous workers' compensation system in Canada, in your opinion?

Mr McMahon: I wouldn't know that because I only live in Ontario and I've never worked out of Ontario. So I don't know that.

Mr Hope: Do you believe there ought to be a waiting period or an eligibility period of time to collect workers' compensation?

Mr McMahon: No. If I get injured when I'm working, I feel I should get it. That's what's paid for.

Mr Hope: Do you believe the benefit rates ought to be reduced to anywhere between 66 2/3% and 80%?

Mr McMahon: You said reduced, did you?

Mr Hope: Reduced, yes.

Mr McMahon: From where?

Mr Hope: From your current level of coverage, and reducing it to anywhere between 66 2/3% and 80%. Do you believe workers' compensation, the payment you receive, should be reduced to those levels?

Mr McMahon: No, I don't think anything should be reduced in this day and age.

Mr Hope: Why do you believe that?

Mr McMahon: I'll tell you, when you see people on compensation, and I've seen people where I've worked myself that had to go on benefits till they got their compensation, and then you had to pay it all back, and that to me is just not right. I think if you're going to get compensation, you should get it for the time you're off work. That's what it's there for. That's what it was meant to be in the first place, to cover your wages.

Mr Hope: Do you support the increase of the $200 a month to the injured workers currently being assessed in this bill?

Mr McMahon: Yes, any increase, but I also want it indexed fully, 100%.

Mr Hope: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Mr McMahon, thank you for taking the time out this morning and giving us your presentation.

Mr McMahon: Thank you very much.

BOARD OF TRADE OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO

The Vice-Chair: I call our next presenters, from the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. Good morning. You'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave a few moments for comments and questions from each of the caucuses. Please identify yourselves for the record and then proceed.

Mr Steve Lowden: My name is Steve Lowden. I am president of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto and a partner with Ernst and Young. With me are, on my far right, David Brady, who is a lawyer with Hicks Morley Hamilton, and David Albinson, a human resources consultant, both members of the board of trade's human resources committee. Also joining us on my left is Donna Cansfield, the president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. We wish to thank you for this opportunity to present our serious concerns with Bill 165 amending the Workers' Compensation Act.

Included in the material distributed to you is the board's letter to Premier Rae dated June 27 which sets out our concerns with the bill. In our opinion, the bill does not accurately reflect the agreement on reforms to the workers' compensation system reached last March by the business caucus of the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee and the representatives of the OFL.

Also included in the material is a letter of reply from the Premier dated July 18, 1994, which in our opinion fails to address the issues in our earlier letter to the Premier. With those brief remarks, I will ask Donna Cansfield from OPSBA to provide some introductory remarks, and then I'll ask David Brady to outline to you in more detail our serious concerns with this bill.

Ms Donna Cansfield: As president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, we represent all public school boards with the exception of a few isolate boards in the north. This indicates that we represent 1.7 million learners, and within our school boards, there are over 100,000 employees.

So our position here today supporting the board of trade, from our perspective, it is imperative from both the perspective of the employees' coverage and also from the fact of the taxpayers' cost that the WCB be put on a sound footing in a financial way.

We share the board's concerns that the proposed amendments are not actually going to do the job and in fact will exacerbate the financial and fiscal problems that face the board, and we ask you for sincere consideration of the proposed amendments.

Mr David Brady: I think to set the context, it is important to look to a document that was issued just about two weeks ago. On August 12, 1994, the Workers' Compensation Board issued its 1994 second-quarter results. Mr Ken Copeland, the present newly appointed vice-chair of administration and the CEO, stated in the report, "During the first six months of 1994, the unfunded liability continued to be of concern, increasing by $181 million."

1050

He also stated, "Since my arrival in mid-May 1994, it has become clear to me that all of the players within Ontario's compensation system agree on one point. The status quo was not acceptable."

In the same report, the net operating results show cash shortfalls amounting to $400 million in the first half of 1994, which were funded by transfers from the investment fund. The same thing occurred in 1993. The compensation system is not paying for itself on a current basis, and that's the pot that we're all in and hopefully you're going to help solve.

There is no doubt that the compensation system is in financial crisis. This must be addressed by government and Bill 165 is the opportunity. So the question is, does Bill 165 do the job? In our submission, the answer is emphatically no.

What's extraordinary about Bill 165, after the few presentations you've heard thus far, is that it bears little resemblance to the process that led up to it. There are lots of documents around done by objective sources. Read the Provincial Auditor's reports of recent years. Your own Legislature in July of this year produced a report from the standing committee on government agencies. We've listened to Premier Rae. We've followed his PLMAC process on workers' compensation reform. Through all of that, the task is clear: The WCB must operate within a financial responsibility framework, it has to get its unfunded liability under control and it must be given a statute by government which is manageable. Looking at Bill 165, instead of fixing these problems, it makes them worse.

The financial responsibility framework: You have lots of material in front of you from the business steering committee, and it is of critical importance and it's not just how you draft it and where it is. The critical importance is, at first it was a matter of agreement in March 1994, as you know, between the OFL and the business caucus of the PLMAC. Mr Gilbert went through the aspects of that purpose clause and what interests those four aspects served, balanced. But in the bill, what we see is that the reference to financial responsibility is stripped away. The only thing that's left is a purpose clause which introduces the concept of fair compensation and then lists the statutory benefits -- what the statute pays in certain circumstances.

If you match the abbreviated purpose clause, the giving aspect of the act, to the newly introduced subsections 65(3.1) and (3.2) -- the new obligations of the Workers' Compensation Board -- you see what the result is.

Let me just deal with (3.1) and (3.2) of the newly introduced section 65. What that says is that (3.1) "requires the boards the accept advances in health sciences and related disciplines" -- which is fair enough, and here is the link, "in a way which is consistent with the purposes of the act." That's the board's job. You go back to the benefits-only abbreviated clause.

Then in (3.2) it requires the board "to evaluate the consequences of any proposed change in benefits, services, programs and policies" -- and that's wonderful, but here is the fly, I think, in the ointment -- "to ensure that the purposes of the act are achieved." Again, back to the purposes.

What this does is it ensures that stress claims, that other conditions which are arguably related to the workplace, will be accepted, consistent with the purposes of the act, without regard to the financial consequences of expanding the scope of entitlement under the act. When you focus on those board duties and go back to the purposes, you will have an expansion of entitlement without analysis as to the cost, and therefore you don't know what the health of the accident fund is. That's a worker interest, as it should be everybody's interest.

In our view, this is simply irresponsible. It ignores the WCB's financial instability, it turns a blind eye to the WCB's increasing unfunded liability, which is now $11.7 billion, it reforms nothing, and it puts real and necessary reform off to another day.

Coming to the other aspect, the management of the system: The bill makes the administration by the WCB more unmanageable by layering duties and functions onto an already overburdened and struggling institution. What did the representative of the Peterborough labour council say to you? He said to you the WCB doesn't operate well, and I think we would certainly agree with him.

So if you've got an overburdened and struggling institution, you can't layer other things on that it simply can't do. Rather than more change, the WCB needs a moratorium on change to allow it to get its house in order and to re-establish a credibility that it has lost, in everybody's eyes.

Instead, what does the bill do? It radically changes experience rating, and I understand that there were some comments by the Labour minister yesterday that maybe will clear this up, but just on reading the words of the bill, it radically changes the experience rating system by requiring the WCB to audit employers before credits are given.

Instead, it invites the WCB on its own motion to police section 54, the re-employment/re-instatement section, where currently workers have the right to complain, and in our view there is no evidence to suggest the WCB enforcement mechanisms need to be beefed up. Instead, employers are exposed to a new penalty for a lack of cooperation in voc rehab. We will all agree here that voc rehab is essential and is important. People have to get back to work.

But that important mechanism, if you're going to give the WCB the power to penalize -- in other words, give it more management authority -- then it has to be a recognized penalty for everyone involved in voc rehab, meaning that the penalty has to impose positive obligations on employers and positive obligations on workers.

If you go back and read a Supreme Court of Canada case that was decided in September 1992 -- it dealt with the duty of accommodation. It's called the Renaud decision. It came out of BC, and it is a decision that is perfectly applicable to Ontario in terms of the duty to accommodate that section 54 sets out and the Ontario Human Rights Code sets out. What the Supreme Court said is that when you're dealing with the duty to accommodate, which is voc rehab in workers' compensation, it's a shared responsibility between the worker, the employer and the union, if there is a union in the workplace. Absolutely, fundamentally correct.

For the WCB to have to administer a statute where it can only penalize one of the parties that have to do what's necessary to get someone back to work, that doesn't work to advantage. It works to disadvantage. So I'd ask you to recognize the shared responsibility.

The Metro Board of Trade's message to you and OPSBA's message -- and isn't this a magnificent combination between a board of trade, largely private sector, and one of the largest public sector employer groups in the province? -- is simple: WCB has to be manageable; it has to be built on a shared worker responsibility, worker-employer responsibility; the management of the system has to be with as little WCB intervention in the workplace as possible, and all of this has got to happen within a financial responsibility framework.

As I said earlier, Bill 165 is an opportunity. Labour and management are on side. The deal was made in March 1994. All that is required is that the deal be implemented in accordance with its terms.

When you put two parties in a room where Gord Wilson, the president of the OFL, said the forum is "a collective bargaining forum" and you come out with a deal, that deal is a bunch of compromises where a balance has been reached, and you destroy the compromises where the balance has been reached in a collective bargaining mode by doing some and not all, you then destroy all of the basis upon which the compromises in hard bargaining have been reached, and we ask you not to do that.

We need an unfunded liability that is going to decrease over time, not maintain a level, and not slowly increase, and it is no answer to say that the Friedland indexing formula is going to save the system $16 billion between now and 2014. That's $16 billion or $18 billion in the context of apparently accepted numbers where the unfunded liability would've otherwise been $31 billion. So we end up in 2014 with an unfunded liability that is worse than today. So all we're doing, then, is slowing the rate of increase. That can't be workers' compensation reform.

1100

So we ask you to provide employers in the province with a competitive position with employers in other provinces. We ask you to guard the accident fund on behalf of workers and on behalf of the citizens of Ontario and the taxpayers of Ontario, all of us. We ask you to deal with the unfunded liability in such a way that no one in the financial community could see it as a negative impact on the province's credit rating. That's not, as far as we know, some kind of spectre which people sort of rattle and bring out without cause.

Now, Mr Lowden said that we have provided the Premier with a letter. The letter has an appendix to it, which deals more particularly with some of the more technical aspects of our concerns. Bill 165 is an opportunity. If you start with the proposition of what the problems are and you then assess Bill 165 to see whether it answers the problems, hopefully you'll find that it doesn't, and then you'll find your way clear to sorting out that to a positive conclusion. If you have any questions, thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We have time for one brief question from each caucus.

Mr Mahoney: In a recent tour of eight municipalities in Ontario on workers' compensation which culminated in a report that I released on reform, the one thing I found out that was common to all businesses, and I'm sure many of your members, was that they would rather see Revenue Canada and the Gestapo come into their place than have workers' comp come in to do an audit. How do you feel about the intervention in Bill 165, the WCB police, the penalty, the punitive attitude that is there, and there only, I might add, against employers, with no retribution whatsoever on the other side of the coin?

Mr Brady: The WCB will try to do a good job, but I think the job that's given to it is unmanageable, as I said. One example of WCB auditors going into workplaces is the Workwell system. That has to do with health and safety under section 103 of the act. That system, by WCB's own assessment by its consultant, which generated a report about two years ago now, is that the Workwell system doesn't work very well and it needs to be altered drastically.

So what you will be doing is giving the WCB a whole administrative task without much parameter but asking for a payoff that I don't think it can produce on. What you'll do is make experience rating, rather than being cost-based, which is objective, go into program-based, which will only hurt small employers and will hurt employers that are in low-risk industries. So, again, hopefully some comments made yesterday will change that somewhat so that the NEER plan isn't turfed out.

The other thing, to answer you, is that the WCB ought to be able to have input here to say what it can and can't do, because you're going to impose certain management obligations on them. Where is the report to say to you that their experience rating system is lousy? What has happened in fact is that experience rating started in 1984 with six rate groups, forest products and some other basic resource industries. The WCB in 1993 has determined that the NEER system ought to be applied to every rate group that is not now presently experience rated. To me, that's the best evidence, by the board itself that's doing the job, that its experience rating system works and works well. So why tinker when the problem hasn't been presented?

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for the presentation. It's interesting to see the school boards and the board of trade here together. I'm pleased to see that alliance.

My question to you is, in questioning the deputy yesterday regarding the financial responsibility framework, he seems to feel, and the minister seems to feel, that it's been covered in the amendment to section 58, which declares that the board needs to act in a financially responsible way. What is your opinion of the amendment?

Mr Brady: You look at the amendment and the words are there, but their placement and lack of consequence aren't. You would have to interpret every substantive section against the purpose clause. The purpose clause states that it is really fair compensation and lists benefits. So my question would be, what do "financial accountability" and "financial stability" mean? It means that if the system can't pay for itself to be responsible, then you have to raise the rates. In other words, it doesn't address expense and benefit level; it only addresses, then, what's necessary in order to feed the system, and that is directly contrary to what you'll find, as I said, in subsections 65(3.1) and 65(3.2). So it doesn't work.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I wanted to go back to the experience rating comments that were made. First of all, I think the clerk can provide you with a copy of the amendment that was submitted by the deputy if you don't have it already --

Mr Brady: No, I don't.

Ms Murdock: -- so that you can read the exact wording. But secondly, I'm wondering if you are familiar with the offbalancing of experience rating. I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you. The amendment is going to establish that experience rating will stay there so that the employers won't be so worried. But the offbalancing in terms of the money that has been put out in terms of rebates in comparison to the money that has been --

Mr Brady: Surcharges.

Ms Murdock: -- yes -- is different, and it can't be maintained. There are problems with experience rating. You were singing its praises to such a degree, but there are problems.

Mr Brady: It's something to sing about --

Ms Murdock: Oh, yeah, I'm not disputing that.

Mr Brady: -- because its effect in terms of safety in the workplace, I think no one can say that it hasn't had an effect in decreasing lost-time accidents. You may find other causes for the decrease in lost-time accidents, but you have to give it some credit. Somebody has to give it some credit in terms of the overall.

Ms Murdock: A company in my riding, Inco, is an excellent example.

Mr Brady: Exactly. My answer to you is this: Either that's a function of looking at the formulas in order to try and achieve the balance, which is one thing actuaries can do, so you look at the system overall in terms of what it can afford, and the other thing is it may be an indicator that the act, in terms of its benefit levels or in terms of the administration by the board in its ability to manage, isn't properly constructed to allow the system to operate to pay for itself. So to me, it may well be an indicator that benefit levels are too high, as has been the case in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and elsewhere in the country.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Murdock. Mr Lowden, Mr Brady, Mr Albinson and Ms Cansfield, thank you for taking the time out this morning and giving us your presentation.

HEINZ-GEORG STORK

The Vice-Chair: I call our next presenter, Mr Heinz-Georg Stork. Good morning.

Mr Heinz-Georg Stork: My name is Heinz-Georg Stork. Good morning. I'm here on rather short notice. We got a call yesterday.

I'd like to mention clause 0.1(a), "to provide fair compensation to workers who sustain personal injury arising out of and in the course of their employment...." In the last six years, my experience has been that this has not been the case with me. I've come across a situation where I was informed by the NDP office in Peterborough that I was not welcome in the office and that they would not do anything for me at this time, the reason being because I had some information about certain people who did not maintain nor would they finish an advocacy.

In short, I went to the office in Peterborough, and I was given the name of a paralegal who, I know in my case and in cases of other people in that town, did not follow through. My suspicion is that there's a connection with that person, the NDP and the WCB.

Let me first read my statement. Let me say I'm separated, with six children. I worked for 26 years straight and spent three years in the army. I have yet to have any kind of compensation. After six years, I was finally sent to school. I became ill, and they stopped my payments; they have since been reinstated because of situations that I had to do to manoeuvre in order to get back on.

1110

So I feel that there are some improprieties in that area, in that town. The name that I was given, who would look after me -- and the person would say that he was being subsidized by the Ontario government -- I have information from my adjudicator that he did not follow through. I've made an appointment with my doctor; he did not follow through. I know of six other people in the town where he did not follow through. This makes me somewhat suspicious. I don't believe in coincidences. I have this in writing. I have a doctor I talked to, and he also did not follow through. So I'm struck here. So what's going on?

The Vice-Chair: If I may, what we're doing is talking about Bill 165.

Mr Stork: That is Bill 165.

The Vice-Chair: Could you address either how this new legislation will help or won't help?

Mr Stork: I don't know if it won't help; I don't know if it will help. The point is, you see, it says here, "to provide fair compensation to workers who sustain personal injury arising out of and in the course of their employment...." It seems to be the forefront here, clause 0.1(a). Let me state and let me say, then, that this is not the case, and that is my complaint and that is basically my statement.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Questions or comments?

Mr Mahoney: I think you've interpreted the first section in the purpose clause quite accurately. We have heard from numerous injured workers, and we have injured worker representatives who'll be making presentations here this morning and throughout the committee hearings. We've heard that the WCB doesn't seem to work for anybody. The employers complain about the cost, the premiums are high, the financial responsibility, the unfunded liability, the tinkering by the government by introducing this bill and now it's setting up a royal commission; it's going to cost millions, it's going to take a long time and who knows what's going to come out of it.

It's obvious that injured workers do not get service; restoring service levels in the WCB, while the financial sustainability is important, critically important because if it's not sustained, then the system will break down and that will not benefit people like yourself who are injured. So all of those things are important, but the one underlying thing that I found is that no one is happy with this system: the people who work in it, the consultants, the advocates, the lawyers, MPPs' offices. Out of 130 MPPs, I would suggest that the number one complaint, as I said yesterday, probably followed closely by support and custody complaints, is workers' compensation. I have a staff person in my riding, in Mississauga, who is full-time dealing with workers' compensation claims; does nothing but WCB.

So it doesn't work well for injured workers. You're an injured worker. You've looked at this bill. I didn't quite understand your reference to the NDP or not being allowed to go into their office. I don't know what exactly you were saying there. Maybe you could expand on that. But after you do that, I wonder, could you tell us, as a person who is supposed to be receiving a service in this system, if there are one or two things you would recommend be changed in this act that would allow you to get the proper service from the WCB. Maybe start with your reference to the NDP office. I don't know, what, you were thrown out of an office? What was it, a constituency office?

Mr Stork: I have the information here. Basically, what happened was I went to complain, and I was given the name of an advocate. I found this very unusual because it was the gentleman's job to help me, not to give out my services to an advocate for a 10% cut who doesn't do anything.

For my own personal benefit, I have eight WCB claims, and I'm on 150 milligrams for arthritis, narcotics; I can barely walk. My experience with the WCB in the last six years -- my last employment was with Canada Post in 1988 -- is that my suspicion would be that intentionally they do not wish to help. I don't see it as the workers or the adjudicators not knowing what they're doing, though some of that is true. I suspect that there is a deliberate attempt to disregard the respect and the dignity of the workers.

In my case, I was given this person's name, and in this town he hasn't done anything for anybody. It makes perfect common sense to me: How does this man live if he doesn't do anything for anybody? To answer your question, when it comes down to the WCB, I have an understanding of how it works, and that is that it doesn't work. They don't care. They don't phone back. Basically, to make a long story short, it's just one big head game after another. I've enjoyed the privilege of being in that head game for the last six years, and this is what I see.

I phoned Ms Lee at the Ombudsman's office. I phoned King's secretary. They tell me there's an investigation and all the pieces are coming in together here. So what's going on? Like I said, I worked for 26 years straight, so what's the problem? How is it, then, that my case is not opened? It finally is, on my right knee, and I have returned to school. In spite of having returned to school -- I did one semester -- I became ill, and I was cut off.

Mr Turnbull: I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but my understanding from what you were saying was that you applied for workmen's compensation through the normal channels and were denied compensation and then at that stage you went to your MPP's office.

Mr Stork: I wasn't denied; it wasn't followed through.

Mr Turnbull: By?

Mr Stork: By this advocate whose name I was given by the local NDP office in Peterborough. Information that I have on this is because of the correspondence of my adjudicator, that he did not follow through.

Mr Turnbull: But first of all presumably you went to the WCB directly?

Mr Stork: Yes, that's correct.

Mr Turnbull: They said you didn't qualify. Is that basically --

Mr Stork: The NDP office told me after this letter here that they would not continue my --

Mr Turnbull: This was an MPP's office you're talking about?

Mr Stork: I have the letter here.

Mr Turnbull: Clearly, we can't do anything here on a specific case, but I would suggest that you make an appointment and go back to see your MPP and insist on seeing the MPP.

Mr Stork: They don't want to see me.

Mr Turnbull: I have to tell you, I probably have more problems in my office with respect to WCB than any other issue. I suspect that if we could solve the problems with WCB, there'd be a good case for getting rid of half of the constituency workers that the MPPs have today. I realize a few MPPs may run screaming out the doors at that thought, but that's how serious the problem is. Over and over again we're hearing that workers are not satisfied, and I can assure you employers are not satisfied.

I understand that probably you haven't done the homework that maybe some of the other presenters have done, because you're an individual claimant, but would you not think it's reasonable that the group that was asked by the Premier to do the work on preparing a compromise, when there's a deal made between the employees' and the employers' groups, that this deal should be respected by the government in bringing forward legislation?

1120

Mr Stork: I don't see the respect, nor do I see the dignity there. I was informed by the MP's office that I was not to go into the building in Peterborough and that I was to meet only in Toronto. When I came to Toronto, the individual that I'm talking about happened to be there. I was informed that there was to be security when I walked into the building. Basically, all I've done is I handed in a letter of complaint, and it went from there. That hurts me quite a bit, about respect and dignity.

Mr Hope: Just help me through this process a bit; I'm trying to understand. In 1990 you faced an injury.

Mr Stork: No, 1988 was my last injury. I have eight injuries.

Mr Hope: You have eight injuries, and 1988 was your last injury.

Mr Stork: That's correct.

Mr Hope: The paperwork that was processed by your employer and your doctors was fulfilled?

Mr Stork: No.

Mr Hope: The employer never filled his paperwork out, nor did the doctor?

Mr Stork: No, none of them did.

Mr Hope: None of them filled their paperwork out. So they violated the act by not filling out the appropriate paperwork?

Mr Stork: Yes.

Mr Hope: Your employer never filed the paperwork; your doctor never filed the paperwork.

Mr Stork: Certain doctors. I have a doctor now. I've been away from town, and I haven't seen him for 15 years. I was up front with him. He said that he's willing to help me.

Mr Hope: What happened between 1988 and 1990? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming at with this.

Mr Stork: All right. In 1988 I first contacted the WCB. They told me to go on welfare; that was the first. Finally, a year ago, through an advocate at the time --

Mr Hope: Sorry for the interruption. You keep mentioning this advocate. Is this advocate a worker adviser?

Mr Stork: Yes, this is a different one from the one I mentioned.

Mr Hope: This is the worker adviser, right?

Mr Stork: That's correct. I was finally given a supplement pension of $1,800 a month to return to school, which I have done. This is after five years. Concerning the other claims, the specialist who treated my back and gave me injections, steroids and so on and so forth, documented evidence as to my case. I have sent in the proper paperwork. They did not follow it through.

Mr Hope: When you mention your other cases, you're talking about the other seven accidents you had?

Mr Stork: That's correct.

Mr Hope: Now I've got a better understanding of where you're coming at.

Mr Stork: It's a long story.

Mr Hope: I just got a little mixed up with the dates. I just wanted to ask you some basic questions. Are you currently receiving workers' comp?

Mr Stork: No, I'm not.

Mr Hope: What are you receiving?

Mr Stork: Nothing. They cut me off a month ago when I became ill.

Mr Hope: When you were collecting workers' comp, you were receiving 90% of your wages?

Mr Stork: That's correct.

Mr Hope: One of the recommendations that's being approached in this committee is that we reduce that to anywhere between 66% and 80%. Do you believe that the benefit level ought to be reduced that you receive under workers' compensation?

Mr Mahoney: How can you reduce what he doesn't get?

Mr Hope: No, when he did get it; I mentioned when he did get it.

Mr Stork: I do believe it should be reduced a bit, because it's too much money.

Mr Hope: You believe it's too much money.

Mr Stork: Personally, I can understand the economics and I understand the politics and I can understand where you could perhaps rearrange it into another sort of a system, fine, but I do, yes, because you don't pay tax, and it is a bit too much. But 66% is possibly a little bit too low; I think more around the 70% range.

Mr Hope: Do you believe there ought to be a waiting period before you're eligible to collect workers' comp?

Mr Stork: I waited six years. What's the point?

Mr Hope: No, I'm seriously asking a question. Do you believe there ought to be a waiting period? The problem I'm understanding is that somebody didn't fill the paperwork out for you when you received your eighth accident.

Mr Stork: Yes, it's all coincidental, right? But the point is that there should be a waiting period. Of course there should be a waiting period. You have to investigate the claimants, whether it's legitimate or not; a lot of them aren't. I mean, we all know that.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Stork, thank you for taking the time out, and I hope you find somebody who can help you with your claim.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 134

The Vice-Chair: I call our next presenter, from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 134. Good morning.

Mr Terry Wilfong: My name is Terry Wilfong. I'm an injured worker, and I'm a representative for Local 134. First off, I would like to thank the standing committee on resources development for allowing me to speak on such an important bill. I'm here today as an injured worker and as a union rep.

As an injured worker, my accident happened back in 1980. I was 15 years old at the time. I had fractured my spine and then was introduced to the WCB system. The system, to a 15-year-old kid at the time, was scary; I am now 29 years old, and the system is still scary. As a direct result of the accident in 1980, I've undergone three spinal operations -- they were fusions -- and a knee operation, all compensable, and was given a 30% pension award. To this day, I'm still appealing; still fighting for 14 years now.

As a union rep, what troubles me with this bill is that subsections 51(2) and 51(3) obligate a doctor to provide prescribed information about a worker's physical abilities. Although subsection 51(2) requires the consent of the worker, will a worker be deemed uncooperative if he/she refuses consent? Before a doctor should be mandated to provide information, the doctor should feel comfortable that the information provided will be used to help the worker in recovering and that the information will not be used against she/he in future dealings with the company where the accident happened.

As a workers' compensation rep, I find that benefits go too long for simple muscle strains. There should be strict limits to how long a worker should get benefits.

Section 147 does not go far enough. It compensates the lifetime pension of anyone who is entitled, or has been entitled, under subsection 147(4). This increase of $200 should cover all pensions. I will not see this increase, because I still have a job, but my pension is still based on my pre-accident earnings of when I was 15 years old, back in 1980, and that was $2.80 an hour.

Bill 165 has made some attempts to do justice to injured workers in Ontario.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, dear. You're still appealing your 30% award. How many times have you appealed? Can you give us an idea of where you went for these appeals, a little chronology, if you would.

Mr Wilfong: Okay. My last operation was finished in 1991; that was for a fusion. That's when the appeals first started off. Right now, the last time I got an increase was about seven months ago, and that was with compensation; an orthopaedic surgeon recommended I get an increase.

Mr Mahoney: Have you been to WCAT?

Mr Wilfong: No, I haven't, sir.

Mr Mahoney: So, where are you appealing, just internally in the board?

Mr Wilfong: Just internally, yes. I've retained the services of Koskie and Minsky, a law firm in Toronto.

Mr Mahoney: Yes, I'm aware of them. But they haven't taken it all the way to the appeals tribunal yet?

Mr Wilfong: Not yet they haven't.

Mr Mahoney: Is that your plan?

Mr Wilfong: If I get justice before I have to go there, I wouldn't go any further. But I might have to go that far. It's very expensive.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, if I might, the reason I asked the question is that this bill re-establishes a representative from the appeals tribunal to sit on the board as a non-voting member. The current status quo will carry on in that regard.

I have concerns about the appeal process in the Workers' Compensation Board. I've estimated that, including your MPP and re-appealing decisions -- you get a negative decision, you appeal it again; you know, the different levels of appeal -- you can actually appeal a decision I think as many as 14 times in the system. That alone drives the cost, if you can imagine, of the WCB, because it also puts an adjudicator, it puts an appeal officer, it puts everybody in the position of having to cover themselves, because they know that there's sort of someone watching over them and there's going to be another appeal. So it just adds to the bureaucracy.

I'm wondering if your experience would indicate that perhaps there should be a system where Koskie and Minsky, for example, representing you, could simply go to one appeal, right to the tribunal, present the case, get a decision and it's done. I see nothing in Bill 165 that will enhance or improve the appeal process, and I see the status quo by putting a WCAT representative sitting on the board. What I'm trying to get is sort of a real-life experience from you as to how complicated the appeal process has been, and do you think that there's a better way of doing it?

Mr Wilfong: Personally, I found the appeal system not too complicated for the simple fact that it usually gave me an increase every time I've asked for it --

Mr Mahoney: That would usually make you happy, yes.

Mr Wilfong: I think if you have undisputable medical information, generally, I find -- this is just for myself -- it hasn't been too bad. But what you were saying, certainly that would be better if it was simplified, I mean for the masses.

1130

Mr Mahoney: Let me deal with your position as a union rep, your concerns over subsections 51(2) and (3). It seems to me that the purpose here is to share medical information so that the employer, the injured worker, the doctor, can all work together. I'm assuming that's the intent. In a perfect world, that's a good idea. In fact, I believe and have recommended that the medical community should be much more involved in sharing the information, in helping to determine what is acceptable, modified work for the worker to return to work etc etc. You're kind of suggesting -- I guess to turn your statement around, are you suggesting that an injured worker should be able to arbitrarily withhold permission to share that medical information?

Mr Wilfong: Not at all. I kind of agree with what you just said, but where I work, the Toronto Board of Education, not only do they keep this information that you give on your file for the rest of your working days with the company, it's just they bring it up after you've been finished with your modified work program. They'll use it against you in grievances if you have to file a grievance later on a few years down the road. I'm saying, whatever information you give at the time, it should be used at the time and that's it, and it shouldn't be stored for future reference for a company, and that's what happens where I work.

Mr Mahoney: There is a provision in the bill that will penalize an employer who refuses to retrain or to help out an injured worker in some way. It's a little bit unclear to me as to who's going to make the decision. I assume it'll be the board, an adjudicator or someone like that, and they'll send out the WCB cops and they'll go in and slap a fine on the employer. That's very clear in Bill 165. What's also clear is that there is no similar punitive measure for an injured worker who refuses to cooperate with the medical information release in that section.

Two ways of doing this: You either penalize both the employer for being uncooperative and the worker for being uncooperative, or you give an incentive in a reverse way where you turn it around to a positive. It could be a discount on the premium, it could be better adjudication and a better awards system for the worker, something on a positive basis.

Do you think it's fair that this legislation only attacks the employer? From your perspective of having a lot of experience in this system, both as an injured worker and a union rep, do you think it's fair that the employer be slapped with this punitive measure and the employee simply goes scot free and be able to say, "I'm not going to agree with that"?

Mr Wilfong: The fact is, the worker has to cooperate or he's finished with the VR people up at 2 Bloor. If he doesn't cooperate, he'll be deemed uncooperative and that's it. His services will be cut, so the past is -- you have to cooperate no matter what, even today.

Mr Mahoney: Doesn't the fact that it's not addressed in the bill, Terry, leave it sort of up in the air and subject to an adjudicator who might be having a bad day to determine that you're being uncooperative? Wouldn't you rather see something in black and white right here in the legislation that tells you what you're expected to do? One of the things you're expected to do is to work with your doctor and your employer and make sure that all the medical information is there with regard to your fusion, or whatever it happens to be, your case or other cases. Don't you think we should put it down?

Mr Wilfong: There are a bunch of grey areas in the act, but I feel you should cooperate. It should be in the WCB act requiring you to cooperate.

Mr Mahoney: It's not, though.

Mr Wilfong: I don't feel that any diagnosis should be given to a company. The doctors should be able to say, "Okay, this is what he can do and this is what he can't do," he/she, but certainly no diagnosis, because where I work, it's always been thrown up in grievances.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mrs Witmer.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much. You've certainly had a difficult time, Terry, with the system, and it's certainly very similar to some of the concerns of individuals who come to my constituency office, and I think other MPPs would agree as well. It can be a frightening system. It's a very intimidating system and I'm always very thankful that I have a staff who are very sensitive to the concerns that come our way, and endeavour to facilitate and help as much as possible, but eventually we sometimes come up with the same walls and the same frustrations as you do. You are presently working?

Mr Wilfong: Yes, I am.

Mrs Witmer: However, you are still fighting the system. What would you say has been your biggest frustration?

Mr Wilfong: See, my accident happened when I was 15. My pension was based on those wages back then. I get a terrible pension. Every six months I have to go in for epidural, steroidal shots for the rest of my life. I'm on narcotic pain control. I find that some people are given a 10% pension. They get $800 a month, compared to where I get $300, and I find this $200 won't even affect me. I won't even get it.

Mrs Witmer: What do you mean, you won't get it?

Mr Wilfong: In the section it says if you're unemployed or if it applies to you.

Mrs Witmer: That's right.

Mr Wilfong: This doesn't apply to me.

Mrs Witmer: Exactly.

Mr Wilfong: I fall into a grey area again.

Mrs Witmer: That's right, and I guess that's why it is unfair because individuals such as yourself who have returned to work will not receive that additional $200 compensation.

Mr Wilfong: Maybe there should be a limit to how much pension you should actually get, because I know the system is kind of broke, but after four operations, $300, to me it's not justification.

Mrs Witmer: And you'll go through this discomfort for the rest of your life?

Mr Wilfong: Oh, yes. I have to go home for my epidurals just for pain control. I'm not saying it's terrible and horrible, but I feel for what I've gone through, $300 isn't justified. But my company that the accident happened with moved down to the States, and I don't know who got stuck with the bill now. Perhaps that's why I'm having a hard time appealing.

Mrs Witmer: I guess collectively, all the employers in the province pay into the system and that's how it's being funded. So what are you recommending then to change?

Mr Wilfong: I would recommend that the vocational rehabilitation department at the comp -- don't be so damn arbitrary. If they're on a bad day, it's like you've kind of had it. Some of them, they're just burnt out. They've been there too long and they've become very arbitrary. But some of the stuff that I've read on Bill 165 I kind of agree with. There are a lot of good things happening.

Mrs Witmer: What do you agree with, Terry?

Mr Wilfong: Certainly section 147. It doesn't apply to me, but, still, that's great for other people.

Mrs Witmer: That's right, but you're saying that you'd like to see it apply to individuals such as yourself as well, the $200?

Mr Wilfong: I would like to see it apply to everybody, within reason. If their pensions are astronomical that they're getting, no. I think it should go to the people with the lousiest pensions in the system, even the grey areas. The comp should individually look at the situation regularly. Maybe that's just too much work.

Mrs Witmer: Based on need?

Mr Wilfong: Yes. I feel like a 30% pension for $300 is just not justified after three operations, and then within another 10 years I'll have to go back in and get another level fused.

Mrs Witmer: So it's going to be constant discomfort for the rest of your life.

Mr Wilfong: Yes.

Mrs Witmer: And pain.

Mr Wilfong: Yes. But Bill 165 also, I like the point where it forces the company kind of more or less to bring back an injured worker or retrain, that kind of stuff. So comp's doing a lot of good things.

1140

Mrs Witmer: So the emphasis on the re-employment and the return to work --

Mr Wilfong: Yes.

Mrs Witmer: I think we all agree that it is important that we attempt to get the worker back to work as quickly as possible. I don't think there's any disagreement there. Did you return to work for the company that you were employed by?

Mr Wilfong: No, I didn't.

Mrs Witmer: You never did?

Mr Wilfong: No, they wouldn't take me back.

Mrs Witmer: I guess that was long enough ago that the system operated just a little differently than it does at the present time.

I wish you well. I hope that there will be something within the bill that will certainly help individuals such as yourself. There's obviously a need there and we need to look a little more closely as to what we can do. Thank you for coming.

Ms Murdock: Thank you very much, Terry, for being here today. Just a clarification. I don't know if you watched yesterday; these hearings are being televised. Yesterday, the very same question in regard to your concerns in your second paragraph about will a worker be deemed uncooperative if he or she refuses to consent to the prescribed information from a doctor --

Mr Wilfong: Yes.

Ms Murdock: Just so you know -- I think the deputy clarified it -- there would not be a penalty. You would not be deemed uncooperative. So that should alleviate some concerns.

You alluded to it briefly in your response to Mr Mahoney, I think, in terms of returning to work, the fact that workers, if they don't cooperate now -- the legislation under the Workers' Compensation Act is pretty clear right now that if you are deemed or perceived to be uncooperative, your benefits are terminated; services in terms of voc rehab are terminated as well. That has been in the act for a while. So this bill is now putting an obligation on the employer to institute return-to-work programs. In your company where you initially got injured, was there any return-to-work program in place?

Mr Wilfong: Like I said, I was 15 years old; no.

Ms Murdock: The company you work for now, does it have any return-to-work --

Mr Wilfong: There is if there's comparable employment, and that's the key word: comparable. If they say there's no comparable, you're on your way.

Ms Murdock: So is there anything like job sharing or sharing shifts or anything like that?

Mr Wilfong: No. There's modified duties, but, once again, it all depends on who you are towards management and stuff like that. Certainly, if you're a union rep, there could be problems. I'd like to see where you say it'll force the companies, because --

Ms Murdock: The return-to-work provisions?

Mr Wilfong: Yes.

Ms Murdock: Mr Mahoney was mentioning that there would be --

Mr Mahoney: Police.

Ms Murdock: He calls them police. I think that it's true that there is an attitudinal situation here where we're going to have to change the perception of the board to be more facilitative than what Mr Mahoney is calling them. I do agree that probably has to be changed. But the fact is that what would happen is that employers would be obligated to have or institute, in cooperation with people at the board who would be trained to do that, return-to-work programs and rehabilitative processes within their own workplaces. If they didn't do it or were deemed to be uncooperative, then they would be penalized. That is part of this. You've addressed it yourself in your comments. So it is part of this Bill 165.

Mr Wilfong: I find that even though it's straightforward and says this and that in the act, sometimes it doesn't apply and there are loopholes. That's how I've found it.

Ms Murdock: I think that everybody agrees -- so far any of the groups that have appeared today thus far and comments in the papers and so on -- that they're dissatisfied with how the Workers' Compensation Board is working to the benefit or detriment, whichever way you want to see it, of the worker or the employer, any of the stakeholders. So it's interesting. I don't know if you were here for any of the other presenters before you, but the whole idea is that everyone agrees that the status quo isn't working, and so change has to occur. The board has to change. How it does that is a question in terms of Bill 165 and what people are talking about today. But I thank you for coming and sharing your views.

Mr Hope: A couple of questions I just wanted to ask you. When you say "simple muscle strain," do you want to explain that to me?

Mr Wilfong: Where you pull a muscle, soft tissue injuries.

Mr Hope: Who gives the assessment of a simple muscle strain?

Mr Wilfong: That was mine. Maybe I should correct that. Sometimes, I find anyways, doctors allow their patients just to go on and on and on for six months. I've had my spine fused three times. It takes no longer than three months for the muscles to completely heal in your spine, three months, and I find by pulling a muscle or soft tissue injury, for a worker to be on it still five months later is -- there should be some limit, some restriction. It's probably not the best thing to say in this room, but there should be some limits to how long a worker should be able to get benefits.

Mr Hope: But who would be the gatekeeper of this so-called simple muscle strain? A simple muscle strain to you and a simple muscle strain to somebody else has different impacts emotionally. Let's look at the impact of an individual.

Mr Wilfong: I would hope the family doctor would put some kind of controls on it, but it doesn't seem to be working any more in Ontario.

Mr Hope: When you were making reference to 147, it should go further, and you were responding to Mrs Witmer, one of the things you said is based on need. How would you do a based on need, whether a person's entitled to the extra $200, and even to cover the grey areas you had made reference to? If you're employable and you're receiving a pension already, you're getting two pays, one from a pension program and one from your current employer. Is that fair to somebody who might fall in that grey area who may not even get the $200? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of where you're coming from with that.

Mr Wilfong: Certainly, you could get in my body for a day and take the Percodan and the rest of it and see what's it like. If you think $300 justifies what I've gone through, it certainly doesn't. The grey areas, I don't know how the comp would figure it out because it's quite massive, I would assume. You would have to go into the background and say: "How much is this person getting? Is it really justified what they're getting?" Because $300 for me is certainly not justification. If it was a car accident back in the 1980s, I would probably be a very rich young man right now.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wilfong, for taking the time out this morning and giving us your presentation.

BRUNO MACRI

The Vice-Chair: I call our next presenter, Bruno Macri. Good morning.

Mr Bruno Macri: I come to tell you -- what I have to tell you I write in the letter you have in your hands. I hurt my back in 1961, October 3, 1961. Since then, they want to operate on me in St Michael's Hospital. I don't agree with the operation because the specialist says only the guy up there knows how you come, better or worse. I say, okay, if the guy up there knows, leave me in the hands of the guy up there, because I don't want you to operate on me. They make myelogram. I have my brains black like your jacket. I've been suffering like God on the cross since that accident.

In 1987, I worked with the separate school board and I slipped on the stairway. I rehurt my back again, and they don't agree with me, the compensation board. They don't agree with me because they say this is the same accident I have before, on the low back. So I have $29 a month when they figure out how much I make, $1 an hour at that time, in 1961. I belonged to a union, and I made $60 a week. They figure out how much they're going to give to me, so they pay me six months and six months, 30%, 50% and they leave it to me like that.

I've been suffering all this pain in my back, in my arm, in my neck, all over my body. God knows how much I lost. For just a little, few peanuts. I start with $29 a month in 1961 and I reach now, pretty soon 2000, $292 a month. You imagine how much my family suffers and how much I suffer with that peanuts money.

1150

I want to tell the compensation board I turn 68 in 1988. Now, I want you to recognize all those people been hurt before when a dollar was a dollar. You buy milk, you buy bread, you buy cheese, you buy this, you buy that. Now what they give you today, what is today, the money they give to me? I live with that money they going to give it to me today? I have to ask charity.

All I want is you to recognize all the people like me been working and been hurt and now they are old age, and before they die, I want to see the justice, to you people, to understand all those workers, because if you know God's law, it says give to God what belongs to God and Caesar what belongs to Caesar, if you understand the Bible.

So now they don't give to me, they don't give to the fellow workers like me, and now they want to give $200 more to the people who are hurt later than me, my heart burns, because I've been suffering since 1961 with that miserable pension, and nobody knows. One time I give Mr Nixon my pay slip, right in front of the Minister of Labour, when he was a Liberal. He said, "Mr Macri, I look after this thing for you." Two weeks later, he return and said, "Well, we can't do nothing. We can't do too much," you know.

Now I write to Bob Rae. He says the same. He invited me to come here to talk to you like that, so I am here to tell you what happened to me. They want operate on me. I don't agree with the operation because they say only the guy up there knows. So I've been suffering, I'm suffering, I wear on my breast here all the time, every day, and only God knows how much I suffer. Nobody knows. I don't want to screw the people who are 65 and over, because still they have to eat, still they have to see, still have to eat with the teeth and everything else.

I am the same like you and everybody else, after 65. And when you are 65, you don't want to be put on the side, and everybody else don't want to be put on the side, because you still live until God, with his permission, calls you or me to go. I want to be protected. All these people have been hurt when a dollar was nothing. You know, we worked for a dollar an hour. So we have to work. The wages were like that and we have to work. So now they go by percentage. The people working now make $25 an hour, $20 an hour. At that time, I was $1 an hour, $1.80 an hour. I started work on the pipeline from Oakville to Owen Sound, Midland, Penetang, Staynor, for $1 an hour when we put the pipeline through all this time.

We started from Oakville. I worked four years with F.E. Shaw Pipeline, $1 an hour, 13, 14 hours a day. Then I started with Pigott Construction, the North American Life building. See, the steel posts they put in the ground, in the sidewalk, you know, 12 feet from the sidewalk they cut. They send me and another three guys to lift on the pickup, to put them on the pickup. So I grab how much power I have. The other two or three guys, they don't put the same power that I have, and I hurt my back. I crack my last -- low back, you know.

Since that, I couldn't do nothing. I can't return no more to work in construction. I was working in Sun Life to clean the desk, like a woman's job, janitor's job. I couldn't make money. All the money I lost. Who do I have to blame for the money I lost all those years, all my life? I spend all my life. And I work another 13 years at Metro Separate School Board to clean the desk. I think I've been suffering like God on the cross with all the pain I have, and still I have to work, because if you don't work, you don't eat.

That's why I want to make justice with the compensation board. If they know how to administrate the compensation board, the government can take it over. So they're private people. We give it to the provincial government to administrate all these things, to be recognized, because we work. We work like a soldier. If you call me to come in the army, I have to come. I have to obey your call. So when I went to work, I have to obey when the bosses say do this and do that. If I don't do it, "Okay, you're no good, go home."

Now most important to me not to screw the people who are over 65 because they are your father. They've been raising you. They've been -- everything give to you. Now I'm 65, I don't have to be put on the side, because I'm not a piece of steel, a piece of garbage. I am a human like the rest of the people. That you've got to understand.

Since 1961, I've not been in working in my job no more. So how much money I lost? You figure out how money I lost. How much they pay me and how much I've lost if I do the same, my job. But nobody understands. Nobody cares. You go to the compensation board, that place, so many times, say: "We review your case. We review your case." They still have to review the case. Still they wait for me when I am here no more, to review my case. So with me, it's thousands of people like me, but they're not here today. Only I want to come to here because Mr Premier said to me to come and tell you what I have to tell you.

I want you to change this bill completely, not insist this Bill 165 for the injured worker. Give less than the people who got $1,000 a month, $600 a month, $700 a month, and give some to me, who got $292, and a lot of people like me. Don't increase their wages. To increase mine too, because I'm not even dead. If I was dead, I don't pretend nothing, but still I have life, still I have my wife, still I have one child. He's over 21, but I have to give something. Father always give to the kids, and mother too.

That's what I have to say, and the rest is on the paper what I give to you.

Mr Mahoney: Just briefly, as I understand it, you're not necessarily, correct me if I'm wrong, asking for the $200-a-month supplement but you want to ensure full inflation protection for the pension that you currently get.

Mr Macri: I ask for the $200 too.

Mr Mahoney: You want the $200 as well.

Mr Macri: Yes, because look how much money I've lost since I hurt my back in 1961. Why I have to be excluded? Why, because I am 65? I don't have a mouth to eat? Or you can put a couple of different stores. You put a Dominion for the people who are rich, you put a Loblaw's for the people who are middle class, you put a Miracle Food for the people who are low, low, low wages, like me.

Mr Mahoney: You understand that the Friedland formula, which is the de-indexing, was adopted initially under an agreement with the Premier's own labour-management advisory council to generate an initial $3.3 billion, which would be used to reduce the unfunded liability. They then took, I'd say, about $2.5 billion of the $3.3 billion and they spent it on the $200. So in essence, what that means is that you and other workers like you are subsidizing the $200 a month to the other workers, the older workers, as what clearly is a political ploy by Mr Rae and the government to try to hand out goodies, so to speak, to these workers. You understand, fundamentally, that that's how it works?

So management is not happy because it didn't pay down the unfunded liability and all other workers -- if you read Thomas Walkom's article in today's newspaper, it's rather interesting. His analysis is that injured workers are indeed funding that and not the compensation board and not the system at large.

Mr Macri: I want to be to recognized. Like I say, I repeat to you: With this bill not to exclude all the injured workers, all the people who are on compensation, all the people who are on pension. That's what I want.

Mrs Witmer: I don't think I have any further questions. I think Mr Macri has made his point. Thank you very much, Mr Macri.

The Vice-Chair: No further questions? Mr Hope?

Mr Hope: No. I just clearly understand where he's coming from. He's been part of an excluded group because of an age requirement, and I think it's something that the committee should seriously look at.

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

This committee stands recessed until 2 pm.

The committee recessed from 1200 to 1401.

The Vice-Chair: Before we get started with our first presenters, it's been brought to my attention that there was a dissenting opinion of the Progressive Conservative members on the standing committee on government agencies' report on the Workers' Compensation Board, April 1994. I believe this was sent to all offices. But some questions were raised yesterday about how the Progressive Conservatives had planned on reducing the unfunded liability and some of their solutions, and there are charts in here. If anybody on the committee wants this, it will be made available to them.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

The Vice-Chair: I call our first presenters, from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, from the president's office. Good afternoon. As you realize, you'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you could leave a little time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourselves for the record and then proceed.

Mr Fred Upshaw: Thank you very much. Let me first of all introduce the people who are with me here. I have to my far left Heather Gavin, the coordinator of our benefits department at OPSEU; Diana Clarke, our Workers' Compensation Board benefits officer from OPSEU; and to my right is Orlando Buonstella, who's a community legal worker specializing particularly in injured workers' concerns. So if we get to the question period, I will rely on the experts to respond to any technical questions that you may have. My name is Fred Upshaw and I'm president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, and I thank you very, very much for the opportunity to make this presentation. This brief will outline to this committee the Ontario Public Service Employees Union's concerns and recommendations on Bill 165.

OPSEU is in a unique position to comment on the bill's contents. Not only does our union represent about 95,000 workers across Ontario, but its members also represent the largest number of unorganized injured workers in the workers' compensation system by way of the community legal clinics and the office of the worker adviser.

Bill 165 attempts to deal with some of the more immediate needs in the area of workers' compensation. Important issues around governance have been proposed. However, in its efforts to address certain problems, some of the bill's proposals will create serious and negative impacts on injured workers if not corrected before passing. In our time today, we will deal with some of the more principal and pressing concerns surrounding this bill. These areas include the $200 increase, the de-indexing provisions and improvements to the rehabilitation and re-employment sections of the bill.

The proposed $200 increase: Significant numbers of injured workers live in poverty. Many injured workers have suffered financial devastation in their personal lives when they were not re-employed after their injury. Bill 165 proposes to address this situation by providing a $200-a-month increase to a limited number of people injured before 1990 and who are unemployed.

We applauded the government's recognition for this need to be addressed. However, the proposed $200 pension increase continues to leave out some of the vulnerable injured workers. The number is small and the inclusion of this group in terms of funding is not significant. From an equity point of view, there is no reason to exclude these workers.

The exclusion of these workers appears to be based on the decision to identify the recipients of the pension increase by whether or not they receive a special supplement under subsection 147(4) of the act on or after July 26, 1989. While the supplement may be a useful key to identification of the majority of the most vulnerable pre-165 pensioners, it should not be used as an actual barrier for other pensioners.

We would recommend that clause 147(14)(b) be amended and that a clause 147(14)(c) be added to at least compensate workers who were receiving monthly pension awards and were 65 years and older in July 1989.

We also recommend that consideration be given to how to deal with pre-Bill 162 pensioners who are currently in receipt of permanent pension awards but returned to the workforce and continue to suffer a wage loss due to their compensable disabilities.

The de-indexing of workers' benefits: Bill 165 will change the indexation of WCB benefits to injured workers. OPSEU does not support any de-indexing of workers' benefits. De-indexing shifts the burden of workplace injuries out from the workers' compensation system and into the public social security systems. The decision to implement such a drastic change in de-indexing for short-term political gain without looking at the impact on the long-term system is unacceptable.

At present, these benefits are increased yearly, based on the consumer price index. What Bill 165 proposes to do is reduce the indexation by using the following formula: 75% of CPI less 1%, with a 4% cap. For example, if the CPI increases by 2%, benefits will be adjusted by only 0.5%. A 6% rise in the cost of living will be cut to 3.5%, and a 10% rise will be cut to 4%. Using full CPI indexing, a $200-a-month pension awarded in 1977 would be equal to $576.30 today. With the formula in Bill 165, it would only be $324.

Given the cumulative effect of inflation, injured workers suffering from permanent or prolonged disabilities will be most affected. Even at the low end of inflation, this cumulative effect is devastating. A 2% inflation rate over four years produces an 8.2% rise in the cost of living, but with the Bill 165 formula, the benefit adjustment will only be 2%. This is an effective cut of over 6%. If we consider that pre-1990 pensions are received for the lifetime of the worker and post-1990 future economic losses until age 65, the change is even more dramatic.

1410

Many observers are unaware of the range of benefits that will be reduced over time by the new de-indexation formula. The minimum benefit level under section 39 will shrink over time. The non-economic loss formula, which compensates for pain and suffering and is already inadequate, will be affected as well. Even such items as clothing allowances will be affected.

The government has announced that "those most in need" will be exempted from de-indexing. In doing so, it is missing the point of inflation protection. This measure was not designed to protect only a special group, but all injured workers. The groups listed for exemption represent only a small minority. Of workers injured before 1990, only about 42,000 of the 172,000 suffering permanent disabilities will be saved from cost-of-living cutbacks. Workers injured after January 2, 1990, are in an even worse position. Only those on a 100% future economic loss, FEL, award will be saved from the cuts, 5.8% of all FEL recipients in 1993.

The unemployment rate among this new generation of injured workers is even worse than that among pre-1990 workers. According to WCB figures, 78.4% of post-1990 injured workers off for one year are still unemployed, according to Employment Study of 12-Month Qualifying FEL Recipients, March 1, 1994.

It's true there are modest improvements in the return-to-work provisions, and these we'll discuss separately.

De-indexation is not an alternative to returning to work. Injured workers have a right to both inflation protection and strong re-employment and rehabilitation measures.

The New Democratic Party has been at the forefront of the struggle to protect injured workers from inflation. In the final report of the standing committee on resources development on Weiler's report in December 1983, their position was signed by Floyd Laughren and Tony Lupusella:

"Recommendation 8: Adjustments for Inflation

"The act should include provision for full indexing to inflation, such adjustments to be made according to changes in the consumer price index and to be made at least quarterly and by regulation. In addition, pension levels must be adjusted not only for cost-of-living increases but also to recognize lost opportunities of normal career development or job progression. There is also no justification for freezing an injured worker's income level without regard to the normal anticipated increases which will accrue to his or her peer group."

We agree with the New Democratic Party minority recommendation to the standing committee in 1983.

Rehabilitation and re-employment: Bill 165 proposes a number of changes to the vocational rehabilitation process. The failure to successfully reintegrate injured workers into the workforce is, aside from poor health and safety practices, the single greatest source of avoidable costs in the workers' compensation system.

OPSEU has always supported the right of injured workers to rehabilitation and re-employment. Workers' compensation is not a handout to workers. It is insurance for employers designed to cover losses suffered by their workers. In return for just compensation, workers have given up their right to sue. Full compensation is not and cannot be negotiable. It includes the right to return to work safely and with dignity.

WCB statistics indicate that the majority of disabled workers who successfully return to work after injury are employed by the accident employer. It must be recognized that in most cases, a successful return to the pre-accident workplace is actually negotiated by the workplace parties themselves. The WCB simply does not enter into the picture. Although Bill 165 does take a step in the right direction by encouraging the active participation of accident employers in vocational rehabilitation and removing bureaucratic obstacles, it ends up taking two steps back through its failure to balance the scales.

The key to a successful return to work is the trust between the workplace parties. Bill 165 offers employers unprecedented access to medical information and an increased say in vocational rehabilitation programs, even when this relationship does not exist. When disputes arise, individual injured workers will be left to negotiate with professional human resources personnel and paid WCB consultants. Even when an employer has flatly refused to re-employ an injured worker, it will now have a continuing right to interfere with that worker's rehabilitation.

The medical information gap: The proposed addition to section 51 would allow the release of medical information regarding a worker's physical restrictions directly from the worker's doctor to the accident employer. This is an unnecessary and potentially dangerous innovation.

The key to a successful return to work is not the medical restrictions imposed on a worker but the existence of real and appropriate return-to-work efforts between the parties. Where this exists, the proposed change is not necessary. Employers already have the power to request that restrictions be communicated to them by injured workers. When there is a mutual doubt as to existing restrictions, the board will obtain this information and pass it on to the employer.

The proposed change would pressure injured workers to consent to the release of confidential medical information through threat of sanctions due to a failure to cooperate in vocational rehabilitation. As presently drafted, an employer may request this information even when it has no intention of re-employing the worker.

Employers have already attempted to circumvent sections 23 and 71 of the act. We believe the current proposed wording will only cause further intrusion. There is no need for the employer to be contacting the worker's doctor directly. Through the introduction of a prescribed form provided by the board or via the worker, we believe the necessary information can be provided to facilitate appropriate accommodation and return-to-work planning.

Vocational rehabilitation for employers: The proposed changes to section 53 make no sense as presently worded. The words "and the employer" are simply inserted wherever the words "the worker" appear. As a result, employers are now eligible for WCB assistance in looking for work, and once again the right to access information and be consulted at every step of a worker's vocational rehabilitation program is not limited to cooperative employers. Even those who have breached their section 54 re-employment obligation would be allowed to continuously interfere with a worker's rehabilitation.

These changes should be scrapped. Rehabilitation services exist for injured workers. Period. When an accident employer is cooperating in a worker's rehabilitation, under current legislation and policy the board does consult with that employer regarding available work and to offer assistance in adapting the workplace. In fact, it can do this with any employer who is willing to employ an injured worker. The board is already mandated to share information regarding the worker with the accident employer, no matter what. If anything, section 53 should be amended to make clear that no employer who is not actively cooperating in the worker's return to work is to have any further role in decisions regarding that worker.

As it is, Bill 165 states that the board "may" impose a penalty on an uncooperative employer. Contrast this with the long-time practice of automatically cutting off the benefits of workers who are deemed to be uncooperative. Why this inequality of penalties when employers are much better placed to resolve the problem of unemployment among injured workers?

1420

Speedy adjudication regarding employer obligations: OPSEU welcomes the introduction of the proposed subsection 54(11.1). Although the board has had the power to do this ever since the introduction of section 54, this explicit authority will make it clear that the board need not wait for an application from an injured worker before beginning the section 54 process. It is hoped that it will also remove some unnecessary complications, for example, mediation services.

The introduction of mandated mediation services is another unnecessary and potentially dangerous change. It is unnecessary because the board already has the authority to offer these services and has done so for years.

The experience of OPSEU and staff representatives who represent injured workers in this process has not been favourable. The very need for mediation implies the existence of an adversarial relationship. In section 54 claims, this is the result of an employer's refusal to re-employ an injured worker. In fast-track vocational rehabilitation appeals, the board has actually engaged in mediating disputes between injured workers and its own case workers.

The experience of OPSEU members has been that board mediation leads to injured workers' sustained return to work only in the rarest of circumstances. More usually, workers are badgered into signing away their rights under every employment statute imaginable for a fraction of their entitlement under the Workers' Compensation Act alone. The reason is obvious: The individual worker is only rarely equipped to stand up to his or her employer or the bureaucratic machinery of the board.

Even when a worker is lucky enough to have representation, board mediators have felt perfectly comfortable bypassing the representative and going to the worker directly to encourage a settlement at all costs. It seems likely that even fewer workers would have representatives under Bill 165, given the prohibitive time constraints.

OPSEU cannot and will not endorse these divide-and-conquer tactics. Any mediation must be confined to working out the details of a worker's return to work with an employer, and the worker must have the right to be represented by his or her union or other representative.

In conclusion, there are several provisions of Bill 165 which we have addressed that we believe will have serious and adverse effects on injured workers. We have attempted to focus on the most significant changes required to this bill before passing. They are: extended coverage of the $200 increase to more workers, removal of the de-indexing provisions and removal of some of the rehabilitation and re-employment provisions in the proposed bill with suggested language changes.

Unfortunately, given the time limitations each group has in front of this committee, we could not comment on the rest of the bill. We hope in other opportunities before this committee in the next few weeks to comment on other areas.

Although we have a number of concerns with this bill, we however fully support the move to a bipartite governance of the system. It is the only way for workers and employers to deal with the policymaking, rehabilitation and re-employment issues and to integrate accident prevention and education at the workplace.

We also support the decision of this government to institute a royal commission on workers' compensation and its future. For too long, governments have attempted piecemeal solutions. We need to take a long and hard look at how we can implement an excellent and fair compensation system for injured workers, if not all disabled people in Ontario. Respectfully submitted.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, and your time has expired. On behalf of this committee, Mr Upshaw, Mr Buonstella, Ms Clarke and Ms Gavin, thank you for taking the time out and giving us your presentation.

I'd like to call forward our next presenter, from the Ontario Physiotherapy Association.

Mr Ferguson: While they're coming up, Mr Chair, I'd just like to thank the Progressive Conservative caucus for letting us know exactly where they stand on this issue. Now if we can just nail down the Liberals, we'll have an interesting time over the next few weeks.

Mr Mahoney: What's the problem?

Mr Ferguson: Well, we don't know exactly where you stand on it.

Mr Mahoney: On this?

Mr Ferguson: Well, yes.

Mr Mahoney: Can you read? I'll get you a copy personally autographed. You can have a look at it.

Mr Ferguson: I've got one.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order, please.

ONTARIO PHYSIOTHERAPY ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: Good afternoon. Just a reminder that you'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you could leave a little 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.

Ms Signe Holstein: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and our sincere thanks to the committee for the opportunity to appear before you on Bill 165. My name is Signe Holstein. I am executive director of the Ontario Physiotherapy Association. With me is Karen Webb. Karen is a licensed physiotherapist who works in the WCB community clinic system. She manages a community clinic in Stratford and is chair of our association's WCB committee. Our written submission was given to the committee clerk a few days ago. Our detailed comments and recommendations are set out in that submission.

Many health care professions and professionals come together to make the WCB's rehabilitative system work. Physiotherapy is one of the professions that is a critical part of the WCB system. The Ontario Physiotherapy Association was surprised, therefore, and more than a little disappointed that we weren't consulted at all on Bill 165. We were also surprised and again more than a little disappointed that we weren't consulted at all during the Liberal Party's outreach tour that resulted in the paper Back to the Future on the WCB. We think both Bill 165 and Back to the Future overlook an opportunity to save money for the WCB and get injured workers back to full, productive lives in a timely and efficient way, but more of that later.

Our principal criterion for evaluating Bill 165 was: What does Bill 165 do to get the worker back to work in a timely fashion? That's our area of expertise and our area of primary interest. So while our submission comments on other aspects and elements of Bill 165, today, because of the time available to us, we intend to focus exclusively on that question: What does Bill 165 do for the injured worker?

As we said earlier, and as we'll explain in a moment, we think Bill 165 missed a huge opportunity. But first we thought it might be useful to the committee to have a review of how WCB clients access physiotherapy treatment as a backdrop to what we have to say about Bill 165. Karen?

Ms Karen Webb: I want to emphasize at the outset, as Signe did, that physiotherapists are not the only health professionals who work in the WCB rehabilitation system, nor do we want to be. Quite often, more than one professional will work with an injured worker. The team approach to rehabilitation, where a range of professions and expertise is available to the WCB, is in the best interests of the injured worker and the objective of cost-effective rehabilitation. We are physiotherapists and we are here to talk about physiotherapy, but I didn't want the team approach to be lost or ignored.

The traditional method of accessing physiotherapy treatment in the WCB rehabilitation system has been for the injured worker to obtain a physician's referral to a private physiotherapy clinic. In such cases, the physiotherapist assesses the injury, devises an individual treatment plan and proceeds to provide the required therapy within the physiotherapy scope of practice, licensed acts and standards of practice. In such cases, the clinic's remuneration is based on the OHIP fee-for-service schedule for physiotherapy, namely, $12.20 per visit.

WCB clients can also access physiotherapy care through hospitals on an in- or an outpatient basis, again upon physician referral. In such cases, the hospitals may bill WCB for the services rendered. Again, the allowable charge is based on the OHIP fee-for-service schedule for physiotherapy.

1430

However, the traditional approaches have some readily identifiable problems. It is a fundamental tenet of physiotherapy treatment that early, active and intensive intervention is critical in reducing the time and the cost of rehabilitating the injured worker and maximizing the cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation process. This meshes well with the WCB's principal objective of returning the worker to productive employment in a timely fashion. The traditional approaches, however, were resulting in long waiting lists and long delays for injured workers in getting a physician's referral to a physiotherapist. Statistics documented in our submission support this.

So in 1989 the WCB introduced the community clinic program as part of the WCB's rehabilitation strategy. Under this program, WCB-approved community clinics provide early, active, intensive and individualized treatment programs to WCB clients. A memorandum of agreement sets out in some detail the criteria that apply to the delivery of those services and the charges that may be billed to the WCB. Community clinics are owned and operated by chiropractors, hospitals, hospital corporations, organizations such as the Canadian Back Institute and so on. But the vast majority of clinics are owned and operated by licensed physiotherapists.

Ms Holstein: So what does this have to do with Bill 165? In our view, the WCB delivery system suffers from a major structural defect that Bill 165 could have helped to correct but didn't. This is particularly surprising to us because the Premier, the Minister of Labour and government MPPs who spoke to Bill 165 during second reading in the Legislature said Bill 165 would help get injured workers back to work faster.

Currently, the WCB requires a physician referral before an injured worker can access physiotherapy care. In fact, current WCB policy requires a physician referral for treatments by any health care professional other than a chiropractor. This is required regardless of the venue in which that care is to be delivered. The WCB's own statistics show that, on average, 21.94 days elapse between an injury and a physician's referral to a physiotherapist. This is simply unacceptable in terms of getting the worker back to fully productive work in a timely manner. Physician referral is also unnecessarily costly. In many cases the WCB is paying two health care professionals to do a job only one need do.

We ask you to imagine the savings for the WCB if the two-step process could be reduced to one, which could happen in the majority of cases. There is no need for mandated, across-the-board physician referral. Physiotherapy is an independent primary-care profession under the Regulated Health Professions Act. Under the Regulated Health Professions Act, physiotherapists are authorized to assess physical function and to treat, rehabilitate and prevent physical dysfunction, injury or pain, and to develop, maintain, rehabilitate or augment physical function or relieve pain. So physician referral isn't required for the general public to access physiotherapy care. Moreover, physician referral for physiotherapy treatment is not required in the long-term care context. The Ontario Medical Association has supported the status of physiotherapists as independent practitioners who do not require referral from any other health care practitioner, including from a physician, in order to practise their profession.

The fact is, to our considerable frustration, the current Workers' Compensation Act manifests the outmoded medically directed model of health care delivery, with physicians as gatekeepers into the delivery system. Bill 165 perpetuates that model. Look at section 8's references to "physician" and "medical information." Look at the reference in subsection 9(5) to "physician" and so on. We think Bill 165 missed an enormous opportunity to bring the legislation and the WCB into the 1990s and into step with RHPA, long-term care and other initiatives and policies being advanced by the Ministry of Health.

We urge the committee to amend Bill 165 and use Bill 165 to further amend the Workers' Compensation Act to replace references to "physician" with "health care practitioner," references to "medical" with "health," and so on. We propose in our approach that "health care professional" be defined as any profession regulated under RHPA. This action would constitute a major advance. Removing the physician referral bottleneck would save the WCB significant amounts of money, get workers back to work faster and more cost-effectively, and inject more consumer choice into the WCB system.

That concludes our presentation. We're happy to respond to whatever questions the committee might have.

Mr Mahoney: First of all, thank you for the presentation. Let me add, by the way, and I've got the exact name and address, but you were invited to participate in our outreach tour, and for whatever reason, I don't know if it was communication or whatever -- we went to eight municipalities in the province. We didn't send specific invitations to groups. We invited anybody who wanted to come. So perhaps we can clarify that at some point, and I think you have submitted comments on the report which I gratefully received, and I appreciate that.

You raise some interesting points. Of course, the issue of the amendment around the Regulated Health Professions Act would involve more, obviously, than -- you're saying all groups that are acknowledged under that act as providing health care services. That's an area we've looked at in discussing our Back to the Future report, which is indeed a discussion paper as to a possible route to go, and I'm very interested in discussing that. That's not within the mandate of either this committee or the Workers' Compensation Board, however. It would require legislative action by the government of the day to make that change, but I think it's a suggestion that's worthwhile.

One of the things I found in the outreach -- and we did have presentations, again without specific invitations, from the OMA, the chiropractors, from a number of different health care professionals, from individual doctors who practise solely on workers' compensation issues all over the province, and we were grateful to receive that. But I believe the real key to resolving the difficulties at the board and in implementing the system does lie in the delivery of health care services quickly: quick identification, quick to get workers returning to work, modified work, involving the health care professionals in making those decisions, all health care professionals, depending on what the area is. As I've said, I'm quite open to doing that.

The concern I have, though, is that I hear you supporting a bipartite board. I hear OPSEU before you lauding the government's "new" initiatives when they're not new at all. It's just re-establishing the status quo with two new, supposedly private individuals being recommended by labour and management to increase the size of the board. Bipartism exists now, which you recognize, at the board.

I wonder why, with your level of competence in this area, which I very much respect, you wouldn't think that the problems around governance should involve more than just two stakeholders. There are more people who have a huge stake in this system than just management and just workers. I think you and your colleagues, who are indeed regulated under the health professions act, would have a stake in the future of this system.

Ms Holstein: I think it's not unlike our concerns around governance structures within hospitals in terms of what the role of the board is and the responsibility overall in managing, and the difficulty then of getting adequate representation of those professional groups within the board without making your board very large. Certainly we've preferred looking at professional advisory councils where there is a good mix and a very broad range so that all of the health professionals that are involved are consulted, as opposed to just those who are on the board at any given time.

1440

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I guess presentations like yours point out the need to advertise and make sure that all of the participants do have an opportunity to comment on the bill before us. Certainly you've made me aware of a few points that I think are worthy of government consideration as well.

You point out here that the current policies requiring the physician referral in the case management are wasteful duplication and that they're out of step with current government policy. I think we would all agree. Would you just tell us again what needs to be done briefly, then?

Ms Holstein: I think, as we stated, if the language reflects a more open referral system and does not reflect a gatekeeper system, that would make a considerable difference.

Mrs Witmer: You question Bill 165 coming before the royal commission. You say it prejudges the outcome of the royal commission. Could you just expand as to what it is that you mean?

Ms Holstein: If, as we were led to believe, the royal commission will take such a very broad look at the workers' compensation system that much of what we would hope would arise out of it, or some of that, is already being dealt with with Bill 165, is it a duplicative process?

Mrs Witmer: I think that's a question that's been asked by many people. So then how would your association more effectively get people back to work more quickly?

Ms Webb: If we were given the opportunity to get an injured worker sooner than we are, it would make a significant difference to us. If you look at Ontario right now and the community clinic system, that's a system that gets people in quickly, within five days of referral. That's fast. We're used to waiting lists.

But if you look at the average time from the accident until the patient actually gets a referral from the physician, it's in the neighbourhood of 21 days. Then, if you allow another four or five days for that process to take place, you're looking at 25 to 26 days. That's a long time after an injury. The effect that you can have on an injury is quite dramatic if you can get it soon.

As far as the gatekeeper concept is concerned, it's interesting from a clinical perspective: We have the clients coming to us later than we want them, and sometimes, unfortunately, we can't move them out. We get them out of the clinic system because it's a time-limited program, but the physician sometimes allows that client or injured worker to stay off work for another period of time. That creates a frustration for the clinicians and that's out of our hands. We make our recommendations. They go to WCB. It's gone.

Ms Murdock: Actually, I'm not in disagreement at all, although I still haven't given my absolute success on the community clinics model, at least not the way it's working. But I agree with you in terms of moving from a medical model, not only your work, but recognition of massage therapy and other kinds of things that also get a worker back to work much more quickly and capable of doing the job.

My question really is in relation to the comments you made in regard to the consultation. It's more along the line of comments that were made by the deputy yesterday when he was here. Towards the end of his presentation, he stated the board is going to be doing this, so I'm hoping that you will make sure your voices are heard by them. There are representatives from the board here, so I know they're hearing what I'm saying. There will be an expanded vocational rehab advisory committee instituted at the board in terms of working with the language as it exists in terms of return to work under Bill 165, so that would mean inclusion of more people like you and your advice and opinion. I presume you're going to be making presentations before the royal commission, are you?

Ms Holstein: Absolutely.

Ms Murdock: I think it's really important that what you said today is said there, because their mandate is the long term. Bill 165 is looking at something that we can do now, and the royal commission is looking at how injured workers and injuries, period, can be looked at through the whole system and the whole medical model. So I think it's really important that what you have said today gets said at that larger, more comprehensive hearing. I would like that to be said.

I think Bill 165 will get the worker back to work faster and with more return-to-work kinds of programs, and it isn't totally reliant on physiotherapy. Not all injured workers require physiotherapy to get back to work, so that should be said too. I don't know if you have any comments on my comments.

The Vice-Chair: Briefly, please.

Ms Holstein: My only comment about the voc rehab is not to confuse that with the acute phase, because voc rehab comes in at a later stage, so we don't want to lose sight of those early injuries.

Yesterday I was watching TV and I had heard Mr Mahoney talking about the percentage of workers who are back within two weeks, and is it reasonable to even have a claim? You have to think about the window that may open for a profession such as ours, for example, in terms of prevention and education. The person who hurts himself and gets back that fast, there is a great chance that they will do something again unless they learn and are taught the preventive measures. So not to confuse those two areas of rehabilitation.

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

ANA PAVELA

The Vice-Chair: I call our next presenter, Ana Pavela. Good afternoon.

Mrs Ana Pavela: I'm Ana Pavela. I am an injured worker. I would like to express my concern about Bill 165, an act to reform the Workers' Compensation Act.

Bill 165 says nothing about that problem with the WCB doctor who disagree with the injured worker, threatening doctor that doctor from workers' compensation have conflict of interest, and the rehabilitation centre when doctor did a lot more damage to me than good.

I know this happen to other injured workers. Doctors don't believe the pain and the suffering I was going through. The injured worker end up being paralysed twice; first, by the injury and to be incapable to take care of our family, who was going through suffering; second, by being treated like I am and being harassed by the people from Workers' Compensation Board.

Bill 165 doesn't totally step backward, it doesn't -- I'm sorry with my English, because I am speaking from my heart, I come with my heart, with my pain inside. Please be patient with me. The injured worker is being paralysed twice: first, being injured and not being capable to take care of our family, most going through suffering; second, by treating me like I am a burden and being harassed by the people from Workers' Compensation Board.

Bill 165, it doesn't do stuff for injured worker. This bill will harm more injured workers than do good to them.

The three provincial parties assured full index in 1985. That bill was in adjustment to inflation so that injured workers' benefits stay same year after year, nothing change. How disappointing, how shame, that only nine years later one of these forgotten: Bill 165 is introduced. Do politicians remember 1985? What was important principle in 1985 remains an important principle in 1994.

1450

I'm also disappointed that there is no section of the act that requires specific injured workers' participation to the board of directors. I ask you amend the act to let injured workers group to appoint representation to board of directors, the act to allow the injured worker group participation on the board of directors. How can you reform the act and a system by keeping injured workers out, especially those with permanent disability?

I sincerely hope that you will respond positive to that about recommendations. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Questions?

Mr Mahoney: In looking at the bill itself, could you tell me if there is one thing that you would change in the bill that you think would serve injured workers best, just one, the most important item?

Mrs Pavela: Well, for me, I think they change in every -- each injured person I think have rights the same.

Mr Mahoney: So are you referring then to the de-indexing of the pensions, that you think it should be full indexation?

Mrs Pavela: That's right.

Mr Mahoney: And for all workers.

Mrs Pavela: All the workers.

Mr Mahoney: Without age restrictions?

Mrs Pavela: That's right.

Mr Mahoney: If you had an amendment, it would be to that 147 section. Aside from the obvious issues of equality, fairness and equity, is there a particular reason? I mean, there's a big cost to that, of course. You, I think, would understand that the reason the de-indexing is being recommended in the bill originally was a result of the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee decision to cut $3.3 billion from the unfunded liability. And then they took about $2.5 billion of that $3.3 billion and spent it on the $200 supplement and de-indexed for everybody else.

So if you put the entire indexation, full indexation, back in for all injured workers, aside from the fairness and equity side of it, where I understand the point you're making, I would guesstimate you're looking at somewhere certainly in excess of $3.3 billion, which was the amount saved by the de-indexing, perhaps as high as $5 billion if you include all workers. Have you given any thought as to the impact on the system that a $3-billion to $5-billion cost would have? And who should pay that?

Mrs Pavela: I think employer.

Mr Mahoney: Sorry? Employer?

Mrs Pavela: That's my opinion, because we are working for them, suffering, so --

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's obvious that throughout the course of the next three to four weeks we will be receiving many presentations such as your own indicating that the changes that are going to be made to Bill 165 do not respond to the needs of the injured workers. And I would agree with you: This bill doesn't address the issue.

But you feel that ultimately, if the issue is going to be addressed, the employer needs to pay. Is that the only solution that you see? I guess that's one of the realities that we need to face. We need to make sure we have a system that does respond to the needs, that will have money in the future for injured workers. We also need to make sure it's funded at a level that the employers in this province can continue to afford. So it's a very difficult question. Is there anything about the operation of the system where you would suggest that some savings could be achieved?

Mrs Pavela: Well, even with the operation system, we have so many trouble with those people working for the compensation board, and I don't know: Those people make $40,000, they don't do the job. If I call 10 times, then leave a message, nobody call back. Maybe just call me one time, they know what I am asking for, then after forget it. That's very hard. Like I say, it is very hard for me because a lot of people like me, they don't speak English, but I was working hard in this country for 28 years, I think I deserve. I pay the tax, I deserve some rights and I deserve some rights to reduce my suffering, too.

Mrs Witmer: I would agree with what you're saying, and I think you've identified a part of the problem that this bill does not address, and that is the way in which the system operates. It's because of the inefficiency and it's because of the frustration that people such as yourself experience when they call individuals at the WCB and they get absolutely no satisfaction, they get no response to their phone calls. That's when they start to call the MPP. Then we try to make the phone calls and we try to get the answers to you.

Take a look at all the time and the cost that's involved, because most of our offices are spending half our time dealing with WCB claims, and I don't think that should be. We've got hundreds of people working, but they're not responding to you, they don't respond to me, they don't respond to the employers.

Mrs Pavela: That's right.

Mrs Witmer: We need to take a look at the whole mismanagement of the system.

Mrs Pavela: That's right. I was at Downsview last year, maybe we were 30, 35, 40 injured people, I'm not sure. But a lot of people were there, so many. I don't know what those people are doing here, are they doing his job, but I think, for myself, they're wasting money too.

Mrs Witmer: Well, you just have to take a look at the fraud review. They hired 17 investigators and they came up with something like nine people convicted. I mean, you've got more staff taking a look and the results don't seem to bear witness to all the money that's being spent, so I hope they take a look at reducing the frustration for people such as yourself. Thank you.

Mrs Pavela: Thank you very much.

Mr Ferguson: On behalf of the government, I just want to thank you for coming out today. You did an excellent job in presenting your position and we certainly appreciate your taking the time in doing that.

I just have one question for you. The Progressive Conservative caucus has suggested a number of recommendations to the government in the hopes of improving the bill. One of their recommendations and what they have suggested is that we ought to take the benefit level from 90% down to 80%, which would be a reduction in benefits for injured workers right across the board. Would you support that initiative?

Mrs Pavela: I don't support that initiative.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much.

Mrs Pavela: You're welcome. Thank you being patient with me, with my English.

Mrs Witmer: Your English is just fine.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Pavela, on behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for coming today.

1500

CUSTOM DOOR AND LOCK SERVICE

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenter is from Custom Door and Lock Service.

Mr Roy Boisclair: My name is Roy Boisclair. I am service manager for Custom Door and Lock. I'm here on behalf of David McPake, our manager, who is unable to be here. His main concern is that from 1988 to 1992 we were classified as locksmiths. In 1988 we paid 80 cents on the $100; in 1989 we went to 88 cents; in 1990 we went to 96 cents and the same in 1991; in 1992 we went to $1.05 and partway through 1993 they reclassified us into the equipment rental/repair at a rate of $1.39. Now we understand their target rate is $3.06, which is three times what we paid in 1992. That's almost a 300% increase since 1992 and that is the company's main concern, this large increase and how they justify it.

According to Mr McPake and his records, the company has never had a compensation claim in 15 years.

I don't have to take up too much of your time here. This is the main thing that we wanted to get across, that the increase, to our knowledge, isn't justified, unless somebody has some means of why we are reclassified up into a different group.

The Vice-Chair: That doesn't really have to do with Bill 165, but if the committee members want to --

Mr Mahoney: I'm not sure it doesn't. I think the whole object of Bill 165 is to reform a system that we all have admitted is broke and broken. If you have a system where you have no accident claims -- not even any files, nothing in 15 years?

Mr Boisclair: In 15 years, now, I would have to check our records. I myself would say that someone probably had a piece of dirt in his eye, went to the hospital and the company may not have been on the ball, figuring they've paid for it, and they don't. It goes through compensation in that aspect. But, to my knowledge, there has not been a man off on compensation in 15 years, according to our records.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I'll leave you time. We've got lots of time.

Do you deal with this situation personally on behalf of the company?

Mr Boisclair: No, sir.

Mr Mahoney: What about health and safety? Do you have a health and safety program at your place of employment with regard to the handling of equipment or your trucks or any of that kind of thing?

Mr Boisclair: The health and safety and that aspect goes under my jurisdiction, where I'm pretty particular of how the trucks are stocked, what type of tools they use.

Mr Mahoney: How many people do you have working for you?

Mr Boisclair: Around 14, 15 people. We've got seven trucks.

Mr Mahoney: Do you provide health and safety training for these people?

Mr Boisclair: That's correct, sir.

Mr Mahoney: Do you think that perhaps this health and safety training is the reason you haven't had any accidents in 15 years?

Mr Boisclair: There is a possibility, sir. I have been in the trade for over 30 years and I am pretty strict.

Mr Mahoney: Do you have a manual or do you put out anything --

Mr Boisclair: No.

Mr Mahoney: -- or sessions with your staff? How do you train them on the risks or health and safety --

Mr Boisclair: When a new man is hired, I go out with him. If he does not work according to my expectations, he no longer works for us.

Mr Mahoney: So here you are, a small business in Ontario providing your own in-house health and safety training for your workers, accident-free for 15 years and you're facing a 300% increase in your premium.

Mr Boisclair: That's correct, sir.

Mr Mahoney: That is exactly what Bill 165 should be addressing, that kind of inequity and unfairness in the workplace. If you get dinged with this latest reclassification which will put you up to a rate of $3.06, how many of those 15 people do you estimate you'd have to put out of work or lay off, or for what period of time?

Mr Boisclair: That I would not be able to answer truthfully. Our manager, if he was able to be here, would probably be able to tell you more accurately. I assume that he will be back next week and he'd be more than happy to give you any information of that sort.

Mr Mahoney: Maybe you could ask him to give us a letter or something indicating the impact that he feels it may have because, very clearly, failure to address this kind of thing could in fact have the opposite effect of what I would think any government wants to do. That is, it could cost jobs. I think this kind of example, while it doesn't deal specifically with sections of the act or proposed amendments, really highlights the problem from the small business employer point of view with workers' comp. I think Mr Offer has a question as well.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you. I agree with my colleague. I believe that the presentation which you have made strikes a key aspect of some of the concerns all around WCB, and that's the issue of accountability.

You've now got an ongoing matter through the Association of Ontario Locksmiths where there are 20 to 40 companies involved. Can you give me any indication as to whether those 20 to 40 companies, in your opinion, have a similar work record that you have experienced over the last 15 years?

Mr Boisclair: I couldn't answer it truthfully, sir.

Mr Offer: Okay. Have you heard any reason as to why WCB would have taken the arbitrary decision of moving this from a locksmith to an equipment rental/repair operation?

Mr Boisclair: It was just a reclassification, to my knowledge, that they presented us.

Mr Mahoney: They needed more money.

Mr Offer: I think that might in fact be the case.

Mr Boisclair: That's how I interpreted it myself. When I got into this business in 1960, 1962, we only had seven locksmith companies in this city.

Mr Offer: And now?

Mr Boisclair: I would say 500.

Mr Offer: In your opinion, have the majority of those locksmith companies been reclassified?

Mr Boisclair: To my knowledge.

Mr Offer: Have all of them have been reclassified?

Mr Boisclair: To my knowledge, sir.

Mr Offer: Have they taken away the classification of locksmith?

Mr Boisclair: They do not classify us as locksmiths now. You see, they reclassified us under equipment rental, and we more or less accepted that aspect. We didn't like it, but now we're being reclassified and they tell us we're going up to a price that's unreal.

Mr Offer: As you have been reclassified from locksmith to rental/repair, are you of the opinion that there is no other group that might find itself in the locksmith classification at all?

Mr Boisclair: I'm not 100% sure, but I believe back in the 1970s they had put us into what they called the glaziers classification, and it was only when I was with Davies Lock and Door Services that this was brought to my attention, while working for them. I did not see any literature on it. The way we are interpreting it here is that they're trying to put us into a classification because the volume of companies is getting larger, going into a higher bracket for an income.

Interjection: Cash grab.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. Mrs Witmer.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much. I appreciate the very sincere and honest way in which you've made the presentation. What I'm still not sure about is, is there still a classification known as locksmith or has it been totally eliminated?

Mr Boisclair: You mean with WCB?

Mrs Witmer: Yes.

Mr Boisclair: That I couldn't answer 100%.

Mrs Witmer: I guess that's an important question to determine.

Mr Boisclair: I understand, from talking to our manager, that locksmiths were put under the category of equipment and rental/repair. They were more or less amalgamated into it. They didn't have a separate one for them; they just stuck them in there. This is what my interpretation of it was.

Mrs Witmer: Which would seem to indicate that the category of locksmith has been totally eliminated and, as a result of being put into another classification, as you indicate, you're paying three times what you paid in 1992.

Mr Boisclair: That's correct, and they say that our appeal, which we intend to appeal, cannot be heard until 1996. What was very upsetting was that even if we won our appeal -- this is according to the conversation I had with Mr McPake -- they would not even reimburse us from now until 1996. This was very, very upsetting because you have no choice but to pay what they say. That's the law; you must do it. We feel it's very unjustifiable that an increase of this amount can be presented to a small company with no justification of why.

I can understand if the majority of the locksmith companies had a really extreme casualty into it, but then somebody should tell us that this happened. Nobody has.

1510

Mrs Witmer: That's right. But as you've indicated, in 15 years you're not aware of any claim whatsoever in your company.

Mr Boisclair: In our company, according to our records, according to Mr McPake, we have not had a claim. I would say yes, we have had a small claim into your hospitals or somebody's had dirt taken out of his eye or a piece of steel out of his finger. That, yes. He may be unaware that this does get paid by the compensation board and I know it does. He may just think that OHIP pays that and it doesn't.

Mrs Witmer: That's right. It is absolutely ludicrous that it would be 1996, as far as a date for a hearing is concerned, which means that you could be paying for three years. Even if it is determined that you would win that appeal, you will get absolutely no refund. That's a lot of money for a small business such as the one that you're involved in. As you've indicated, in the interim, it will probably mean a loss of jobs for some employees.

Mr Boisclair: This is what I've been told. I don't see the figures. I don't see what the profits are. My job is to keep my men working. But the thing is that the gentleman who was contacted by the WCB -- this is what our instructions were. This is what was going to happen.

I know for the past four or five months Mr McPake has been talking to the association and to other fellow companies and the majority of them, to my knowledge, were in favour of appealing this because it was just not justifiable. A lot of companies are not as large as we are, so if you have a company out there with only two or three employees, it takes quite a bit out of them.

Mrs Witmer: I guess the information that you've given us today concerning the impact on the employer and subsequently the employees who may lose their jobs -- we heard from the woman who was frustrated in her attempts to contact the WCB -- points out I think very well that at the present time the WCB is not responding to the needs of the employers, the employees or the injured workers and the bill we have before us is not going to improve that particular situation.

Mr Boisclair: No. That's right.

Mrs Witmer: I thank you for your honest presentation today.

Mr Hope: Just to go over some stuff, you said you have a joint health and safety committee in the workplace?

Mr Boisclair: No, the only safety committee that's there is myself. It's more or less just overseeing that things are as in the safety act.

Mr Hope: So, currently you're still only paying $1.39 per $100.

Mr Boisclair: That's correct.

Mr Hope: Your projected target is $3.06.

Mr Boisclair: That's correct.

Mr Hope: When I was looking at Bill 165 to find a relationship between what you're talking about it also talks -- the presentation the minister made plus what is in the bill is dealing with the experience rating program dealing with the broader aspect of health and safety and vocational rehabilitation. You've never had to deal, according to your comments, with vocational rehabilitation for the simple fact that you've never had an accident.

Mr Boisclair: That's correct.

Mr Hope: But your health and safety measures which take place in the joint health and safety program that is in your workplace could be under consideration to reduce your target. Correct?

Mrs Witmer: They don't have any accidents.

Mr Hope: I'm not asking you that question.

Mr Boisclair: You're asking me if we presented a health and safety program, that would reduce it?

Mr Hope: If you present health and safety measures which are there to reduce accidents -- I mean, you're not sure if there were accidents or if there were claims other than the report -- to the best of your ability, you know there have been no accidents.

Mr Boisclair: I've been a service manager there now for over five years and there has not been a claim or an accident since I've been there.

Mr Hope: So when you were recategorized, you were recategorized with a number of other people who may have had accident rates?

Mr Boisclair: That's possible.

Mr Hope: But now, in Bill 165, when it deals with the experience rating program you're going to be reassessed, right?

Mr Boisclair: That's correct.

Mr Hope: So when you're reassessed, your $3.06 could take into consideration a number of things: your past record, whether you've had any accidents. The rating system also talks about health and safety measures that are taking place. So if you've got good health and safety measures which are preventing accidents, I mean, let's face it, the best thing to cut workers' compensation costs is to have healthier, safer workplaces. That way we could reduce the accidents.

Mr Boisclair: That's correct.

Mr Hope: But I was looking at some of the history aspect. There have been target rates set for years and none of them have ever been achieved. The government has frozen the rates for the employers for the simple fact that it was politically unsuitable to do so because of economic times. I understand what you're saying about if we go to the projected target of $3.06, but I'm also indicating to you that in Bill 165 there are opportunities, because you are a safer, healthier workplace, to get your rating system down and even improve your rating system, for instance, through a joint health and safety program, that instead of one person running the health and safety program you have a joint committee.

How many of the 20 employees are office and how many are actually physical labour, direct labour?

Mr Boisclair: We have seven trucks on the road, nine servicemen and two in the shop.

Mr Hope: And none, through auto accidents or anything, have ever claimed workers' compensation?

Mr Boisclair: No.

Mr Hope: So, by my understanding of what you've presented today, under the new system, Bill 165, there will be opportunity for you as a workplace to get reductions.

Mr Boisclair: That would be appreciated. I believe the reason Mr McPake was upset was that he did contact WCB, and their idea was that they wouldn't tell us whether or not it was because there was a large volume in it. They just said, "This is what you're going to be and that's it," cut and dried. If somebody came up and said, "Yes, there's been, in your industry, a lot of accidents and all that," yes, everybody's looped into one. We agree on that, but nobody can give you any stipulation of how many accidents in the locksmithing trade. They just won't give you an answer.

Mr Hope: But what they're basing it on is not in this current legislation, because the legislation hasn't been produced yet. What they're basing it on is current statistics and the change of classifications that have occurred. With, hopefully, the passage of the legislation, that will relieve the issue that you're talking about, where you've been accident-free for 15 years.

Mr Boisclair: It would be appreciated if that were so, if each individual company was taken into consideration for being accident-free and stuff like that and its premiums dropped accordingly. But years ago that used to be in effect until they started amalgamating them in. I can remember in the late 50s it was each individual company that was assessed according to its record, and now it just seems that they just keep putting you into a larger category and up go the premiums.

Mr Hope: But now it's been desegregated and moved out. From past practices brought in, and now bringing it back out and trying to focus more clearly on the classifications to make sure that those workplaces that are performing good health and safety measures, vocational rehabilitation and good return-to-work practices receive compliments for their efforts.

Mr Boisclair: I agree.

The Acting Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): Thank you, Mr Hope and thank you, Mr Boisclair.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Waters, I'd like a response to the one question: Has the WCB eliminated locksmiths as a category? I'd like the staff to obtain that answer for us. Nobody seems to know.

Mr Boisclair: We don't either.

The Acting Chair: Duly noted, and we will have the answer for you for tomorrow. Thank you again, sir, for coming before us. I know, as you do, this is a subject that is near and dear to the heart of every worker and every employer in the province. Hopefully, this time we will get it right.

Mr Boisclair: I thank you.

1520

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr Tom Kukovica: Good afternoon. My name is Tom Kukovica and I'm the Canadian director of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. With me are Herb MacDonald, the coordinator of benefits for the union's largest local union, Local 175 -- 40,000 members in Ontario; Pearl MacKay, who is the executive assistant to the president of UFCW Local 1000A, a 12,000-member local here in Toronto, and responsible for WCB health and safety education and research; and finally, John Tremble, our national office researcher. I shall begin by giving you a brief background on who we represent and then outline our comments and concerns about Bill 165. I then look forward to your questions.

The UFCW is North America's largest private sector union, representing 1.4 million workers, 170 of them in every Canadian province. We also represent over 70,000 members, men and women, across Ontario.

The UFCW is a particularly diverse union. We represent workers in both the service and manufacturing sectors, and in terms of the Canadian economy, our members work in more than 20 sectors. The majority of our membership works in retail food stores, but we also have significant membership in meat and poultry packing plants, hotels, restaurants and clubs, hospital and home care, department stores and beverage and brewing production.

I think it would be useful for the committee if I briefly provided some stats from the Workers' Compensation Board on work-related injuries and illness in industries where our members work. In retail food, sprains and strains and back injuries caused primarily by overexertion affect approximately 30% of individuals in their first year on the job. By occupation, over 30% of salespersons, followed by over 13% of bakers and meat cutters, make claims to the WCB.

In abattoirs, sprains and strains comprise over 45% of compensation claims while cuts, lacerations and punctures comprise over 30% of claims. Back injuries and fingers make up nearly 50% of the injuries, and 30% of the injuries occur due to overextension.

This is just a small sample of the injuries our members face every day across this province. In addition, repetitive-strain injuries are particularly common to people in many different industries, from office workers to cashiers and meat cutters. The UFCW strongly endorses the submission of the Ontario Federation of Labour, which you will be receiving during your hearings in London.

We are encouraged by the announcement of a royal commission to examine the long-term financial implications for the workers' compensation system, including universal disability insurance and entitlement. In this regard, we caution the government that in the event we move towards a universal disability system, it not be left paying for the unfunded liability.

In terms of Bill 165, the UFCW would like to commend Ontario's NDP government for bringing the bill forward. Although we have some reservations, we believe the bill is intended to provide earlier return to work for injured workers, protect the most financially vulnerable workers, while at the same time ensuring the future financial viability of the system.

There is no doubt in my mind that the key to improving our WCB system is that companies must work with employees and their unions to improve workplace safety and health. For the past several years, employers have been dragging their feet in safety training for their employees. Eight months remain before training must be completed in over 20,000 companies covered by the legislation. To date, only 4% of these companies have received certification.

The UFCW is aware that Bill 165 is the result of lengthy bipartite negotiations and as a result has some very positive aspects. These include the new "purpose" clause, which recognizes fair compensation, health care benefits, rehabilitation programs to facilitate workers' return to work as well as rehabilitation programs for workers' survivors. In addition, replacing "industrial disease" with "occupational disease" will more accurately reflect the changing workplaces across the province. We are also pleased by the new bipartite governing structure of the board of directors.

Certain aspects of Bill 165, however, are cause for concern. To begin with, subsection 8(7.1), which is intended to prevent a worker from receiving benefits for the same injury from more than one provincial workers' compensation system, is vaguely worded. It could be interpreted to include benefits a worker is entitled to through a private disability plan such as those available under residential mortgages. We are suggesting some wording changes there.

Subsection 51(2) requires a physician to provide prescribed information about a worker's condition. We believe the wording should be changed to restrict access to medical information so that doctors only provide information on restrictions a worker is faced with. Further, the wording of subsection (2) should be such that employers can only request information where they have a bona fide joint return-to-work program in place.

Subsection 53(10), which deals with vocational rehabilitation programs, should be rewritten so that a worker's physician is involved in the entire process of a worker's return to work, including the development of a vocational rehabilitation program. Furthermore, in subsection (13), which deals with the period during which a worker receives assistance in seeking employment, the employer who at this point has been unable to accommodate the injured worker should not be involved in the process.

In sections 56 and 61, the chair of the appeals tribunal should not be a non-voting member of the board of directors, for fear of conflict of interest.

In section 103, "experience and merit rating programs," the words should be changed so that the board is rating actual positive vocational rehabilitation practices, as opposed to using mere plans. The focus should be on results because often plans are not implemented. Furthermore, in clause 103.1(2)(c), the wording should be altered so that both workplace parties are involved in the return-to-work process. We strongly believe in bipartite.

A final area I wish to touch on is section 147, permanent partial disability supplements. Bill 165 proposes the addition of subjection (14), which states, "The board shall pay an additional $200 per month to a worker receiving an amount awarded for permanent partial disability." Unfortunately, this amendment does not cover a small group of workers who were over 65 years old when Bill 162 was passed. Subsection 147(4) excludes these workers who are now over 70 years old and who will be denied the Bill 165 pension increase because of their age. Clearly, this is an injustice and these workers should be covered.

1530

Overall, the amendments in Bill 165 are designed to improve return to work and vocational rehabilitation by fostering cooperation between employers, workers and their unions. Generally speaking, the UFCW is pleased with Bill 165 because, as I pointed out, it represents the outcome of lengthy negotiations between the province's employer and worker communities.

While your committee will undoubtedly hear a great deal about the board's financial situation, as we outline in detail in our brief, the current situation was brought about by an assessment holiday for employers during the mid to late 1980s as well as by the recessionary economic times in the early 1990s.

The UFCW believes the way to solve this dilemma is by expanding WCB coverage to many new sectors such as the service industry, which we well represent. Ontario has a high concentration of heavy manufacturing, construction and mining, and a relatively low percentage of service sector coverage, which results in a comparatively higher average assessment rate.

The UFCW represents many workers in the service sector who are not covered under workers' compensation. People working in banks and insurance companies, which, as you know, have a high percentage of women workers, are particularly vulnerable in the event of a workplace disability such as repetitive strain injury. They only have the protection that their employers see fit to give them. These workers also lack the protection of the act's re-employment provisions.

In addition, we believe the board should move gradually to a flat-rate assessment with an incentive system that takes account of work being done by the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, of which I'm a director. Assessment rate incentive must be tied to compliance with occupational health and safety legislation, accreditation, and workplace health and safety audit programs.

The UFCW believes that Ontario's workers' compensation system needs revamping in order to ensure its long-term viability. Bill 165 is a good first step. However, the system needs employers working together with employees and their unions to develop and implement improved health and safety training programs. But despite such programs, which will bring down accident rates, accidents will still occur. It should therefore be incumbent on employers to rehabilitate injured workers and get them back to work as quickly as possible.

On behalf of the UFCW, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address this committee and I will welcome any questions you may have.

Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I know that time is short on this and I have just a few questions that I'd like to ask.

On page 10 you speak about section 137 and the ability of the board to levy assessments against employers who fail to cooperate in rehabilitation efforts, and I understand what you're saying. On page 3 of your brief you refer to section 51, which talks about the consent of the worker. A physician can request from the worker medical information. Can I get your thoughts as to whether the withholding of the consent by the worker would, in your opinion, act as a form of non-cooperation or uncooperation very much like section 137 and should exact some penalty?

Mr Kukovica: If the worker doesn't cooperate, the penalty for the worker is they are cut off benefits.

Mr Offer: My question is, under section 51, if the worker does not consent, should that be, in your opinion, an example of non-cooperation?

Mr Kukovica: Yes.

Mr Offer: You've spoken in the first instance about unfunded liability and your reflections upon how it got to this particular stage. There have been others who have spoken to us that the unfunded liability, no matter how one wishes to characterize it, does have an effect on the financial viability of WCB to provide the type of benefits we all hope it can provide. Do you believe that issue, the financial aspect, should be part of the purpose clause in order to ensure that the system remains viable for both employers and workers?

Ms Pearl Mackay: Basically, no. When we look at it, we think that the current Bill 165 adequately addresses where it is placed within the current bill.

Mr Offer: My last question deals with the issue of coverage and that it should be extended to banking institutions and things of this nature. I understand your point on that. I wonder, Mr Chair, if we can ask ministry staff as to whether there is any work currently undertaken which would include some of the groups of employees that Mr Kukovica has alluded to.

The Vice-Chair: Is there somebody from the ministry who can respond to that?

Mr Offer: I'd like to get a response because I think the presentation brings forward an important point that would be very interesting to many, many people in the province. I'd like to get a response from the ministry as to whether that in fact is now under consideration.

Ms Murdock: If I may, that's been explicitly applied to the royal commission for it to look at it. But if you prefer, Mitch Toker from the ministry can answer it.

Mr Mitchell Toker: Mitchell Toker from the Ministry of Labour. The ministry's not doing any work on the issue of coverage. As Ms Murdock mentioned, that's an issue that's been referred to the royal commission.

Mr Offer: Is there any work being done through agencies other than the Ministry of Labour that you're aware of?

Mr Toker: Not to my knowledge.

Mrs Witmer: You mentioned in your presentation, on page 8, and of course we need to refer back to where you talked about the unfunded liability, "that during the past 10 years, employers have been on an assessment rate holiday." What exactly do you mean?

Mr Kukovica: If you go to page iv, in the introduction notes, you'll see there what I'm talking about. I think in 1984 WCB or the government of the day had adopted a funding strategy for 30 years where the unfunded liability would have been paid off, there wasn't going to be any. They were going to a projected rate. As you can see, because of the employers not being able to cope with a 33% increase, there's been a reduction over the years. As you can see, in 1985-86 there was a limit of 15%, in 1987 there was a limit of 14% put on, in 1988 through 1990 there was a limit of 10% and in 1991 there was a freeze put on the rates. That's what I call a holiday for the employers, because there was a rate established. That was the aim of the rate and we're still not there. So there's been a holiday for employers on that basis.

1540

Mrs Witmer: I find your interpretation of a holiday somewhat strange, because we heard from the employers' group that in the past 10 years the employers were very committed to eliminating the unfunded liability by the year 2014 and they accepted rate increases, as you well know, of 15% and 10%. Personally, I consider those rate increases to be quite substantial. Are you saying that's not enough, we should have hit them harder?

Mr Kukovica: What I'm saying to you is that the government of the day in 1984 --

Interjection: Who was that?

Mr Kukovica: Who was that government of the day in 1984? The board had concluded and put a 30-year program in with an assessment rate that they had established of $3.14, and that would have meant an increase of 33% at that time. The government of that day didn't decide that, so they said it was too much. They put in increases in 1985 and 1986 of 15% only. But remember that the rate they were looking for, the government of that day, was $3.14.

Ms MacKay: It should also be recognized that it was the board of directors at the Workers' Compensation Board that actually came up with these target figures. As you know, at that time the employer community was well represented, more than it is today.

Mrs Witmer: But I'm asking you, do you think rate hikes of 15% and 10% are not high? We heard from the gentleman who was here before you that the rate increase that they were going to be incurring, which was three times what they had before, was going to mean that employees would probably lose their jobs. We've been hearing this past year, when the WCB attempted to hike the rates, that small businesses are going to have to lay off employees. Are you not concerned? Do you not see the balance in the system? There's a need to maintain benefits for the injured workers, but there's also a need to maintain the level of the rate that's paid by the employer, and I don't hear you understanding that this balance needs to continue to be achieved.

Mr Kukovica: If there were programs of safer and healthier workplaces and programs in place, we wouldn't have as many injuries. That's an economic cost which you're incurring. The second thing I believe very strongly, and UFCW believes, is that there is no price and there is no money that will bring back an injured worker. You have to remember that.

Ms Murdock: It's unfortunate that we are dealing with the problems, but it doesn't matter what happened in the past now, because we still have the problem and we have to fix it.

Anyway, I wanted to go to the points you made about the medical restrictions. Your exact words were "restrictions only should be looked at," in terms of the medical report. I would draw your attention to page 4 of the bill, section 14, subsection 63(2). See about the middle of the left-hand side of the page: "Prescribing medical information for the purposes of subsection 51(2)" -- which is the medical report -- "about the ability of a worker" -- and this is what it would be prescribed to -- "to return to work and about any medical restrictions affecting the worker's ability to perform work on his or her return."

Does that not answer your concerns?

Mr Kukovica: We must have had another version, because that's not what we were reading at one point.

Ms Murdock: If you only looked at subsection 51(2), that's right, you would only see it as a medical report by a doctor, but if you're looking at the prescription required to the medical reports, then I think it answers your concerns. I'm just wondering if you agree.

Mr Kukovica: Yes, it does.

Ms MacKay: Yes, as long as it's a non-diagnostic medical restriction.

Ms Murdock: Yes, it's prescribing the kinds of things that are required to bring that worker and allow him or her to return to work.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. The Conservative Party, in trying to come to grips with the unfunded liability, has advanced two suggestions to the government. One is that they've suggested that we ought to put a three-day moratorium on any claims, so that if there is a compensable injury, work-related, the clock wouldn't start ticking until 72 hours later. The other suggestion is that we ought to take the benefits schedule of payments from 90% of net pay down to 80%. I'm just wondering what your thoughts would be on those two suggestions?

Ms MacKay: First off, in terms of the 72-hour freeze where a worker wouldn't be entitled, what you're going to encourage there is a higher rate of non-reporting, so that at the end of the day, when the worker really can't work any more, they're already well into a permanent disability situation, whereas it's often better for a worker to take time off earlier with an injury onset, so that the recovery time tends to be a lot quicker.

We have many members who continue to work out of fear of losing their job even though they are unionized, the fear that they won't be able to go back and be accommodated at their workplace, and as result continue to work in pain. Specifically, what I'm talking about is repetitive strain injuries where you initially see some symptoms at night. You'll put up with it and tolerate it but not seek full medical rehabilitation until you're well down the road to a permanent disability.

It's got to do with the worker's fear of actually being able to return to the workforce, not at the end of the day and not realizing that actually their injury is actually progressively getting worse. They feel it's getting worse, but don't know that they're actually setting up a permanent disability. With repetitive strain injuries it's very difficult, once you've gone down that road, to get injured workers back to work and accommodated, in particular in the type of industry where we represent members, predominantly in the food retail industry. It sets them up for a non-reporting, which actually is what occurs. Then you end up with a longer duration of time off in terms of WCB claims, because it's the whole rehabilitation process that kicks in etc, which lengthens the time of the claim.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you all for coming in.

ONTARIO NETWORK OF INJURED WORKERS GROUPS

Mr Karl Crevar: First of all, we want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to be able to address and share our concerns with you.

My name is Karl Crevar. I am the president of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups. To my right is Mr Don Comi, who is the treasurer of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups, and to my left is Mr Phil Biggin, the executive director of the UIW of Toronto and also the regional vice-president of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups. What I'm going to do today is just briefly outline to you some of our views and concerns that we have with the legislation.

But let me begin by saying to you that I have some difficulty with some of the questions that this panel is addressing to some individual injured workers who do not really fully comprehend the impact when we're talking about a reduction in benefits. We're talking to people who are telling you what experiences they've had with personal injuries. Many of them are in a situation where they would do almost anything to get any increase or even get any benefits, period. I think that is a wrong approach to take with individuals who make presentations to this committee.

I also want to express to you our deepest concern and disappointment at the decision by this committee to hold committee hearings in only four cities in the province. To truly have full understanding of the impact this legislation will have directly on injured workers, it would make sense to hear from those who will be directly affected. It's the injured workers who will be affected by any decisions that are being made.

We ask you, why are meetings not being held in more communities, such as Kenora, Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Timmins, and in areas where communities could afford to participate? To restrict and limit access to only the few who can afford to participate is a disgrace. I want to refer to when Mr Mahoney went around the province initially. You had limited communities that you were visiting. I know of one particular incident where the Thunder Bay organization of the network had appealed that your committee come up to Thunder Bay and be heard. I think it's vital that injured workers and the public at large throughout this province have a right to be heard.

1550

Mr Mahoney: We went, Karl.

Mr Crevar: Yes, you did. Another point I wanted to address is the time allotted for presentation and questions, a total of 20 minutes. Injured workers cannot tell you the history of their lives so that you will be able to understand how injured workers are affected by any negative decisions, they cannot tell you the history of that in 10 to 20 minutes for you to comprehend and understand what injured workers have gone through as a result of a workplace injury: the negative impacts -- psychological, economic and social -- that this has had from the time of an injury received in the workplace. An example is the loss of their self-esteem, which they've gone through, the loss of family, family breakups because they're fighting the system.

They cannot return to work and are being thrown on the scrap heap simply because they've had an injury. Many are forced into abject poverty, as parts of this legislation address and finally recognize that injured workers have lived in poverty for a number of years. Also, in some cases injured workers take their own lives. They commit suicide simply because they cannot cope with the constant attack for something that they could not help, a workplace injury that they sustained as a result of no fault of their own, yet they're being blamed for it.

We call upon this committee to show some common sense, to expand the hearings into other communities in this province, so that you can understand the real truth of what goes on.

The Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups is comprised of a network of injured work organizations in 34 communities in this province. We range from as far northwest as Red Lake, which is bordering Manitoba, across the northern section of Ontario to Timmins, Ottawa, down through into Cornwall and as far into the southwest as Niagara Falls. We are currently organizing injured workers who have concerns about the way they're being treated, who are finding out about our organization down in the Windsor-London area as well. The problem is not isolated. It's widespread and it must be addressed.

For many years injured workers have had to strive for justice and dignity that was lost simply because of workplace injury or disease. The most serious problems that are facing injured workers today are those of poverty and the right to return to work, to be able to go back to work. I find it ironic that some time ago there was X number of dollars, a large sum of money that was spent to find out what the most common problem is with injured workers, what it is that they wanted. All we want to do is to go back to work once we're well. That's what we want to do.

Prior to the introduction of Bill 162, over 40,000 workers on small WCB disability pensions who remain unemployed today require social assistance benefits in order to live. Since the introduction of Bill 162, of those workers considered eligible for the FEL, the future economic loss award, 78 per cent remain unemployed today. When we look at the provisions in the legislation to strengthen the re-employment, which we support, they do not go far enough. Quite frankly, when you look at the rate of the unemployed, of injured workers not returning to work, it's because employers are not re-employing them. They're not fulfilling their obligation to re-employ. The legislation must address that in a very progressive and strengthening manner. The employers must re-employ their injured workers.

That does a number of things, and it makes sense to me, as it should to anyone, that once you get a worker back to work it doesn't cost you as much in your assessments. There is a benefit. We are still useful people after we are injured. Statistics show that in terms of absenteeism and safety in the workplace, injured workers become more aware because they have something to prove: that we are still human beings and that we are still productive and that we can still be of benefit in the community.

Again, as I stated earlier, although we support the government's initiative of re-employment obligations, it does not go far enough. Workers with disabilities face major income reductions in the manner that the WCB uses, the deeming provisions under Bill 162, deeming workers on to jobs which are not available to them. The result is an unemployment rate of over 40%. That's much, much higher than the national average of able-bodied people in this province.

So when we talk about an area of concern for employers, the purpose is to bring injured workers back to work. They must have an opportunity and be brought back to work.

Another area where we have concern is in experience rating. We have written submissions to the Workers' Compensation Board, when submissions were being taken, to eliminate experience rating, because what we had seen is that experience rating was being used by the employers to challenge entitlement to benefits and to appeal claims. Also, it encouraged injured workers not to file a claim.

I admit I don't fully understand the total meaning of experience rating, but I can assure you that when we deal with injured workers who have had problems with employers as a result of the use of experience rating, there's something wrong. Someone is not using what experience rating is intended for.

Further, it is also ironic to see that the rebates or surcharges, the staggering amounts of last year alone, amounted to approximately $250 million to $300 million, and yet we still see high unemployment and an unacceptable high rate of claims for workplace injuries or diseases.

Yes, you may challenge those figures, and I've heard that the recession has had some impact. Yes it has, and as a result some of the claims have come down. But those figures do not indicate that in actuality accident rates have gone down, because when you have a 10% or 15%, whatever the figure you want to use, drop in unemployment and then you have a 5% reduction in workers claiming for compensation benefits, that does not mean that the workplace has improved to eliminate accidents.

We support the intent of the legislation on health and safety. Again, we emphasize it must be strengthened even further to ensure the effectiveness of any incentive for good health and safety practices.

There are some employers in the province of Ontario who are good employers, but generally speaking, when you look at the problems within the workers' compensation system, the number of claims for injuries, which is still too high, there's something wrong. Something just doesn't jibe. We need better legislation to ensure that.

We have some very serious concerns with subsection 51(2), which deals with the prescribed medical information. It is our view that an employer should not -- and I repeat, should not -- have access to the worker's medical information. We see this as a very dangerous precedent-setting which infringes on the privacy of patient and doctor relationship.

1600

The reason we have become very wary of that is that under the current act there are provisions where access may be in order to get medical information. But what we had seen is that when employers obtain that information, when we have some hot-shot consultants who go to employers and say, "We'll take the claims and get benefits back for you," that's been used against them. I refer again to the experience rating. That's been abusing, in our view, the system that was put in place to deal with it fairly.

If any information at all is to be provided -- and it should only be provided, in our view, to the Workers' Compensation Board -- by the worker's doctor for the purpose of establishing an approved program, it must contain no diagnostic or other medical information. It should only refer to the ability of the injured worker, the restrictions. It should refer primarily to non-diagnostic. It should have nothing to do with any pre-history of medical condition. That is a matter of privacy between the patient and the doctor.

We have other questions that were raised on the matter of consent by the worker. Will the worker be deemed uncooperative if no consent is given? The legislation, in our view, is very vague in this area. I think as Ms Murdock had pointed out yesterday, there are provisions already under the Workers' Compensation Act of how uncooperation is dealt with. We fear that, again, injured workers will be subjected, that if they do not consent to this information, they will be cut off their benefits. This has happened in the past, and under this proposed legislation, we see that as continuing to happen. We recommend that provision 51(2) be deleted.

Under 58(1), duties of the board of directors, we feel that this provision of the legislation will take away from the spirit and the intent of what was intended by Justice Meredith, that is, to provide full compensation for workplace injuries and disease. Someone has to be held accountable, and financial responsibility should not be used as a means of determining entitlement. The intent of the act, and I remind you workers gave up the right to sue, was to compensate for workplace injuries.

Other concerns include whether subsection 8(7.1) eliminates the value of private disability insurance. Quite frankly, we really don't know the legal implications of that. We would like to be able to get some feedback from you as to how that applies. I know there have been some discussions earlier today.

We feel that under subsections 53(10) and 53(13) an employer should not -- and I emphasize the word "not" -- be allowed to interfere in a worker's vocational rehabilitation. The purpose is to get an injured worker back, and the role is by the worker, the doctor and the Workers' Compensation Board to ensure that that happens, not the employer.

Under subsection 72.1(1), mediation services, the questions that we have -- it seemed to us it was not very clear in the legislation -- is once a decision is reached, can that decision be appealed? To whom and to where?

Subsection 22(1), subsection 76(3), liability: We feel very strongly that members of the board, employees of the board, who make improper or wrong decisions that have devastating effects on the lives of injured workers simply because of a bad judgement call should be held liable.

There have been too many cases, and what we see is many, many appeals in this system. I think Mr Mahoney has talked about it, I think Ms Witmer has talked about it and I think a lot of the other MPPS have talked about the number of claims that are in appeals, injured workers seeking help in an appeal system that's backlogged for over two years. Damn it, at the end of the two years when that decision is overturned and it's found that it should have been allowed, something has happened to those injured workers in that two-year span and someone should be held accountable for that.

Bill 165 provides a $200 monthly increase in pensions. This increase should be available to all injured workers regardless of age. This is not only recognizing, which this legislation has done, the increase of the pension, it is recognizing the justice and equity. It's an issue of justice and equity.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Crevar, just to remind you, you have about a minute left if you want to wrap up.

Mr Crevar: Sir, as I tried to point out to you at the beginning, it's very difficult to put into 20 minutes what the problems that we see really are, and we are, as injured workers, the ones who are being affected by any negative reforms. I hope you'll be patient. We're getting there.

We do not endorse or support the Friedland formula or anything that would reduce benefits. Injured workers had to fight, go cap in hand, to say that we need the protection for inflation. Full inflation protection of benefits must be maintained. I refer you to the first reading of Bill 81 on December 19, 1985, statements by the then Minister of Labour of the Liberal Party, the Honourable Mr Wrye. I just take some excerpts out of those statements:

"I do want to put on record, lest even today, as 1985 draws to a close, there be those who oppose the concept of indexation and do not recognize the propriety of this action. Let me first put on the record that Ontario is not unique and also that we are not the first."

Professor Weiler at the same hearings stated:

"If the government or citizenry of Ontario is not prepared to justify an explicit reduction in the real entitlement of workers' compensation pensions, to take such a step as a conscious policy they must not tacitly permit the same result to come about by allowing supposedly impersonal economic forces to take their course. This is why I deliberately speak of an adjustment to, rather than an increase in, pension benefits to take account of intervening inflation. We must keep clearly in mind that no real improvements to benefits are at issue here.

"We do no more than avoid an erosion in real income levels we earlier awarded workers' compensation pensions."

The minister spoke again on December 20, just before Bill 81 received unanimous support from all three parties. From the Honourable Mr Wrye -- and I want to note that he touched on an important word, "dignity," the dignity of injured workers --

The Vice-Chair: I'm going to have to interrupt now. Your 20 minutes is up and, as we've discussed earlier, that will be the limit for each presenter.

Mr Crevar: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman. I would like to continue to point out to you particularly the importance -- the issues that have been discussed on the Friedland formula and the effect that it's going to have on injured workers. I would like to point out by the wording from all three parties -- it's not just one -- from all three parties.

The Vice-Chair: Let me assure you that the committee members do have your written presentation, and I'm sure that they will be reading it over in its entirety at their leisure.

Mr Crevar: Well, sir, I've been watching the hearings, I've been sitting in on some, and some have extended well beyond the 20-minute time period as well.

The Vice-Chair: Not on this committee they haven't.

Mr Crevar: Sir, in order to get our point across --

The Vice-Chair: The most they've had is two or three minutes over and you've already been over three minutes. On behalf of the committee, Mr Crevar and Mr Comi and Mr Biggin, I'd like to thank you for your presentation today.

1610

NICANOR IGLESIA
FRANCO LOMBARDO

The Vice-Chair: I would like to call forward our next presenter, Nicanor Iglesia and friends. Good afternoon. Just to remind you, you'll have up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave a little time for questions and comments.

Mr Nicanor Iglesia: I'll try to do my best. I don't want to offend this committee, but I think this committee abused the rights of the injured workers of Ontario, because 10 minutes to explain the problem of the workers that says limitation of the time, limitation of the payments and limitation of everything. That's like fascist countries like I touched before coming to Canada. This is a democratic country, and I think in front of these parties, I have to have more time to discuss these points. But I'd like to be gentle with you and worthy people who accuse the injured workers on many points.

The Vice-Chair: Could each of you identify yourselves for the record and then proceed.

Mr Iglesia: Yes, sir. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Pardon for my languages, just because languages are not only English. I have four or five languages I'm speaking, but this is not for this.

My name is Nicanor Iglesia. I am an injured worker just like many others in this room, excluding the members, you and these others of the resource committee. However, I am an injured worker. I am trying to defend my rights, the rights of injured workers, the rights of my sons and the rights of my friends, briefly speaking, the rights of the injured workers of Ontario.

I am not a Martin Luther King. I'm not a coloured guy, but I see the rights. Who defends Martin Luther King? But I have been an injured worker for many years. I'm a second-class citizen, like in the same way accusing me in the workers' compensation office, which means that I'm an immigrant who came to this country and later I applied for Canadian citizenship. What that means is second-class. You are the first-class because you're born here, but your father or grandfather were immigrants like I am.

I came to this country in 1963. Since I came here I have worked like a slave -- when they picked up the coloured people in Africa and bring here to the United States, the same thing -- seven days a week and never less than eight hours, sometimes 12, sometimes 15 hours.

While I was working, everything was okay. I was younger at that time and I had good health and was well trained and experienced in metallurgy. I was speaking four languages. I have experience in Africa. I have experience in Germany. I have experience in Italy. I have experience in a French country, in a Spanish country. When I come here, oh, yes, everything was good. "You have good experience, nice work."

It is for this I come here to defend our rights, the rights of every injured worker in Ontario, and also for those who may be injured tomorrow or in the future. I brought a copy of this letter to the members of the resource committee with the hope that it will reach the hands of Bob Rae and his government, because I see Bob Rae before and he was a good friend before. After he became Premier, I never see. I saw him only one time when his brother was in Mount Sinai. I was having treatment down there. That time I see him, and after that he's depressed me.

When Bob Rae worked for the clinic of injured workers he supported a lot the injured workers. When he was opposition leader, he still supported injured workers. When injured workers demonstrated coming in front of Queen's Park, he came to the front door of this building and accused Liberals and accused the Conservatives, accused everybody of don't do nothing. The Conservatives don't do nothing, the Liberals doing less. There's only one class in this country.

However, for years he has been the Premier -- it is now four years -- with a majority government and he has not done anything for injured workers: his government and him, nothing. Only he has made a proposal now. When Bob Rae and his party are in election time, they only make promises. Those promises are nothing. When the Minister of Labour, Mr Mackenzie, and the Finance Minister, Floyd Laughren, were in the opposition, they were critical of the WCB, accusing the Liberals of doing nothing -- in this room, in this room before -- don't do nothing for working class.

I believe that it's the time to ask this government if they intend to do anything at all. Now that the NDP have a comfortable majority, with all the rights, the rich get richer, the poor get more poor, and injured workers suffer the pain, the illness caused by the accidents. Besides the pain, the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario are also taking our rights. The WCB take the rights of the injured workers away, like cheap insurance for the workers in Ontario, and after the WCB and the government accuse injured workers of abusing the system. I think the injured workers do not abuse the system. Who abuses the system?

I can tell you now, the government is missing the boat and parliamentarians are discriminating against injured workers and the working people of Ontario. They approve their pensions plan themselves; everybody approve your pensions. Everybody says, "Oh, good pensions for the parliamentarians." Neither don't cut the cost-of-living. The cost-of-living for parliamentarians is full cost-of-living. Only they are cutting the cost-of-living and the benefits of injured workers.

The injured workers make this country, are the people coming to this country to raise up this country, and now, why? The fraudulent realities there are in this I urge you to stop before it becomes law. The cost-of-living can't be taken away. I think is the right of the injured workers because the injured workers fighting a lot for many years for the cost-of-living. Now this government, or the proposal of this government, is trying to take away the cost-of-living. No way. That is wrong, wrong, because the poor get more poor.

We are shocked to see the reason that the PLMAC business caucus gave in in proposing cuts to the cost-of-living protection. They said: "People who are not working do not need as much income as those who are working" (PLMAC Business Caucus Proposals, October 20, 1993, Volume 1). Does the standing committee agree with this position? I have here a copy of that. When the caucus proposed that, they said the injured workers don't need the cost-of-living and don't need the same money as the working class. Do the injured workers buy the bread, buy the milk and everything cheaper than the working people? I think not.

1620

Full indexation was supported by all three parties in 1985 and should not be abandoned in 1994, because the principle is the same today as it was in 1985.

Injured workers only suffer the consequences of their accidents because of poor and inadequate safety conditions in the workplace. In the workplaces, like many others before, I never had an accident. In that company where I was working gave me permission to make safety around the place I was working, but I can't make safety around the place I am working. I have to report to the foreman, the foreman reports to the other office and after I left, maintenance repaired that. That's not safety for the workers.

We, the injured workers, have to suffer pain and social discrimination. We, the injured workers, are discriminated in this society when we are injured working for the progress of our companies and this country. Injured workers are working for the progress of this country, for the progress of the companies. When they suffered accidents, they are discriminated. Why?

After losing our health, injured workers are discriminated and robbed by the WCB and others. Don't the injured workers of Ontario deserve a stable social support system without being discriminated because of race, religion, age or sex? Injured workers are human beings too.

Now I will tell how Bill 165 discriminates against older injured workers. Mr Franco Lombardo and others like him have been discriminated by Bill 165 because they happen to have turned 65 years before July 1989. Not only Mr Franco Lombardo but many injured workers are over 65, and because they are over 65 are not allowed to have the $200 increase. That is really, really clear discrimination in that thing. This is the date when subsection 147(4) of the act came into effect.

I would like to quote from Mr Lombardo's letter to Bob Rae. He writes the letter to Mr Bob Rae. I point to Mr Lombardo because Mr Lombardo has never stopped fighting for his rights, like have to be injured workers. The problem here is many injured workers lost the spirit with the Parliament, with the WCB and with everybody.

"I want to bring your attention to the fact that the announced changes to the Workers' Compensation Act have left me out in the cold, even if they were not intended to.

"The $200 increase was supposed to help unemployed older injured workers. Unfortunately, this group was defined by those who get the 147(4) supplement. I was in receipt of the forerunner of this supplement, the older worker supplement under the old subsection 45(7). When the Liberals brought in subsection 147(4) in 1989 those with the older worker supplement automatically received the new 147(4) supplement.

"My specific situation is that I turned 65 before 1989, so my older worker supplement did not have the chance to be called 147(4). Should I now be penalized for being `too old'? I thought that your intention was precisely to help older injured workers.

"I was injured in 1976 and my pension amounts to $83 a month." Do you believe that an old man like this one or the other one with $83 a month doesn't have the right to an increase of $200 because he's over 65 years old? This is really, really painful discrimination because he won't return to work. "Other injured workers who are younger and have higher pensions will now get an increase while I will not because of an absurd technicality.

"Premier Rae, I would ask you to intervene personally to correct this unforeseen and absurd wrinkle in the law. Please advise me as soon as possible if there will be a change." He's writing to Mr Bob and he's asking for help, but he can't help because honestly, honestly, he can't help.

The person in my riding, when he was in the government, didn't do anything and now he's in the opposition, he doesn't want to do anything for the injured people, for the working class in Ontario. I think those people have the shares in the companies and want the exploitation of the working class.

With that, I don't want to take more time. I believe you understand the letter and everything is here. I won't take up any more of your time because some of those -- not you but some of those -- probably are interested in that. There are some of those who say, "Oh, these are immigrants. Don't believe a word he's saying." Thanks.

I have the right to vote. My children are here. My children were raised here. My children have the right to vote. Probably when you are on pension or when you are older, you want to step on the heads of the injured workers, and maybe my son should step on your head. Not only my sons, but the sons of the injured workers.

Thank you. I'm sorry for my poor English.

Mr Franco Lombardo: My name is Franco Lombardo.

[Remarks in Italian.]

I don't care. I've got $770.80. I've got a document. I've got an old, sick heart. I've got an injured hand, and the compensation board gives me $83. I don't cry for money. I've got my son helping me, my wife, everything. I'm not here for money. You know, thank you very much. The compensation board gives to sick people. I work for 35 years in this country in construction. There are so many workers there. Why discriminate by age? You know, the Conservatives in 1914 gave this compensation board not to make more money, but to take out. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Iglesia, Mr Lombardo and your friend, I'd like to thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon.

Mr Iglesia: My English is poor and I'm sorry for that, but I think it's my right to explain to you and to defend the rights of the injured workers in Ontario. I accuse those who defend only the companies because in this country, honestly, after I'm working in many countries like I said before, this country is really poor, poor, poor. I didn't leave before the accident from this country because I think it's a future country, but it is coming and is coming. The government doesn't do anything. The MPs don't do anything. I think this country was a good country before, but now I don't know. It's missing.

The Vice-Chair: Let me assure you that you got your message across quite clearly. Thank you very much.

Mr Lombardo: Thank you very much.

Mr Iglesia: Do you have any questions?

The Vice-Chair: Our time's up right at the moment.

Mr Iglesia: Okay. Thank you.

1630

EMPLOYERS' COUNCIL ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenters are from the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation.

Mr Jim Yarrow: With me to day are Ms Elizabeth Mills, director of policy development of the Automobile Parts Manufacturers' Association; Mr Brian James, president of the Canadian Rubber Association, and Mr Les Liversidge, who I'll introduce properly in just a moment.

While we appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee, we wish, as have others today, to express our concern over the length of time being allotted to us. While we understand that there has been a huge demand, we believe the committee could have sat for a longer period of time to reasonably accommodate all speakers.

The Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation is a non-partisan coalition of employer associations, employers and experts in the workers' compensation field, representing the interests of over 100,000 employers. Our members represent all sectors of the economy and include large and small business. We'd ask you to refer to our membership list in your package.

Our mission statement succinctly captures the spirit of our appearance before this particular committee today: To foster and promote better treatment, rehabilitation and reinstatement of injured workers through the workers' compensation program; to carry out necessary research and to consult with other interested parties to make the program as effective as possible; and to ensure that the workers' compensation program is sustainable from an economic point of view over time.

On May 18, the government introduced Bill 165 to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

You've heard from the minister that Bill 165 addresses many of the serious problems facing the system, that it tackles the critical financial issues and that its very foundation is based on an agreement reached between business and labour following an extensive consultation.

We wish to advise you today that Bill 165 does none of these things. The reform plans of the government ignore the depth of the problems facing the WCB and put off to another government, on another day, the true task of reforming the system. At a time when leadership is needed, when courageous political action is essential, the government has chosen to tinker and fiddle, while the system faces insolvency and workers' benefits and Ontario businesses are put at certain risk.

At the ECWC, we thought it was important enough that we founded another committee; it's called the business action committee. The balance of our presentation here this afternoon will be led by Mr Les Liversidge, chairman of our BAC.

Mr Les Liversidge: Thank you very much, Jim. I would like to introduce you to the package that I have just arranged to have handed out to you. On the left-hand side is a copy of the remarks we'll be making today; immediately behind that is a sheet offering some data on the status of the Ontario workers' compensation system, followed by a sheet detailing the membership of the ECWC.

On the right-hand side there are several documents. Immediately at the top is a detailed overview, clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 165 prepared by the ECWC, followed by material we released yesterday at Queen's Park in a press conference. Immediately behind that is a document entitled Agenda for Workers' Compensation Reform, which is an outline of the policy position of the ECWC concerning Bill 165.

In view of the time limitations here we won't have to time to get into these documents in great depth, but I would encourage all members of the committee to please read them, to consider our point of view.

In this presentation I will be focusing on why the business community does not support Bill 165 and what responsible actions are immediately required on the part of the government to continue with acceptable and needed reform.

Yesterday the Minister of Labour explained to this committee that there is unanimous agreement that the system needs reform. He's absolutely right. There's no question about that at all. But he also suggested that the Bill 165 reforms have their genesis in the work done by the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee. He went on to inform the committee that last year the rate of unfunded liability increase slowed and "the situation has stabilized," and these changes are brought forward in, and I quote, "an atmosphere of progress and optimism."

We wish to advise this committee today that there is no such atmosphere of progress or optimism. In fact, if anything, the reform process has introduced a climate of apprehension and suspicion. The so-called labour-management accord, which the government places so much stock in, in reality simply no longer exists. The very foundation of the government's reform was built on a house of cards that has long since collapsed. Incredibly, the reform process has shown that a bipartite process, the cornerstone of the government's initiatives, will not work.

There's equally no rejoicing in the slowing of the growth of the unfunded liability. Does it make much difference if you crash the ship against the rocks at full speed or three-quarters throttle? The result is the same, one day soon we're all going to be scrambling for the lifeboats.

We also caution the government that there are new financial obstacles emerging, particularly in the area of the future economic loss awards, which alone could increase the unfunded liability by an additional $20 billion by the year 2014. You've heard the year 2014 previously in these presentations and I'm going to highlight why that date has such significance.

To put these changes to Bill 165 in some perspective, it is important to review part of the recent history of workers' compensation in Ontario.

There's no doubt that there's a crisis. There's an $11.7-billion unfunded liability growing at $2 million per day, but crisis in workers' comp is not new to Ontario. Ontario business realized that a crisis existed in the Ontario workers' compensation system a decade ago. In fact, at that time, just when the unfunded liability was beginning to emerge as an issue, business worked with the board and worked with the government to hammer out a long-term funding strategy to retire that unfunded liability to zero and business did that by accepting yearly increases on assessment rates of 15% per year over and beyond the rate of inflation followed by another three years of 10% increases.

In 1987, there was initially some progress reported. In fact, I'll give you a quote out of the board's annual report of that year where it said, "The unfunded liability is expected to peak, in constant dollar terms, in 1988-89 and decline gradually to zero within the next 25 years."

In the 1989 annual report, two years later, the board reported, "...if the 1989 accident performance is maintained over the long term, it could result in elimination of the unfunded liability seven years earlier -- by the year 2007."

Guess what? Business did its part; it kept accident rates down. Not only did it keep them constant at those 1988-89 levels, they declined even further. Lost-time accidents fell from 208,000 in 1988 to 125,000 in 1993, a decline of 40%, and the rate of injury declined by over 30% over that period of time. Yet costs continued to increase and the unfunded liability absolutely soared. Employer assessment rates increased by over 200% from 1980. Ontario, right now, has the second-highest assessment rate in Canada, the highest assessment per worker at maximum earnings and the second-lowest funding ratio.

The unfunded liability at $11.7 billion towers over all of the other unfunded liabilities in Canada. If you look at our agenda for reform, page 4, there's a rather startling picture there that shows the Ontario unfunded -- absolute huge proportions compared to any other jurisdiction in this country.

1640

Now, recent projects suggest the unfunded could hit as high as $50 billion by the year 2014, which is the date you remember when it was supposed to have been paid off to zero.

Yesterday, the minister suggested that a 55% funding ratio, to be achieved within the next 20 years, is satisfactory progress. It is not.

To reward years of increased employer investment through higher WCB assessments and years of sustained declines in the accident rates with an unfunded liability larger than the huge debt it faces today, represents a betrayal of the strong business efforts made in the last several years.

The Financial Executives Institute Canada conducted a study of WCBs of Canada last fall and announced this in relation to Ontario, "Benefit awards are significantly out of line with all other provinces and there is little evidence of any board initiatives to bring these costs down."

This spring, the Premier requested that his labour-management advisory committee, the PLMAC, senior representatives of labour and management, look into the mess at the WCB. At that time, we were very hopeful that meaningful reform was now under way and we worked diligently within the PLMAC process to develop sustainable solutions.

Last fall, after an extensive analysis, and you heard directly from some of the people involved this morning, the business representatives on the PLMAC advised the Premier, and I'll quote:

"Workers' compensation in Ontario is in crisis. The system is already technically bankrupt and owes workers $11 billion more than it has money to pay them.

"Without fundamental reform, there will not be enough money to pay injured workers unless the taxpayer of Ontario assumes the payments."

That's what we're talking about here. This is not simply a business agenda to reduce costs. This is an issue that deals with the sustainability and the viability of the Ontario WCB.

The PLMAC business caucus concluded at that time that the unfunded liability must be reduced to zero, that the target still was mandatory and, to accomplish that, introduced a series of recommendations which were introduced to you this morning by representatives of the PLMAC steering committee.

In March 1994, an agreement was reached between business and labour to tackle many of the problems. At the heart was the establishment of a financial responsibility framework and a change in how benefits will be indexed for inflation. This is the now infamous accord and, according to the government, is the genesis of these reforms.

This agreement, though, as you have heard, was very short-lived and by late March it was clear that this accord was dead on arrival and it no longer existed. It was quickly learned that the financial responsibility framework had no true support from labour or the government and that business leaders expressed their views directly to the Premier in a letter in April, which read in part -- and I'll just read a small quote from that:

"It became apparent that there is no basic agreement between business and labour that the system must be financially sound. During the discussions, labour stated that it does not support the concept that the system is in severe financial difficulty and must undergo significant fundamental changes...."

Other views were expressed directly to the Premier at that time. Our council wrote and said, "The demise of the PLMAC-WCB reform framework is hardly surprising, given the apparent disagreement between business, labour and the government on principles of reform."

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a member of the ECWC, said, "...the PLMAC-WCB reform framework cannot be viewed as a landmark deal between business and labour...."

The construction industry, an ECWC member as well, said this, "Mr Premier, it is clear that you do not have the authority to proceed with `reform' of the WCB on the basis of the failed agreement."

Yet in spite of the fact that at that point in time it was evidently clear that the accord no longer existed, and in spite of the growing opposition within the business community, rather than go back to the discussion table, the Premier announced his intentions to proceed with reform.

On April 14, in the House, he made this announcement: "A year ago I asked my labour-management advisory committee to find areas of consensus around WCB reform and they made substantial progress. Today my government is going to build on that momentum...." We don't know if he's talking about the momentum leading up to the deal or the momentum of the collapse after this deal fell apart.

But under those plans introduced, the unfunded liability will continue to grow. Best estimate right now is $13 billion by the year 2014.

There's been a bit of a spin put on this that there are going to be some savings. There are no real cash savings. Bill 165 does not bring any cash savings at all and, in fact, costs the system additional cash when it is broke and broken.

The reaction from the PLMAC business caucus was immediate and scathing. By this point, it's obvious that true consultation had broken down and they were compelled to issue a press release denouncing these reforms. I'm going to read two quotes that were released to the media by the senior officials on the PLMAC at that time.

"This is fiscally irresponsible and puts the future security of benefits for injured workers at grave risk," said David Kerr, president and CEO of Noranda.

Mr George Peapples, then president and general manager of General Motors Canada, said this about the substance of the reforms and the process which led up to them: "While the business community has worked very hard to develop proposals to ensure the sustainability of the system, the decision of the government to `cherry pick' from the agreement has heightened the scepticism that a bipartite process can yield responsible solutions to public policy issues."

Yesterday, before this committee, the minister suggested that compromise is the only way to serve the public interest. Well, I think what's been forgotten is that the accord was the compromise and that very compromise being sought was turned down by the government and, in so doing, the government soiled its very own process.

Rather than admit that it was going too fast, Bill 165 came before us and this bill, rather than addressing the severe financial problems facing the system, provides direct government control over the WCB policy development, rendering frankly the new board of directors completely powerless. It's rather ironic that the very bipartite process which the government is heralding as being the solution to the system is given no real powers.

Worker benefits are increased at a time when the system is broke, adding $1.5 billion to the unfunded liability. It forces the WCB to expand benefits, having no regard for the competitive implications for Ontario business. We support completely the earlier comments from Mr Gilbert concerning the purpose clause.

The bill also scuttles the experience rating system. The last opportunity remaining for business to reduce costs through positive performance-based initiatives, and I'll momentarily come back to experience rating -- I noticed that there was a question earlier on concerning that -- and I'll comment on some of the suggestions that are on the table now to amend the bill.

Bill 165 also increases WCB regulatory powers, adding more red tape for business.

Yesterday, the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation held a press conference here at Queen's Park and we brought with us a number of business people who are directly impacted by these reforms:

Mr Matt Huibers, safety training coordinator for TRW Canada, a firm employing 1,300 people in Ontario and one of the largest automotive parts manufacturers in Canada, said this, after illustrating how his firm reduced their accident rate by over 75%:

"The power of experience rating to reduce WCB costs cannot be overstated. Since it is a predictable performance-based program, interested in the results we achieve, we were able to secure a total corporation buy-in to our initiatives.

"Under Bill 165, which replaces performance-based experience rating with a program more interested in process than results, our improvements simply would not have materialized. We do not shy away from accountability. Our advice to the government is clear: Experience rating works. We are the proof. Do not try to fix something that is not broken. Our message is simple: leave experience rating alone."

Mr Mark Halberstadt, president of Faster Linen Service Ltd, a third-generation, family-owned business employing 100 people, who expressed that his comments are likely being representative of most self-employed people today, said this:

"Our firm became enrolled in experience rating in 1994 and, for the first time, I was hopeful that my performance will mean a real savings to me. Now, under Bill 165, I'll be forced to jump through hoops and will be embroiled in the last thing I or any other business person need today -- more red tape.

"I have been witness to a WCB system that has spiralled out of control for too long, and we must pick up the tab for this financial mess. As my WCB costs increase, I am forced to reduce my costs elsewhere. I am unable to raise my prices. This means fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for the people of Ontario.

1650

"My advice to the government is very simple: Leave politics at the door, become responsible, withdraw Bill 165 and accept the sound business advice provided last fall."

The ministry's suggested changes to experience rating simply are not satisfactory. They still eliminate the predictability of the program, undermine the performance-based incentives built in and ensure more red tape and unneeded and duplicative inspections.

It is clear that there is no support for the government's reform initiatives. This summer, the ECWC toured the province to get a feel of how the people of this province felt about the bill. We were in Ottawa, in Sudbury, in Kingston, in Hamilton, in Waterloo, in London, in Windsor and in Toronto on two occasions. The message was unanimous: There is no business support for Bill 165. We've collected over 700 signatures from people who attended these meetings, from business owners, from managers and from disabled workers who came out to our meetings, for a petition demanding that Bill 165 be withdrawn.

That is our advice to this committee. Bill 165 does not hold the answers, it must be withdrawn. We are calling for the government to return to the business recommendations of last fall, to do the right thing and to preserve the system for the future. Those are our comments.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Yarrow, Mr Liversidge, Ms Mills and Mr James, thank you for taking the time out this afternoon and giving us your presentation.

ANDY GEORGE

Mr Andy George: My name's Andy George, this is my wife Crystal and this is Maria Moschella from Durham region.

I'm an injured worker from Oshawa. General Motors in Oshawa was my former employer from 1975 to 1989 and, of course, I was a member of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, Local 222, for the same 14-year period.

Due to lower and upper back injuries in 1978 and 1986, I was no longer physically able to cope with the daily repetition that assembly work requires. General Motors discharged me in 1989 because I was not able to perform the job that was assigned to me.

Since my discharge, or for the past five years, I have worked as a security guard in the Durham region. This type of employment pays $7.25 an hour, or just under $15,000 a year. While an employee with General Motors, I made approximately $40,000 a year. That's a pay cut of $25,000. How many people here today could handle the financial loss of two thirds their income, not to mention the loss of a substantial benefit package?

This is why I am here today, to speak about my concerns with Bill 165. Workman's compensation does pay me a 10% disability pension which is just over $200 a month. What I earn as a security guard, plus my pension, makes it impossible to keep up. Replacing the cost of living with the Friedland formula gives me great cause for concern. This bill is said to save billions of dollars in the future and it will be at my expense. It can only drive me further and further into poverty. What is next for me, social assistance? The thought of having to apply for welfare scares me to death, because all I ever wanted to be was a productive member of society. Can driving injured workers to this be good government?

In my estimation, the employer is being let off too easily. They have a responsibility to fulfil, and that is why workman's compensation came to be in the first place.

Furthermore, that $200 does not apply to me, as it does not apply to the large majority of injured workers because, after receiving the 147(4) supplement for two years, I was cut off because WCB said I wasn't old enough. In the future, I wonder how many will be cut off this $200 and what excuses WCB will invent to do so. This frustrates me even more. It does not appear that the individuals responsible for putting this bill together have any insight or even care about the injured worker's situation. That probably is the most driving force that has brought me here to speak today. Why have injured workers not been given a chance to participate in the forming of this bill, people with firsthand knowledge of the injured worker's needs?

The labour people embraced the bill at first, and now oppose it. They oppose it now because they've been educated on how it will negatively affect the injured worker. If injured workers had been given the chance to have input from the beginning, I do not think labour would have ever endorsed this bill.

My personal situation, the loss of job, money and benefits have brought me here today because I need something positive to come from this bill. At the present time, nothing positive is forthcoming. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Mr Offer: Thank you, Mr George, for coming before the committee and sharing some of the real-life experience as to what you've gone through and how you view the proposed changes as set out in Bill 165.

I'm going to state this as more of a comment: I think it's important as we go through this particular piece of legislation and work towards the committee of the whole phase of this bill that we hear more from individuals, injured workers, who have been injured through no fault of their own and come before the committee and share some of their experience. I think so far, even though there has been some comment as to the time that the committee has sat, we are under certain time constraints and I think we all wanted to hear as many individuals, groups, businesses and employers' groups, in order to receive as full a piece of information, opinions, as possible.

I guess my question is that it's clear from your presentation that what you want is the removal of the part of Bill 165 that deals with the Friedland formula.

Mr George: That's my biggest concern.

Mr Offer: It's patently obvious. I'm wondering if you can share with us, as that is obvious, if you have any thoughts as to the particular financial status that the board finds itself in, in terms of the unfunded liability that is projected to continue to grow, and what, if any, suggestions you might have as to how one can deal with your particular situation while at the same time trying to grab the unfunded liability by the tail and hold it back, if not eliminate and reduce it.

Mr George: All I can suggest is what's been suggested previously, that all employers should be putting into the WCB system, and a lot of employers are not at this time, from my understanding -- a lot of employers aren't carrying their weight.

Mr Offer: Mr Chair, we've heard this from a number of individuals and I would hope that maybe ministry staff can provide information as to these particular statements. My understanding is that all employers do pay into the WCB.

Interruption.

Mr Offer: I'm not asking for an answer right now, but we have heard from individuals as to who is and who is not paying and I think it's important for the committee to receive that information as we deal with the piece of legislation. I think it's important to bring up these areas because we've heard from employers that they are paying in as per their rating and in fact some are receiving rate increases where there have been no accidents on the job even this afternoon. So thank you for that information, and I hope that in the very near future we can hear more on this particular area that Mr George has brought forward.

1700

Ms Murdock: A clarification, Mr Offer, just a clarification on the question that you were asking the ministry staff: Are you talking about the groups that are covered by workers' comp or are you talking about employers who are not paying their premium rates at the present time?

Mr Offer: I speak of neither. I really just rephrased the point that Mr George has made and I think that maybe Mr George would like to clarify the point that he's made.

Mr George: My understanding is that certain employers aren't paying in at all.

Ms Murdock: Okay, so it is coverage, then. Like, banks don't pay. You mean that kind of thing.

Mr George: Yes.

Ms Murdock: Okay.

Mr George: From what I hear.

Ms Murdock: That's fine, yes.

Mr Turnbull: We've heard a good deal of problems both from workers and some of the unions have pointed out too inadequacies in this proposed bill, and also we've heard unanimously from all of the employers that they're unhappy with this.

As you are probably aware, a royal commission has been called for this, although we haven't seen the composition of this. Yet would it not seem reasonable, given the number of problems that people are identifying with this particular bill and the fact that we've been told we will have a royal commission, that we should wait with legislative changes until the royal commission has reported?

Mr George: I don't understand a royal commission and what it does fully.

Mr Turnbull: A royal commission will --

Mr George: Investigate --

Mr Turnbull: -- presumably tour the province and investigate the problem from a very broad range of people.

Mr George: That sounds, probably, a good idea, for input.

Mr Turnbull: Yes. Just to pursue your comment that all employers should be brought into the scheme, I would point out to you that the present composition of WCB stems from a 1914 decision, really, to bring industrial workers under a scheme. In a way, it was self-insurance, that the employers would pay into a scheme and as a quid pro quo the worker would not be able to sue the employer.

Those employees who are not covered by WCB still have the right to sue their employer, and I would suggest that they're probably better off today or certainly in the future in the respect that they can go after their employers as long as they're in business, whereas the WCB is so desperately in debt.

My concern is for the future payments for those workers if the debt continues to spiral out of control and also the concern that we're frightening away investments and therefore jobs in this province, because employers are looking at the unfunded liability and saying, "Gee, I don't want to invest in Ontario because I'm buying into this system which may in the end bankrupt them." Could you comment on that?

Mr George: It's hard for me. I don't really understand this fully. I mean, I'm not a government person. I really have no comment to put forward.

Mr Turnbull: No, I understand.

Mr George: I can understand what you're saying. If I were an employer -- you're probably right, you know.

Mr Turnbull: Yes. As an MPP, I probably get more complaints about WCB than any other single issue and it's quite clear we've got to address it. I lay the blame at the door of all three political parties who over the years have done the wrong thing with the WCB and now we're in a crisis and I'm really concerned about (a) the employees' long-term chances of being paid out, and (b) the impact on jobs in this province. Thank you very much for coming here.

Mr George: Thank you.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much for appearing here today, Mr George. I could tell by your presentation that it's pretty obvious to anybody who listened that essentially what you're saying is this: You went to work one day; you were injured on the job; as a result of that you could no longer perform the duties that the job required; hence, you were relegated to a very, very small pension for life and you had to take a job that paid probably 50%, 60% less of what you're used to earning. So clearly the system isn't working for you.

Mr George: It's failed me, yes.

Mr Ferguson: Yes. Okay, thank you. I just want to correct one small part of your submission. In fact, the Ontario Federation of Labour has endorsed the recommendations of the bill as well as a number of trade unions. The United Food and Commercial Workers appeared just before you. I don't think the Canadian Auto Workers are supportive of the bill because of the indexing formula that has been proposed in the bill, and that's maybe where you're getting your information.

So you're suggesting to me then, and what you're suggesting to the committee -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but would it be fair to say that you're suggesting, "Look, the benefit level that is being paid out today for somebody who is injured and can no longer perform the type of work he or she was once doing is just woefully low"?

Mr George: Well, certainly in my case. I can only speak for my own case. In cases that I've heard, yes, there are a lot of people who are living in poverty because they are left behind, especially with people who go back to the -- the pension started maybe in the 1960s. They haven't progressed and they're way behind.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much.

Mr Hope: One of the questions I got, and this is where, I mean, we just heard from a presentation earlier, from George Peapples, talking about workers' comp and how dedicated he is to it and then I find you worked at GM and now I'm finding that you're out of a job in 1989 because of an injury. The person who spoke in this presentation said about how great they are. I want to know your opinion, as an employee of that factory who happened to be injured one day, the assessment and the vocational rehabilitation that was done to help you enter back into the workplace for an injury that you didn't provoke upon yourself, that was caused by a workplace condition.

Mr George: So you're saying, was I treated fairly?

Mr Hope: Yes.

Mr George: No, I was not. My first injury in 1978, my lower back injury, I was forced back to work on the same job and of course over time it got progressively worse till it's a chronic injury. The injury that I sustained in 1986 is an injury where -- after a while you start compensating for previous injuries. You use your upper back more to compensate for the loss of your lower back, and so I sustained the upper back injury. So it's just a chain reaction. I wasn't treated fairly at first and my employment just sort of tore my body apart, the jobs they offered me.

Mr Hope: I'm hearing a lot of concerns about workers' compensation but you would never have had to go to workers' comp if there was proper job placement for you in that workplace. You would have never needed workers' compensation because you would have been making your $40,000 a year; you would have been comfortable; the pension would be okay, suitable to the injury you had and the moneys you're receiving. I guess the issue is that you're working as a security guard making $7.25 an hour. If you were still making that $40,000, or whatever they're making now at GM, and receiving a small pension you would still be able to be suitably providing for your family; at the same time have a modification in work so that you can continue employment. I mean, giving up 14 years, did you say, of employment?

Mr George: Yes.

Mr Hope: I mean, back in 1989, you guys, what, 30 years and out. So you only got a few more years before retirement.

Mr George: I had a few more years, yes.

Mr Hope: I'm hearing a lot of allegations against workers' comp, I agree, but before you can get to workers' compensation it's called workplace safety, and if we improve the safety conditions and the practices that are in workplaces we won't have the problem dealing with workers' comp because you won't need it and you won't need to apply.

Mr George: For sure.

Mr Hope: You're a person who's caught in the system today. There are people who will be, future, caught in the system and what we have to do is prevent them from being caught.

Mr George: Yes, we do.

Mr Hope: It's the employer's obligation for healthier and safer workplaces and I think that's the important part we've got to try to get across through these hearings.

The Vice-Chair: Mr George, thank you for taking the time to bring us your presentation this afternoon.

1710

WHITBY INJURED WORKERS GROUP

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenters are the Whitby Injured Workers Group. Good afternoon.

Ms Crystal George: Good afternoon. My husband's already introduced us. This is my husband and this is our good friend and co-injured worker Maria Moschella.

My name is Crystal George. I am representing an informal group of injured workers from the Whitby area. I am going to discuss the impact of a work-related injury on the family as a whole and whether Bill 165 is going to change that impact.

My husband has already discussed the specifics of his individual case, and I would like to let you know how it has dramatically affected our lives. Before we got married in 1985 we agreed that our primary focus should be securing our future. We decided that five years of sacrifice was a small price to pay for that security. So instead of an expensive traditional wedding, we quietly got married on a Wednesday afternoon at city hall. A few months later we purchased a semidetached starter home in Oshawa. Our plan was to reduce our debt load as much as possible and, after settlement of the 1990 GM contract, start a family.

By 1990 my husband had sustained a second injury, was no longer employed by General Motors, and we were barely hanging on. In February 1995 we celebrate our 10th anniversary. We are further in debt now than when we bought our house. Bringing children into this mess would be totally irresponsible, and the proposed changes in Bill 165 only increase my sense of panic because I see no relief in sight.

As much as it hurts me to say this, we are lucky we don't have children. I have no idea how families with children cope. To be working towards a better life for your family and then all of a sudden, through no fault of your own, have it ripped out of your hands is incomprehensible. How do you explain to a child that Santa won't be coming this year because Mommy lost her job when she got hurt? Or tell your son that he won't be able to play hockey this winter because, after two years, WCB decided Daddy isn't old enough to receive the supplement? These are just the luxuries. What kind of guilt does a parent go through when supper consists of Kraft dinner five nights a week, the hydro has been shut off or, God forbid, you lose your home? I really don't think I'm made of strong enough stuff to survive that kind of pain on top of everything else.

As if the financial impact wasn't enough, the psychological changes the injured worker goes through are even more stressful on the family. If a marriage doesn't survive, I think that nine times out of 10 it would be because of the mental stress. When injured workers loses their physical and financial wellbeing, their sense of self as a whole is permanently damaged. Through personal experience and group discussions it is apparent that most injured workers withdraw from life. Because they are not the complete person that they were, they think they are nothing. It is easier to withdraw into a protective shell than it is to constantly explain why you are no longer physically able to do something, whether it be throw a baseball or work. Injured workers think that others view them as being intellectually injured as well. They don't want to socialize. They don't want to participate in life.

Because they are physically unable to work at full capacity, they think everyone feels their brains are not working at full capacity, so they don't have the confidence to share their thoughts and ideas.

This isn't in my presentation, but I think it's even more important to acknowledge the injured workers who have shown up here today, the ones who have come before us, because it takes so much for them to do that, and for the ones that have presented, English is their second language, and I just have so much admiration for those people because I understand what it costs them.

So not only are families faced with financial devastation, but they also have to try to function with the loss of an important contributing member of the day-to-day routine.

Bill 165 is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It may do a bit of good for some, but overall we are going to suffer even more.

Business tries to perpetuate this image of injured workers trying to cash in on the WCB lotto. They are not dealing with reality.

Injured workers are not benefiting from work-related injuries and our social programs are suffering because most employers do not want to be held accountable. In no way have we personally benefited from work-related injuries. The only person who has benefited from my husband's injuries is my brother, who borrowed his golf clubs and cross-country skis several years ago.

This great province and the businesses in this province have prospered at the expense of injured workers. We are not fakers and phonies. We are not faceless claim numbers. We are individuals and families with numerous responsibilities, and all we want is to be treated like human beings and be given the chance, once again, to be productive members of society like we were prior to these injuries.

There are a couple of areas of Bill 165 that I feel are heading in the right direction, but they need to be expanded upon, namely:

The board of directors: I feel it is important that business and labour be given equal representation. However, there should be a stipulation that, at all times, three injured workers must be members of this board of directors. For there to be a quorum there must be one injured worker in attendance. As my husband alluded to, no on can better discuss the impact of proposed changes than the injured worker.

Secondly, the additional $200 per month should be applied to the pension as opposed to the supplement. Only about 40,000 out of 150,000 unemployed, underemployed, pre-1990, permanently disabled injured workers in Ontario will receive this $200, about 27%. This is a start, but it isn't nearly enough. Also, as we've experienced, this supplement can be terminated.

I just have kind of a smart comment to make, that when these poor, poor employers are jumping through hoops, I sincerely hope none of them injure themselves, because they're going to have a whole new perspective on the ball game.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to express my views.

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate the sincerity of your letter and your presentation. When I did the outreach tour that we in the Liberal Party conducted, we heard from numerous injured workers who really gave us very similar stories of frustration, and it just really shows that this system doesn't work for anybody. It does not work for the injured worker. It does not work for the employers, who are facing massive increases in their premiums. We had a letter earlier today from a locksmith who's seen a 300% increase in his premiums, a small business, 15 employees.

Maybe you could comment because on the bottom of page 2, and maybe you don't mean this as harsh as it sounds, perhaps taken in its own context, you say that most employers do not want to be held accountable, and my experience is, that's not the case.

In my report we recommend very strongly not reducing benefits, that reducing benefits is more psychological than anything else to try to satisfy some hunger in the media and from certain people in business that this is how to fix the system.

My experience is that even reducing benefits from 90% down to 80% would probably generate very little money with regard to reducing the unfunded liability, and you're doing it on the backs of the people who need the help the most. So I just want you to be clear that our party is very much opposed and has not supported reduction of benefits.

1720

At the same time, though, it's my experience that the employers see that a reduction in accidents, an increase in return to work, better health and safety, all of those things coupled together should improve their bottom line because it will reduce time lost to injury, it will reduce all of the tension and the stress and the aggravation that occurs from dealing with an injury, both on the part of the worker and the company. I would reverse the statement and say to you that I believe most employers do want to be held accountable and want to fix this system, just like I believe most injured workers are legitimately injured and simply want to go back to work, and I think the rhetoric sort of on both sides just tends to throw gasoline on a flame. Somehow we've got to stop doing that.

Ms George: I think that the employers would certainly be held accountable if it didn't cost them anything.

Mr Mahoney: Not anything.

Ms George: Okay.

Mr Mahoney: It costs them a lot of money.

Ms George: Health and safety, that's something that should be done, even if there wasn't all of the cost and all of the premiums to WCB. Health and safety is something that should be done because we're human beings and we should look out for each other. A lot of them do not want to modify jobs, especially on an assembly-line type of job because it involves so much, and their bottom line is profit, and it galls me that so many large companies get these equity awards and that's not the reality. They're talking out of the sides of their mouths. This is the reality: fourteen years with General Motors, 14 years. This is the reality. When it was proposed to them to modify a job, that would create too much of a hardship.

Mr Mahoney: Do you know that the average cost of a claim in Ontario workers' compensation is $24,000? The average cost in Canada is $12,000. The low in one of the eastern provinces, and I apologize, I don't know which one it is, is $6,000. We are double the national average in cost in the largest, what people would call the mother, of all compensation systems, certainly in Canada. Do you see that maybe there should be an effort to reduce the cost of those claims, eliminate some of those claims, process them faster?

I've made a recommendation of two weeks of voluntary self-insurance, voluntary on the part of the worker and the company so that the claims can be dealt with during that two-week period, because 72% of injuries that are filed with workers' compensation are finished and back to work in two weeks. In fact, it's the 5% that drive a huge portion of the budget at workers' compensation, the bottom 5% that are the hardest to fix, may never be fixed, may never be solved. So it's the vast majority, probably over 80% -- this is the 20/80 rule. Twenty per cent of the claims drive 80% of the budget, so if you can concentrate on those 20% -- which your husband would fall into; hopefully not into the 5%. So how do we get at those costs of claims?

Ms George: How many of the 80% eventually fall into the 20% because they're pushed back to work before they're completely healed? I agree with you that something has to be done. I agree with Mr Turnbull's comment that it's not enticing employers to Ontario who are going to help with our economy and everything else, but I don't think the answer is striking at the injured workers. I think that a lot of the answers lie with the structure of WCB, how the claims are handled. For instance, one extremely big thing is the doctors. There is absolutely no reason that our own general practitioners, our orthopaedic surgeons, our own specialists, cannot make the necessary recommendations.

When we received my husband's WCB file, an adjudicator sent a memo to a medical adviser with his injuries and a description of the job. That medical adviser never interviewed my husband, never talked to him, never talked to him about the job that they were trying to make him do, and said, "He can do that job." Benefits are cut off, appeal process starts.

Mr Turnbull: Look, there's no doubt about it, we've got a problem in terms of who adjudicates these claims at the moment, but I would put it to you that --

Ms George: I can't hear you.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Turnbull, would you please move closer to the microphone?

Mr Turnbull: Sorry. One of the problems, if you have your own family doctor adjudicating it, there's many situations where the family doctor would feel obliged to say yes, they agreed with the claim, even if they didn't. It is good to have some separation, but I think it should be trained medical staff who are making these determinations, not somebody who's a penpusher.

Ms George: With all due respect, I do not think the doctors at the WCB are trained medical professionals. In all due respect, okay, I do not. I think all doctors have to qualify under the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and other stipulations. I know our own family doctor, she is due a lot more respect than that, because she is very fair. If she thought my husband was malingering in any way, he'd be told about it.

Ms Murdock: Thank you for coming. I admire you, because I know even though you think that it's just the injured workers who are nervous when they come before here, I meet some of them out in the hall afterwards, many of the presenters, because it's such a different format. So I know how nerve-racking this is.

I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. For instance, the $200 is on the pension; it's not on the supplement. Those who are getting supplements will be eligible for the $200, as well as others, but it's attached to the pension. So I just wanted it clear from your presentation.

A number of people -- I noticed that you were here throughout the afternoon, but even this morning when we were listening -- were making comments about the structure of the board. So your comments are not new. I think that the governance section of Bill 165, which will change how things are done, will probably address some of those, but we won't know. You make changes and you hope that they will work to the way you want them, but we'll find out as it's put in place.

Your comments about the health and safety committees I think are extremely important and need to be emphasized, because it's been proven time and time and time again -- as you've said and even alluded to in your husband's comments, but then you said directly -- health and safety reduces accidents. You reduce accidents. It saves money on the Workers' Compensation Board. It saves employers' accident rates.

But Mr Mahoney made a comment and I wrote it down as he said it. He said, "You have to reduce the cost of claims by getting people back to work." You can reduce the cost of claims by getting people back to work sooner. I know what your comment was that you sometimes get them back to work too soon and that they reinjure themselves and then you end up with a recurrence at the board and you go through that process. That's true for some, but there are many that the sooner you get them into some kind of health program -- and it doesn't have to be a doctor -- or treatment program and working on whatever the injury is -- and obviously there are different levels of injury. The sooner you get them back to work, then your employer is not paying the workers' compensation benefits. The worker is back to work and feeling self-fulfilled and proud of himself or herself, so that the costs to the Workers' Compensation Board then are decreased. You would agree with that --

Ms George: I would agree, yes.

Ms Murdock: -- recognizing that you don't want to do it too fast, too soon.

Ms George: No.

1730

Ms Murdock: I wondered, since you seem to have such a handle on the subject, what you think about implementing the whole concept of ergonomics in the workplace, ergonomics being the kind of chairs, accommodating the workplace and so on, and if you could expand on that.

Ms George: I think ergonomics definitely has a place within the workplace, but, again, you have to have the employer being willing to implement the suggestions.

Ms Murdock: So then what do you think about the requirements in Bill 165 to work together with the employer, the employee and the Workers' Compensation Board to do that?

Ms George: My experience has been that when you come to situations where you have the worker, the employer and WCB, WCB sides with the employer. So then you're into the appeal process again. If the injured worker was hopeful that these recommendations would be implemented but the company was refusing, I think the WCB, instead of forcing the company to implement those recommendations, would side with the employer and the injured worker would have to appeal to get those implemented. Okay? Sorry. It's difficult to say. I'm sorry.

Ms Murdock: No, that's okay.

The Vice-Chair: Ms George, thank you for taking the time and giving us your presentation.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, if Ms Murdock is going to start quoting me, I'm going to have to be more careful and rethink my position. I just want you to know that.

Ms Murdock: I wouldn't want to put you under any undue hardship. I wouldn't want you to think too much there.

Mr Mahoney: I told you, if you can read --

Mr Hope: We're still trying to figure out what your position is.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Hope, I'm going to be putting out a movie just for you.

The Vice-Chair: Order, please. Good afternoon.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Could I have a little order, please.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Maybe we should have a seventh-inning stretch right about now.

FEDERATION OF TEMPORARY HELP SERVICES

Mr Stephen Jones: Good evening, Mr Chairman, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Stephen Jones. I am the president of the Federation of Temporary Help Services, and my associates are Mr David Stark and Mr Don Braden, staff with our federation office.

Before I start my presentation, I would just like to say that I was very considerate of the time restraints for today, and you have all hopefully received copies of our presentation. In order to stay within the time frame and allow for a few moments for questioning, I will be skipping over some of the paragraphs in the first two or three pages that go to some history and background of our industry and our industry association, but I am confident that you'll take a few moments at some time after our presentation to review that very important information. Our presentation provides background information on the Federation of Temporary Help Services and the temporary help services industry. It also emphasizes that the financial imperatives of WCB reform are not adequately addressed in Bill 165.

The Federation of Temporary Help Services recommends that Bill 165 be withdrawn, at a minimum, and also at a minimum, the purpose clause should be redrafted to restore financial integrity to the WCB system; the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee's Friedland formula should be applied with no exceptions; and the NEER program should not be undermined.

Formed in 1968, the Federation of Temporary Help Services, which I'll refer to as FTHS or the federation, is the only trade association representing the temporary help services industry in Canada. Our membership is comprised of approximately 500 temporary help services offices across Canada, including 300 in Ontario. With an annual temporary help payroll estimated between $800 million and $1 billion, temporary help service companies are engaged in the business of supplying temporary help services to virtually every type of business and public institution.

The federation promotes awareness within its membership and the industry as a whole of all legislation and regulations affecting the temporary help services industry, and we address the employment issues both as they affect the employer and our temporary workers as employees.

The Economic Council of Canada reported that employment in our industry increased by almost 250% in the 1980s, to reach about 82,000 workers in 1989. The federation believes that our industry must be viewed as a major and significant Canadian employer.

It's also important to note the definition or distinction between temporary help and part-time work. Temporary work means the full-time performance of a task, although of a limited duration in time. The employee of the temporary help services company normally works full-time at a client's place of work, not at our own place of work, until the assignment has been completed. Recently, in a paper that was published at the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Reinventing Work, that consultant at that ministry described temporary workers as full-time workers who are in fact on temporary assignments.

It is also important to understand that the temporary help services firm is the employer of record of the temporary worker. This position meets all the usual common-law tests of the employer of record. The temporary help service firm makes all the payroll deductions of the temporary worker and issues a payroll cheque to the employee. But of particular importance to this particular issue is the fact that the temporary help service is the company that remits the employer's contributions for workers' compensation premiums, not the end-user client of the temporary help service.

The temporary help services industry, through the federation's programs, has actively participated in the development of legislation and standards that are in the workers' and the public's interests. For those of you who are following, I'm at the top of page 4. We are very proud of our constructive contributions to better labour law. We'd like you to consider some of these examples of the federation's recent activities.

We have participated in the reclassification of WCB classifications and the premiums rating system for temporary employees. We communicate regularly, and I mean very regularly, with the board on behalf of our members and our employees.

We participated in the process to reform labour relations through the Labour Relations Act in Ontario. We made a presentation to the Minister of Labour where we supported the ban on the use of temporary workers during a labour dispute. We recognize the importance of the strike in labour negotiations, and also we were looking to protect the safety of our temporary workers.

When WHMIS was introduced four years ago, we participated in the development of the legislation. Since then, we have worked with the WHMIS in order to develop a customized industry training video and training materials for our industry members.

We have been working with the Ministry of Labour and the Workplace Health and Safety Agency recently to ensure that the application of the new workplace safety legislation is extended to cover our temporary workers so our temporary workers have the same safe work environment as permanent employees.

When pay equity was introduced, we cooperated with the commission in developing an industry standard pay equity plan and an operational manual, and when employment equity was introduced, we began early in the process in consultations with the Minister of Citizenship. We believe the temporary help workforce should be free from all forms of systemic discrimination and should actively reflect the demographics of Ontario communities.

We have always taken a keen interest in the development of public policy. We are here again today with the hope that you will recognize us as a significant employer group, and also with the hope that we will have a positive influence over Bill 165.

Federation members are always concerned about the safety of our employees. Also, when a temporary employee is injured at the workplace, the temporary help service would like to ensure that its employee gets proper medical attention and adequate financial coverage until he or she can safely return to work. From a strictly business perspective, temporary employees are the key business assets of a temporary help service. We wish to protect and to ensure our assets.

The federation unequivocally supports the government's desire to champion the health and safety interests of Ontario workers. But unfortunately the federation cannot support Bill 165, because it does not take into account at all the financial imperatives of WCB reform.

1740

Unless the WCB's finances and unfunded liability are brought under control, in the future injured workers will not be adequately compensated and protected during convalescence. In order to narrow the increasing gap between its liabilities and assets, the WCB will be forced to raise premiums. In having to pay higher WCB premiums, employers in Ontario will not be able to compete with employers in other jurisdictions. A flight of capital, job losses and a diminished workforce are standard results of uncompetitiveness. Ultimately, this downward cycle will lead to the collapse of the entire WCB system.

And if I can be quite frank, if this were Confederation Life, the plug would have been pulled on WCB a long time ago, and certainly an initiative like Bill 165 would be the catalyst to the pulling of that plug. The only difference is, who bails out the government?

Mrs Witmer: The taxpayers.

Mr Jones: That's correct, the taxpayers.

The injured workers will lose out. Employers will lose out. Ontario taxpayers will lose out, for it is taxpayers of Ontario who will have to bear the costs of WCB's burgeoning debt.

Restoring financial integrity to the WCB should have been the government's primary objective in drafting Bill 165. The government should have stated financial integrity in the bill's purpose clause. The federation does not disagree with any of the provisions which are presently listed in Bill 165's purpose clause, they are all important, but they also should have been balanced with the interests of business and the public at large by making financial responsibility a priority. The government could have used the purpose clause agreed to by the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee. This government can still make that change.

Another measure to restore financial integrity to the WCB would have been the complete and total application of the Friedland formula with no exceptions. The indexing formula of 75% on all claims applied without exceptions would reduce the unfunded liability by $27.6 billion and produce security of benefits for injured workers. As the business steering committee of the PLMAC stated, the Friedland formula is justified because it is more consistent with other public and private pension schemes in Ontario; it reflects more closely the decline of after-tax incomes since 1988; and the savings are broadly spread among a large population, generating a large savings without significantly reducing the injured workers' benefits.

Subsection 148(1) of the bill includes the Friedland formula, but then it is greatly watered down in subsequent sections, as the indexing formula will not apply to about 45,000 workers. These people will continue to receive full indexation of benefits, and also older workers, their survivors and dependants will qualify for a $200 increase in their pensions. The intended effects of the Friedland formula were to significantly reduce the unfunded liability, but by increasing injured workers' pensions and by exempting 45,000 workers from the 75% formula, the unfunded liability will not be contained and in fact it will increase. Hence, the sustainability of the WCB will remain very much at risk.

Subsection 58(1) of the bill requires the WCB board of directors to "act in a financially responsible and accountable manner in exercising its powers and performing its duties." While this clause ostensibly suggests that the government is concerned about the financial integrity of the WCB, the reality is that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the board to act in a financially responsible way when so much of what it can and cannot do is shaped by other requirements of the bill. Bill 165 will increase workers' benefits, adding $1.5 billion to the unfunded liability at a time when the WCB has a negative cash flow. In other words, the bill contains one huge contradiction. You cannot require a board of directors to be financially responsible when it is limited to irresponsibility written right within the law.

I'm going to move from the financial aspects to the safety aspects for our workers and I'm going to address the issue of the NEER program, the new experimental experience rating system.

NEER has sensibly balanced the dual policy themes of collective liability and employer accountability. Since its inception, NEER has been successful both in reducing the frequency and severity of workplace injuries and enhancing the level of individual liability. This is particularly important to temporary help services companies. Federation members make a practice of conducting a customer safety inspection of their clients' workplaces. By inspecting customers' premises and working with them to implement a cooperative safety program, temporary help companies have helped to reduce the incidence and risk of accidents.

The NEER program has worked for temporary help services, as it has created a much greater awareness among temporary help workers and the clients of temporary help services of the need for safety programs. NEER assists in the development of health and safety programs by imposing financial penalties on employers who do not improve their workplace conditions. Anything that undermines NEER would also affect the incidence of accidents for people, and this is something that this federation cannot support.

The proposed amendments 103.1(1) and 103.1(2) in Bill 165 would permit the WCB board of directors to in effect curtail the impact of the experience rating. Under these amendments, refunds may be eliminated and surcharges increased at the behest of the board through an investigation. The federation supports the position taken by the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation, the ECWC, on this issue, which is opposed to any move to undermine the integrity of a proven workable safety system, the NEER program.

This submission has highlighted the federation's most pressing concerns with Bill 165, namely, the financial imperatives and the bill's impact on NEER. As a member of the ECWC, the federation fully concurs with the positions taken by the council.

I would like to conclude by summarizing our recommendations: The federation recommends that Bill 165 be withdrawn in its entirety; but at the very least, the purpose clause must be redrafted to recognize the financial imperatives of WCB reform; the Friedland formula should be applied with no exceptions; and the NEER program must not be undermined.

On behalf of the Federation of Temporary Help Services, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity for presenting to you today, and we will remain for questions.

Mr Mahoney: Jim Thomas, the former deputy, who was fortunate enough to be moved out of Labour when this was introduced and is now in another ministry, did make the presentation to the committee the other day, on the opening day, and on page 7 he said: "The purpose clause should answer the question, "Why do we have this legislation?'" That's the question the bureaucrats want to answer when they draft a purpose clause. "So in the case of the Workers' Compensation Act," he goes on to say, "the overriding purposes of the legislation are to provide fair compensation, health care benefits, rehabilitation services and facilitate return to work."

I couldn't agree more with your comments that if this was in the private sector, this would be Confederation Life. They would pull the plug on this system.

Why do we have this legislation? Why are we reforming workers' comp? It would seem to me the answer to that is, to save it for the benefit of injured workers to live up to the historic compromise of Justice Meredith in 1914 where the workers gave up the right to sue and the companies bought and paid for insurance to provide coverage for the workers. It seems to me the answer to the question of why do we have this legislation should be, because we want to save what is fundamentally a good, sound system that's in serious trouble.

Mr Jones: I do agree with your comments. When we go to the issue of the purpose clause, I think it's evident that over the last six years a purpose clause has become more common in new legislation, and certainly legislation in this day and age has more to do with cooperation between the workers and the employer and them developing programs that are established through guidelines and the purpose clause has become very valuable.

If we were writing a purpose clause in 1914 for WCB, I think that purpose clause that you read would be an adequate purpose clause, because really what we're talking about is insurance. But over the years, and particularly now more than ever, we've learned that it doesn't work financially. If we don't address the issue of financial responsibility in the purpose clause, there's nothing to say that they have a purpose to continue to exist. Maybe that's implicit, but experience has shown that it's not implicit, that we must put into that purpose clause that they have a purpose to exist, and in order to do that and to continue to exist, they must be financially responsible. It has to go to the board of directors, and it must be told in that purpose clause it must be financially responsible for the continuity of the WCB.

1750

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. Yesterday, the minister and deputy minister spoke to the fact that they were making some changes to the amendment that relates to the experience rating program. Have you had a chance to see the changed amendment?

Mr Jones: No, unfortunately. Maybe my cohort has.

Mr David Stark: Yes, I've taken a look at it, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't change the fact that the board of directors can still conduct a subjective investigation. In so doing, that undermines NEER, because employers who use NEER as an effective management tool will not be able to rely on the predictability that that program brings to bear. It remains to be seen whether even with this amendment we can support a subjective investigation. My sense is that we can't. The NEER has proven to be workable. Don't do anything to undermine it.

Mr Jones: One of the issues that seems to be common amongst our membership is that one of the reasons why the NEER program -- this is a somewhat cynical view -- is not being accepted in its present form is because it reduces revenues. But the reason it reduces revenues is because we have improved safety conditions for our workers and we have a reduced incidence of injury. We cannot support anything that may have an adverse effect on the safety of our workers.

Mrs Witmer: It's been one of the few programs business and the government have worked on that has proven really effective in decreasing the number of accidents in the workplace.

Ms Murdock: You're aware that there's an amendment put forward on NEER and that the wording in the amendment is taken directly from the PLMAC business section on NEER?

Mr Jones: I would have to review that. I couldn't comment without having the appropriate information.

Ms Murdock: It is. I'm on the record, so I can --

Mr Mahoney: Trust her. She's with the government. She's here to help you.

Ms Murdock: I'm on the record, so you'll know that it's true. But I wanted to --

Mr Jones: I would like to say first, though, that we do not necessarily support everything that was recommended by the PLMAC, but we are working in cooperation with the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation and whatever it, in cooperation with us, agrees to, that would be the position that we would take, not necessarily because it is consistent with the PLMAC.

Ms Murdock: Okay. I just wanted to follow up on Mr Mahoney's comments.

Mr Mahoney: Are you quoting me again?

Ms Murdock: Equality and equity here, Mr Chair.

The Vice-Chair: Yes, I'm watching the clock.

Ms Murdock: Mr Thomas, the former deputy, also said, just to follow through on Mr Mahoney, that:

"The purpose clause is not the place in the legislation where directives are given regarding how the services are to be provided. It is most appropriate that the directives on how to achieve the goals be placed in the substantive sections of the act. The amendments proposed in section 12 of the bill explicitly establish new obligations on the board of directors to act in a financially responsible and accountable manner."

I put to you that today, 1994, 80 years after the institution of the Workers' Compensation Act, I disagree with you substantially, just so you know, on the whole issue that the purpose clause that is presently in the amendment would apply more to 1914 than it applies to 1994 and say exactly the reverse, that it is the responsibility of people to be financially accountable, not the responsibility of a piece of legislation. What do you have to say to that?

Mr Jones: Well, I have to say that the situation with respect to the unfunded liability and the future of the WCB system is so grim that it is absolutely important, a number one priority, because we want the program in place, we want to ensure that all the things that are in the purpose clause continue, but we know that cannot happen without financial responsibility. And given the state it is in today, that financial responsibility must go to the top of the list of priorities so that we can ensure there is workers' compensation in the future. If we find that because it goes to the top of the list of priorities in the purpose clause in 20 years from now it doesn't exist, then your argument might be that it is no longer necessary to have in the purpose clause.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Jones, Mr Stark, Mr Braden, thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr Mahoney: Let the record show that Ms Murdock said it's more important for people to be financially responsible than it is for legislation -- legislation, aka government. What an incredible statement.

Ms Murdock: I would appreciate, Mr Chair, if the other members didn't paraphrase my comments.

Mr Mahoney: What an incredible statement.

Ms Murdock: Well, listen --

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 183

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

Mr Roger Quinn: My name is Roger Quinn, social services director with the Labourers' Local 183.

Mr Keith Cooper: My name is Keith Cooper. I'm the legal coordinator and public relations for Local 183.

Mr Michael O'Brien: My name is Michael O'Brien. I'm a representative of Local 183.

Mr Quinn: The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, has a long and involved history in this city and its surrounding areas. We provide considerable assistance and input to our members, the employers with whom we deal and various levels of government, not to mention the community itself.

At present Local 183 represents some 15,000 active and 2,000 retired members who are working or have worked in the construction trades. Our approach to many challenging situations has been one of proaction and not reaction. Representing construction workers has always been a daunting task due to a number of factors which simply aren't found in most other organized sectors. However, I will delve into those issues somewhat later in my presentation.

Local 183 has taken the interests of our members and the concerns of our contractors into careful consideration on every initiative we commence. It is why our members have access to a state-of-the-art dental clinic, a prepaid legal clinic and of course our fully modern training facility, all governed by joint labour-management boards. We recognize the need and the sensibility in administering programs via a bipartite board and we applaud the approach to WCB reform.

We at Local 183 also have attempted to smooth out some of the bumps which many people familiar with the WCB know all too well. To that end, my role is that of director of social services, which is geared towards helping our members adjust to injury and unemployment.

Recently, in February of this year, the soft-tissue rehabilitation clinic for injured construction workers opened in our building. The clinic is designed, organized and administered by a bipartite board. Again, it was planned with the challenges of the future in mind, with the problems of the past as a constant reminder of what does not work. Ideally, this clinic will reduce the amount of time an injured worker loses and hopefully expedite the worker's return to his company at the same position he left. This situation is a winner from any vantage point: the worker's, the employer's, and certainly the WCB's. This is what our industry in general and Local 183 in particular is doing to address the needs of workers' compensation in the 1990s.

Bill 165 is a major step forward in terms of necessary reforms, but it does not specifically address certain concerns relating to the construction industry.

In general, the construction industry has many unique traits that set it apart from other industries. For the most part the work schedule in the construction industry is seasonal and transient in nature. By transient we refer to the fact that our members often work for several different employers throughout the course of any given year. They are also faced with the ever-growing dilemma of small companies entering and exiting the industry. As such, there's little or no work performed between the months of December and March each year.

Of great concern to the construction industry in general and Local 183 in particular is the fact that there were no representatives from the construction industry present at the preliminary discussions of the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee.

1800

It should come as no surprise to the standing committee that we are greatly concerned about the ramifications of Bill 165, given the fact that there are no specific provisions to reflect the uniqueness of the construction industry.

There are two areas that we will be addressing that are of great concern and importance to our members, and those are retraining and re-employment. We will expand on our concerns and recommendations shortly, but first we would like to briefly describe the composition of our membership to allow for a better understanding of our position on the proposed amendments.

As previously mentioned, the Labourers' International Union Local 183 is comprised of 15,000 active and 2,000 retired members, the majority of whom are first-generation immigrants. A strong majority of our membership is also not proficient in either oral or written English. Additionally, a large proportion of our membership possess minimal education, which further impedes their chances of obtaining suitable employment outside of the construction industry. Complete this scenario with a shortage of marketable skills and you may begin to understand why our members and others in the industry are particularly shortchanged by the present and proposed system. It is fair to say that our membership, although not without exception, is comprised of a relatively unsophisticated body of individuals. This is not to say that they are apathetic or unconcerned about the issues that affect them, but we merely wish to explain how limited options are for members of our union who, through misfortune, are injured and unable to return to their usual type of work.

At this time, we wish to address the issues of reinstatement and retraining and several difficulties that the construction industry experiences in this regard. When our members are injured on the job site and if their injuries are extensive, quite often they are unable to return to their pre-accident employments. This presents a difficult task for the injured worker, the accident employer, the adjudication staff of the WCB and the worker's representative, if the worker is fortunate enough to be represented.

One of the greatest concerns we have for our membership at Local 183 is that when light duty or suitable modified work is offered to our injured workers, oftentimes the work is not sustainable. To qualify this, the recurring example would be of an injured worker returning to modified work, the adjudicator and/or case workers dealing with the worker's claim, closing the file and labelling the worker "returned to work," usually at no wage loss.

However, these injured workers are laid off shortly thereafter or at least well in advance of the remainder of the crew on site. Although there are occasions when this is understandable, there is none the less a great void in the return-to-work policy, given that there are no guarantees to the injured worker once a shortage of work and/or an employment situation, as it's so deemed, becomes the cause of the layoff.

At present, the WCB refuses to assist injured workers any further in finding suitable employment if they are laid off after the initial return to work. Therefore, we have injured workers being hired back after their injury for a few weeks or months and subsequently being laid off due to shortage of work, with no further provisions for them under the present Workers' Compensation Act.

What are our options? What can possibly be done to address these types of issues when no two situations are alike? We are the first to admit that these are difficult questions. However, we must be and are the first to take necessary steps to confront these issues which plague our injured workforce. Our strongest recommendation would be to emphasize the necessity of formulating a bipartite committee, comprised of members of the construction industry, to address the specific and unique needs of the industry. This is not an idea which merely warrants lip service or a non-committal undertaking; this is something which must be done to address an oversight which has existed for far too long in our sector. It is our understanding the Deputy Minister of Labour intends to meet with members of our industry to address these concerns. We encourage this and trust that such steps are taken sooner rather than later.

In the area of retraining and vocational rehabilitation, we applaud the proposal under Bill 165 which attempts to expedite the mediation process with regard to vocational rehabilitation appeals. Lengthy delays in adjudication often result in missed deadlines for retraining courses, injured workers being too late to enter college or vocational programs, benefits being suspended and ultimately, the loss of potential job opportunities.

However, we do have several concerns that are common to the needs of our members. As previously indicated, the vast majority of our membership is comprised of workers with a language barrier and limited marketable skills. Usually, the vocational rehabilitation programs offer our members minimal instruction in English as a second language, questionable job-search skills training and a supervised job search which is all too often the responsibility of an overworked WCB representative.

Upon completion of these tasks, if the injured worker is not successful in obtaining employment, their vocational rehabilitation file is normally closed and their benefits terminated.

Although we have several training and upgrading courses available through our local union, it is impossible for us to accommodate all of our injured workers who are unsuccessful in finding alternate employment. Given the impediments of language and education limitations, our members are often at a great disadvantage when it comes to finding work outside the construction industry. Quite simply, we would recommend that our members, like many others in the construction industry, should receive more extensive vocational rehabilitation services to assist them in returning to gainful employment. Injured workers who are unsuccessful in returning to work must find income somewhere.

If the Workers' Compensation Board does not follow through on retraining and rehabilitation, the workers will be forced to seek other sources of government assistance. It is not fiscally responsible to allow injured workers to become a burden on other social assistance programs when it is the WCB's responsibility to work closely with injured workers.

Another concern with regard to decisions made by case workers is that often a file is closed prematurely if the case worker deems that the injured worker will not be successful in approximating his pre-accident earnings. Our members are a prime target for this form of closure.

Once again, we must emphasize the need to address these issues and not merely to allow case workers to shirk their responsibilities in the interest of expediting file closures. Unions, like Labourers' Local 183, have a proactive approach to retraining and rehabilitating their workers. So too should the WCB acknowledge our needs, which are often exceptional.

It is our understanding that on two prior occasions, task forces were formed to address these specific difficulties with the vocational rehabilitation system at the Workers' Compensation Board. Unfortunately, as with many other aspects of the WCB, construction has no specific provisions to address its unique problems. We strongly encourage the standing committee to recommend changes to the vocational rehabilitation policy where the construction industry is concerned.

If a bipartite committee comprised of members of the construction industry was formed, any concerns with regard to retraining and rehabilitation could easily be addressed when necessary. In general, it is our submission that, given the fact that the Labourers' union represents the largest construction local in North America, our opinion represents a significant proportion of the construction industry. As such, we trust that the standing committee will accept our recommendations and give them most serious consideration, given the amount of hardship endured by our injured workers when they are not successfully rehabilitated, retrained and re-employed.

It is the intention to proceed with a bipartite governance of the workers' compensation system under the provisions of Bill 165. The Labourers' Local 183 is a strong advocate of this type of representation. It is logical to have those who are most directly affected by the workers' compensation in charge of its administration. This will ensure increased accountability and genuine commitment to the interest of all.

In keeping with this spirit, we trust that this standing committee will accept our recommendation that a bipartite committee specifically comprised of members of the construction industry be formed to address the needs of this injury-plagued industry.

On behalf of the members and administration of the Labourers' Local 183, thank you for our opportunity to present here today.

Mr Mahoney: First of all, thank you very much. I think your suggestion of a committee specifically dealing with construction is a good one. I've met with people at the Canadian Federation of Labour in Ottawa on a couple of occasions and we've talked about how we can best deal with WCB problems in construction and the uniqueness. I think that should be recognized. So I would support that and would be quite prepared to put an amendment to recommend that such a structure be established.

I have to ask you, though, a couple of questions. The first is, on page 2, you refer to, "We recognize the need and the sensibility of administering programs via a bipartite board and we applaud this approach to WCB reform." My question would be, how is what's proposed in Bill 165 different than the status quo?

1810

My second question would refer to your comments in a couple of -- page 8 is another one where you refer to, "It is not fiscally responsible to allow injured workers to become a burden on other social assistance programs...." Your role in the social services department of your local and other comments with regard to this, my second question would be, in your mind, is the Workers' Compensation Board a social service such as others, such as family benefits or unemployment insurance or whatever you might categorize into that, or is it an insurance program to replace income and return people to work? There's a very distinct difference.

So I'd ask you to comment on the two questions: How is this supposed bipartite reform different than the status quo that we have today, and is this social service or insurance?

Mr Quinn: I'll have to ask you for some clarification. When you refer to the bipartite as being similar to the status quo, bipartite in our recommendation, meaning the bipartite committee?

Mr Mahoney: On page 2 -- maybe I've interpreted this wrong, and if I have, I apologize -- you're saying, "We recognized the need and the sensibility in administering programs via a bipartite board and we applaud this approach to WCB reform." The implication I'm taking from that is that Bill 165 somehow reforms the governance structure of the board to make it bipartite. It's bipartite now.

Mr Quinn: Certainly, now I understand what you're referring to. What I mean by that is it was sort of a prelude to what we were to discuss later. In reference to the bipartite governance now of the Workers' Compensation Board, the new proposal for that, later when we alluded to the fact that we would highly recommend a bipartite board to deal specifically with construction issues, we were referring merely to the fact that we are strong advocates of this type of governance. In other words, as you'll also notice in our submissions today, we have a rehabilitation clinic which is run in conjunction with management and of course advocated by the Workers' Compensation Board and in fact partially funded. So it was that aspect of governance, a bipartite board in general.

Mr Mahoney: So you agree Bill 165 does not fundamentally change the structure of the governance. It adds two people, one recommended by labour and one by management. It's still bipartite.

Mr Quinn: Exactly, and in our opinion that's a system we sanction.

Mr Mahoney: The second question, social services or insurance?

Mr Quinn: That's a more difficult question, and the reason I say that is because you could look at it as insurance for workers who are temporarily injured. The fact of the matter is, some workers are fortunate enough to return to work, and in our industry in particular, if I may refer to it since it is our presentation, those who are fortunate enough to return to their pre-accident jobs are what we would deem to be the minority, in many cases. Those who are permanently injured or injured to the point where they are not able to perform their pre-accident earnings are somewhat reliant upon this system. So in that regard there I suppose it is a social burden.

However, the intention of what we were discussing today, if I understand you correctly, was what's the difference between one form of social assistance or another. It's our opinion that through the help of the Workers' Compensation Board and extensive vocational rehabilitation training, which of course we feel is definitely necessary for the people in our industry for the reasons that I've stated quite clearly, for the composition of our membership, it's necessary to have these people receive perhaps extensive vocational rehabilitation services, hopefully to arrive at an end. In other words, if they can't return to work in the construction industry, hopefully through their retraining they will be able to return to some form of gainful employment, whether it be elsewhere in the construction industry or outside the construction industry, ultimately off social assistance for good.

Mrs Witmer: Since I have two minutes I'll focus just on the one question. You mentioned, and certainly you stressed the fact, that the people who are injured working in the construction industry are indeed unique and there are some special problems, and that you ask for the bipartite committee to be set up that would comprise members of the construction industry. Who specifically would you see sitting on that type of bipartite construction committee? Who would be the key players who would need to be involved?

Mr Quinn: It sounds quite biased in saying it, but I would hope that the Labourers' Local 183 would be one of the members on it. In saying that, it's quite simply because we are the largest construction local in North America.

Looking at both sides of it, from a labour aspect, we would like people from various facets of the construction industry. There are several similar boards set up, as we've mentioned earlier and as you may be aware of. We would see people from the various trades, from the labourers, operators, carpenters, various trades; in other words, to get a good spectrum of people and a good cross-section of the construction industry, and of course on the management side, quite similarly, management from different facets of construction, so that in essence we have a broad spectrum of people to draw from. Our presentation today -- I'm sure that several other construction-oriented businesses in the industry have the same problems. Ours is quite amplified. The fact is that the Labourers' union is comprised of a very, very high amount of immigrant population and limited-skilled people. But I think in general we should get a good cross-section, because as I've focused here today, there are some very specific needs that are not addressed, and you can't pigeonhole them.

Ms Murdock: Thank you for coming. I am only too aware after the Ontario Labour Relations Act how different the construction industry is, and how you've been dealt with very separately. But I want to just get this straight: the board of directors at the Workers' Compensation Board, bipartite, not a separate board of directors for the construction industry?

Mr Quinn: In fact, yes, I would have to answer your question. It would be --

Ms Murdock: You're suggesting two boards of directors at the Workers' Compensation Board.

Mr Quinn: But you see, in taking it in our context, there are two separate roles. One is the governance of the entire system and one would be, if you will, perhaps a subcommittee.

Ms Murdock: Okay. Like an advisory committee.

Mr Quinn: Exactly.

Ms Murdock: Actually, I don't disagree, because you are so different.

One other area that I caught, you're not suggesting that a construction worker who is injured and returns to work and two months after, because of the transient nature of construction, employerwise and jobwise, is laid off, that that employee who has been returned to work, given the purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act, should then come under the Workers' Compensation Board for vocational rehabilitation, are you?

Mr Quinn: Okay, you've touched on a very excellent point there. It's a very grey area. As I've mentioned, you might recall, I've said there are some very understandable circumstances in that we have examples -- I'll get into a brief example with you then. There are some people whom we do return to work and shortly thereafter are laid off due to shortage of work.

Ms Murdock: Right, not due to the injury.

Mr Quinn: That's where it's unclear. I will qualify that further. Usually when a construction crew is laid off, they're laid off together or sometimes a few at a time, but when a worker is returned to work, let's say perhaps in September -- and these are valid examples because it is this time of year now -- oftentimes they're laid off three, four, five weeks later and the rest of the crew works until Christmas, until the usual shutdown period. So it is very obvious that sometimes employers are not that willing to take back injured workers for any sustainable amount of time.

There's no doubt in our minds, we'll be the first to admit it, that it is difficult to accommodate injured construction workers, depending on the extent of their disabilities. How much light duty is there every day on a construction site? There is a certain amount, but is there 10 hours a day and is there enough to carry him through an entire season?

Ms Murdock: Right. And an advisory committee would answer it.

Mr Quinn: In other words, I'm agreeing with you. But to mention to you, I was not in any way saying that if at the end of the season the worker's laid off he should be receiving assistance from the board while all his colleagues are forced to remain off work for the winter.

Ms Murdock: Just on Mr Mahoney's point, because he has asked a number of presenters about -- I wish he was here -- the governance of the board and the bipartism: I disagree with Mr Mahoney because I do believe that Bill 165 does fundamentally change the governance of the board, because it's only through practice that it is bipartite at present.

If you look at the existing legislation, it does not call for a bipartite board, and the changes in Bill 165 -- and hopefully the members will read Hansard on this -- the board will appoint the chair, the board will hire a CEO. There will be public members on the board, and that should change, hopefully, and we expect it will, based on experiences in other jurisdictions, how the board is operated and the policy discussions that they have.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: With administration being done by someone else.

Mr Quinn: May I briefly respond to that?

The Vice-Chair: Sure.

Mr Quinn: You'll notice that in his rather verbose question, I didn't respond to that part of it because I didn't feel it applied to what we were presenting nor did I find it to be true.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Quinn, Mr Cooper and Mr O'Brien, thank you for taking the time out to give us your presentation today.

This committee stands adjourned till 10 am tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1820.