Manitoba Committee Hansard — 6 June 1974 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 2, 30th Legislature, 1st Session)

30-1-ir2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE 8:00 p.m. , Thursday, June 6, 1974 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wally Johannson. 35 MR. CHAIRMAN: We now have a quorum and we can begin. The other day we exhausted the briefs on Bill 33, I believe. We'd better check. Is there anyone here who didn't give his name for the presentation of briefs on either Bill 33, The Power Engineers Act, or Bill 44,

an Act to amend The Workmen's Compensation Act? Does anyone else wish to present a brief other than those who have already given in their names to the Chairman? Fine. We'll proceed then. Mr. Evan McCormick, the Chamber of Commerce. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, I think the Clerk has ccpies of the .. MR. PAULLEY: If I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tallin, the Legislative Counsel, IS m the process of distributing a few amendments to Bill No. 44 dealing with Workmen's Compen sation, for the information of members of the Committee, that may or may not have some effect on the representations that are being made.

May I also, Mr. Chairman, in respect to Bill 33, indicate to the Committee that the staff is at present--when I say "the staff", the Legislative Counsel and the departmental officials in the Department of Labour are working at the present time on some suggested changes by way of amendment to Bill No. 33, which we will deal with after we've heard repre sentations to Bill 44. I give this, Mr. Chairman, as information so that members of the Committee are knowledgeable of what at least the Minister of Labour is suggesting at this particular time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Paulley.

Have the briefs and amendments been dis tributed? Fine. Will you begin, Mr. McCormick? MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Chamber we welcome this opportunity to comment on a number of sections of Bill 44 . The first one on which we wish to make some comment is

Section 15 -

Section 15 of the bill, which amends I believe

Section 25.1, which has to do with deaths. There's a significant change there in the new proposal, in the approach to determining a widow's pension. With the ceiling in earning proposed to be raised to $10,000 the maximum pension would now be $7, 500 a year, or �>625. 00 per month, not taxable. That same widow could also be entitled to a pension of about $80. 00 a month from the Canada Pension Plan.

The two together would be very close and in some places even more than the take home pay of the man before the accident, and while we are not opposing the amount that is set, we 8re emphasizing the suggestion the Chamber has been making consistently that, in determining the amount of pension to be paid, the Board should be required to take into con sideration benefits being provided from public funds through other agencies. Now we realize that there are private pension plans, company pension plans. There are insurance provisions.

We 're not suggesting those be taken into consideration, but just all the income that comes from tax sources should be taken into consideration in determining that pension, and that the total should not be more than 75 percent of what the man had been earning. If I were facetious I would suggest that this might be encouraging murder so long as it occurred on the employer's premises, but there is that area, that we don't think there should be a bonus to the widow for her husband having had an accident.

It's a tragic thing, I know, but we feel that those things should be taken into consideration in determining the pension. Then

Section 32, and I notice that it's the intention of the Minister to withdraw that

section which we thought was unfair. I presume I don't need to argue about it now. I 'm glad to see that the Minister has seen the light and we certainly support the withdrawal of that par ticular section.

Section 37, cost of increases in old compensation awards. We again assert what we've said several times, that the costs of these increases are unfairly charged to employers. They are the result of inflationary pressures and are social in nature, not industrial, and should be borne by society as a whole through the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This point has been recognized in several jurisdictions. Between 1967 and 1972 the Government of British Columbia provided about $10 million to cover at least half of the cost of increasing those things.

In Saskatchewan currently the government is providing six and a half million dollars of public funds out of a total of $16, 150, 000 required to increase the old awards, and in 1972 this government, the Government here in Manitoba, provided a million dollars of public funds for the same purpose. At that time the Minister said in the Legislature - you will recognize the quotation I am sure - "We recognize a point raised by industry on a number of occasions,

36 June 6, 1974 (MR. McCORMICK cont'd) . . that the whole cost of past pensions or past accidents should not be charged to industries operating today. Government in its consideration felt that it would be reasonably fair to accept at least part of costs of the provision in respect of past pensions to injured workmen, their widows and their children, to the degree of a million dollars. " And the reference is there. The estimated cost of new benefits, including retroactive awards, is believed to be about $10 million.

It is grossly unfair to lay the full cost on employers and we urge the Government to continue its practice of paying a share of the increased costs from public funds. If the Government refuses to share that cost, it should at least see that the costs of medical and hospital care in compensation cases are borne by the provincial universal scheme. Would you please delete the term "so-called". Those were deleted in review by my counsel and by accident they've carried into this from the first draft.

In effect they are denying workers the care for which they have paid through taxation, and insisting that their compensation treatment be paid for all over again by employers. If the government refuses to have the universal scheme absorb the costs, then perhaps the employee should get a rebate of the share of the taxes he's already paid for that coverage. That, Mr. Chairman, is our submission. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Any questions? Mr. Dillen. MRo DILLEN: Yes, I have a question of Mr. McCormick.

In the first part of your sub mission you make a note that - and I'll quote from it - "That same widow could also be entitled to a pension of about $80.00 per month from the Canada Pension Plan. " MR. McCORMICK: Yes. MR. DILLEN: Now in the

Section 37, you say, "We again assert that these costs are unfairly charged to employers. They are the result of inflationary pressures and are social in nature, not industrial, and should be borne by society as a whole through the Consolidated Revenue Fund. " On one portion of your submission you make the statement that the funds that are provided through the public purse should not be provided, and in the second statement you say that they should be provided. How do you justify? MR. McCORMICK: You 're confusing two things.

In the first case we 're suggesting that the ceiling on the pension should take into consideration the income from other government sources. Now when you get into this business of upgrading awards, the original introduction of Workmen's Compensation was to replace the necessity for an employee to sue his employer. This was originally the only way in which, if there was an accident, he could sue his employer. The employer had all sorts of resources and it took a long time to get an award, if he could get it.

And so Workmen's Compensation came in, that an independent board would set the compensation and that would be paid. But if the previous condition had stayed, if we'd kept the corollary as a court case, if a decision had been made by the court ten years ago, no one would think of going to a court today and saying, "Please open that decision because the cost of living has gone up. " What we're saying is that this adjudication by the Workmen's Compen sation Board is the equivalent of a court decision.

I'm not denying that the cost of living has gone up, that that pensioner needs assistance, but what I am suggesting is that you shouldn't go back and in effect reopen the old case and allocate new charges against that employer; you should realize that that cost is because of inflation and should be borne by society as a whole rather than being loaded on the employer. That's what we're saying in the second one. MR. DILLEN: Well, if I could just follow that up a bit.

It's always been my understanding that the premiums paid for Workmen's Compensation to the Compensation Board, to the com pensation fund by the employer, was really an amount of money that would have been paid to the employee, so it's really part of his earnings that is being contributed. If there was no compensation fund, the employer through collective bargaining could gain more. MR. McCORMICK: That's right.

We're not objecting to the determination of an award by the Board, but what we suggest is that once that determination is made it should stand.If inflation increases the need of that pensioner for more money, that's not the employer's re sponsibility, that's society's as a whole. MR. DILLEN: Surely the employer must accept some responsibility for the injury to begin with. MR. McCORMICK: That employer may be out of business today. MR. DILLEN: Well then ... MR. McCORMICK: Lots of employers that were doing business 20 years ago they're not around now, but you load it on today's employers.

June 6, 1974 37 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jenkins. MR. JENKINS: Through you, Mr. Chairman to Mr. McCormick. In your first

section of your brief here, where you state the same widow could be entitled to a pension of about $80.00 a month from the Canada Pension Plan, are yoll not forgetting - and I'll ask through you - that the employee has paid half that, so a·::tually ... MR. McCORMICK: Just a min-�te. This is a disability pension we 're talking about. MRo JENKINS: Well even so, the employee has paid half of it, so really all that had .Jeen paid by the emp�oyer would have been $40.00 a month. MR. McCORMICK: All right. Then take that into �onsideration. MR. JENKINS: Or not 80. MR.

McCORMICK: Well, what I am suggesting to �he Board is the Board �ook at what's coming. I'm not suggesting how they determine, bu: that they be required to take a look 'at the money that is coming from tax sources. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Patterson. MR. PATTERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCormick, in the Chamber's brief you indicate to me that you consider the Canada Pension Plan to be public funds. Is that right? MR. McCORMICK: It's administered publicly in the same way that the Workmen's Com pensation is. MR. PATTERSON: Yes but I just want to get your

interpretation. MR 0 McCORMICK: No, I wouldn't say they're public funds. Those are trust funds, would suggest. Administered publicly but trust funds. MRo PATTERSON: Yes. They're not public funds in the sense of public funds as we determine them . MR. McCORMICK: That's right. MR. PATTERSON: Then, in the same analysis, do you consider Workmen's Compen sation benefits to be public funds? MR. McCORMICK: No, they're trust funds administered by the Province; contributed by employers, held in trust by the Province, and administered by the Board in the name of the Province - and administered by them.

There are no public funds go into Workmen's Compen sation except for the contribution of a million dollars last year. A MEMBER: For which I got hell. MR. PATTERSON: Right. The criteria of compensation, though, Mr. McCormick, is not public funds. MR. McCORMICK: No. MR. PATTERSON: Right. I agree with you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DO ERN: Mr.

McCormick, I just wonder -perhaps you have indicated this already - but of the additional awards, talking now a figure of $10 million, could you indicate whether you think that the full cost should be borne by the Government, or just what percentage breakdown it is that you are requesting here? MR. McCORMICK: Well the ten million dollars covers other things. I think we feel that any increase of tax benefits should be out of public funds, not out of the Workmen's Compen sation. MR. DOERN: A hundred percent though. MR. McCORMICK: One hundred percent. We'd settle for less, Mr.

Doern, but I think we feel that the principle should be that. MR. DOE RN: Well, other governments seem to be supplying you know, as much as 50 percent; you 're arguing for 100 percent. MR. McCORMICK: Yes, we'd like to see it. I don't think we'd ever- -certainly at the immediate time we wouldn't. I wo.uld like to see at least recognition of the principle that it isn't all the employer's responsibility. MR.

DOERN: Well, would you go to the other side of the scale and say that the Govern ment in inflationary times etc. etc. , has the right to 100 percent of profits from corporations - to cover these and cover other costs? MR. McCORMICK: I think you 're talking about something completely different there. MR. DOERN: You think that's unrelated. MR. McCORMICK: I think so, yes.

38 MR. DO ERN: But you do argue that 100 percent of the cost should be borne. MR. McCORMICK: One hundred percent, yes, because ... MR. DO ERN: You think there is no obligation on the part of industry. June 6, 1974 MR. McCORMICK: I don't know how you can allocate it. Because if you go back to the principle of the court settlement, if there had been a court settlement ten years ago you couldn't go back to the court and say, "This victim of an accident needs help. Will you reopen the case and allocate some more money from the guilty party?" You can't do that.

If that victim needed help, then out of public funds we would give help, and if the victim of an accident who got a pension award from Workmen's Compensation some years ago needs help, that help should come from the public purse, to which employers contribute too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bilton. MR. BILTON: Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned this in past years, this matter that we're discussing now, that is to do with the contribution by the employee to the Workmen's Compensation Fund.

I see that too, probably giving them better service than they've had before and when you think of the universal setup, the Canada Pension Plan, the employer pays a portion and the employee pays a portion. Unemployment Insurance the employer pays a portion the employee pays a portion - and so on. It would seem to me, and there are more knowledge able people than myself on this particular subject, but it would seem to me that this is the only scheme of things -w hich is a wonder scheme of things - it's the only scheme of things where the employer has to carry the whole load.

I was in the position of an employer and when the increases came through there was no question, as far as I was concerned anyway; it was wonderful insurance to have. But the thing that amazes me is that matter to do with the hospitalization, that the Workmen's Compensation Board are picking up the tab for the hospita lization of the individual, and here again as has been outlined, that .. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bilton, have you got a question? MR. BILTON: Well, I'm coming to the question, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rules, you know, Mr. Bilton, provide for .. .

MR.BILTON: I know the rules but you didn't object to the other members of the Commit- tee giving an opinion and I wonder why you 're objecting to me. I'll be as brief as I can from here in. I don't wish to delay the Committee at all, but I think the submission that's being put before us tonight, I think the government might take the suggestions quite seriously and give some thought to the matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all I think that we should allow a certain amount of latitude in this very important matter of workmen's compensation. I don't want Mr.

Bilton or anyone to feel that they have been curtailed in posing their thoughts. I recognize Mr. Chairman, that you are in a position there, a rather precarious position from time to time, but I do suggest that if in a committee of this nature, because of the complicated matter that we are dealing with, that possibly members should have a little bit of latitude - and I'm not chastising you, Mr. Chairman. MR. McCORMICK: You're taking advantage of the principle you read and that seems . MR. PAULLEY: Right. Now then, Mr.

Chairman, I did indicate to you that I would like to raise a question, or ask a question or two of Mr. Evans, and this pertains directly to the submission of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. I note, Mr. Chairman, and through you to Mr. Evans. . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McCormick. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. McCormick, he's in the ... We've known eaqh other for 95 years-- (Interjection)--Pa rdon? Yes, Okay. I'm sure that you, Evan, will forgive me for referring to you as Mr. Evans rather than Mr. McCormick. MR. McCORMICK: Certainly, Mr. Russ. MR. PAULLEY: Okay, fine. Right. Now then, Mr.

Chairman, I note that in the sub mission of the Chamber of Commerce that reference is made that between 1967 and 1972 the Government of British Columbia provided about $10 million to cover the cost of 50 percent of the increases.

You then referred to the Province of Saskatchewan recently - as a matter of fact I believe within the last two or three months - agreed that they would provide from Con solidated Revenue -I presume that's where it's coming from - an amount of 6 1/2 million out of a total of $16.1 million, or roughly slightly more than a third of the additional cost for up grading pensions - and I guess I could say as an aside that they have a helluva lot more upgradin!

June 6, 1974 39 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) .. . to do in Saskatchewan than we did in Manitoba. (I'm not claiming credit for that of course. ) And then you refer to 1972, where we did provide in Manitoba out of public funds a million dollars; and if I recall correctly, that represents just about 25 per cent or less than 25 percent of the total over-all costs of the upgrading of the pensions in Manitoba a couple of years ago. You go on further, though, Mr. Chairman to Mr. McCormick, and you raise the question and it's a very valid point, I would suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, and members of the com mittee that is being raised to the Chamber of Commerce - that, and I quote their second last paragraph, "If the government refuses to share this cost" - that is insofar as retroactive awards which in this particular case in Manitoba will be about $10 million, the observation of the Chamber is that if the government refuses to share this cost, it should at least see that the costs of medical and hospital care in compensation cases are borne by the provincial universal scheme. Now my direct question, Mr. Chairman, to Mr.

McCormick: can he indi cate to the Committee for its consideration, whether in the Province of Saskatchewan or any other province there has been a recognition, because of some universality of health care schemes, that the employer has been relieved of having to bear the costs of hospital and medical care in respect of compensation cases? MR. McCORMICK: Not that I know. Now there are people following me who probably have much broader information about Workmen's Compensation than I have. You yourself probably know the answer. MR. PAULLEY: I do know the answer, but I want to know whether MR.

McCORMICK: So far as I know, none are doing it. MR. PAULLEY: The answer is that some are. MR. McCORMICK: Some are doing it. MR. PAULLEY: But I wanted that on the record because I understand that the hearings before us tonight are being placed on the tape and this is a matter, quite frankly, Mr. Chair man, that has been of concern as to whether or not the employer should be faced with the re sponsibility of absorbing the costs when there is a universal scheme, and that was the reason Mr. Chairman, for my question to Mr. McCormick.

If he doesn't know the precise - and he's been honest about it; he has indicated he doesn't know the precise answer - maybe somebody else in the audience does. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jenkins. MR. JENKINS: To follow along that line, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. McCormick has the Chamber done any preliminary surveys on what the charge, supposing this was to come about, you know, where the cost of hospital and medical care, how much .. . MR. McCORMICK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the figures are readily available from the Workmen's Compensation Board. They can tell you how much they're spending .. . MR.

JENKINS: But, I mean, your Chamber hasn't made that presentation .. . MR. McCORMICK: No. I could dig it out from the report of the Board but I can't tell you what it is now. MR. JENKINS: That's fine. MR. McCORMICK: It has been looked at, I know, but the figures don't mean anything to me at the minute. MR. JENKINS: Fine. MRo CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. H. L. Cavanagh, Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Could you wait until the briefs have been distributed please? MR. CAVANAGH: I think Mr. Reeves has copies. Is that right? MR. CHAIRMAN: They're being distributed now. MR.

CAVANAGH: I have a few extras if he runs out. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, by way of introduction I'm the recently appointed Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Manitoba Division, so maybe some of you haven't seen me around .I n our brief brief on the Bill 44 , amending The Workmen's Compensation Act, the Manitoba Branch of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has studied the proposals in Bill 44 and wishes to comment on a number of them. We do not dispute the obvious need to upgrade past compensation benefits, the value of which have become eroded as a result of inflation.

We are, however concerned with the fact that the Government does not intend to provide funds from the Consolidated Revenue of the

40 June 6, 1974 (MR. CAVANAGH cont'd) . .P rovince to take care of a portion of the cost involved, which we understand will amount to around $10 million for the significant changes proposed. At least two other provinces have recently made provision for similar upgrading of past benefits, and in both cases the governments in question have arranged for substantial sums to come from the public purse for this purpose. Saskatchewan will contribute $6, 650, 000 towards improvements in existing pensions and we understand that Alberta plans to contribute a substantial sum as well.

Obviously in these cases recognition has been given to the unfairness of having present day employers being made responsible for the total cost of upgrading past pensions. The re sponsibility, in part at least, is surely something that should be borne by society as a whole. We recall that in 1972 the Manitoba Government did recognize this principle and provided $1 million from the public purse for a similar purpose .

The Association strongly urges a re-examination of the position with regard to this issue and recommends that provision be made for a portion of the $10 million to come from the Consolidated Revenue of the Province. The proposed increases in compensation benefits will result in significant additional assessments on Manitoba employers, although the impact would be lessened as a result of input from the public purse as jJ.st mentioned.

Even with such input, the future levels of assessment on employers may well place Manitoba companies in an uncompetitive position vis-a -vis other provinces, where lower levels of compensation benefits apply. The Association recommends that this point be kept in mind in considering future increases and that the proposed Advisory Board should consider this matter in making recommendations.

The proposal to set up an Advisory Board, which will include representatives of employers and employees, the purpose of which will be to advise the Minister of Labour, is a good move and the Minister is to be commended for the proposal. It is our hope that it will serve a use - ful purpose and achieve future changes that will be fair, realistic and practical. The proposal to provide for additional assessments from employers no longer in business (under

Section 32 of the bill at the bottom of page 11) is considered by us to be both unfair and rather unworkable. We suggest that this proposal did not receive the careful consideration that it merits and we suggest that you withdraw it. MR 0 PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, may I at this particular time indicate that there is a proposal for the withdrawal of that particular section. MR 0 CAVANAGH: I respect your comments, Sir, I think that's all we would like to say. We are pleased with the . . . of the Honourable Mr. Paulley. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cavanagh. Any questions? Mr. Dillen. MR.

DILLEN: Well, you've made some reference to $10 million from Consolidated Revenue. Would you object to a higher form of taxation for manufacturing companies to cover the cost of that 10 million? MR. CAVANAGH: Well, yes. But ;just to go into that a little bit, when you go back in the earlier years there was a situation from which these claims derive. I think something must have happened at that point and a certain company which must have been in business, must have suffered in an industrial accident, let's say, and as a result of that something or other was or was not done.

Let's say that whatever was done wasn't sufficient. Be that as it may, the case was treated on its merits at the time, and the proceeds from the business, either profits or at least something in excess of the cost of this compensation, was treated by the government of the time and part of it was taken by the government in some form of taxes, unless we go back too many years for anybody to be involved. I think you can accept that. Well, now that we want to reverse the process and make an adjustment, I think it's only fair to suggest that some portion, as Mr.

McCormick said on behalf of the board and I'm saying on the part of the CMA, that we have to recognize the fact that there was a divvy-up between government and the businesses at that time, and if you 're going to set the record square at least you have to recognize that part.

I don't know whether that was a direct answer to your question but I'm trying to set the matter straight that certain things have happened, certain other things are now considered appropriate, and in order to make them fair and equit able we have to consider both sides; and part of the take in the old days went to the govern ment and now maybe the government has to give back part of their take as well as the manu facturer -i f he's still around.

June 6, 1974 41 MR. DILLEN: Now in the case where a company is no longer in business but because of their practices have contributed to an industrial disease, don't you think that other companies who are still carrying on that form of practice that is attributing to industrial disease, should not still continue to pay their share instead of the general revenue? MR.

CAVANAGH: Well their share is one thing but I don't know if certain things were going on, and say you had a company and I had a company, and in your company something was going on - say everybody was smoking and exposing themselves to lung cancer, for example to take a simple case and our company, we didn't allow anybody to smoke. I don't know whether we should be pulled in on that sort of a deal. I don't know why the other company should get involved. I think we have a problem if some company was, shall we say, less observant in safety practices if it was reasonable to expect those safety practices.

A lot of these things we talk about today, asbestos problems for example, nobody dreamed of these things ten years ago. The best companies in the world, the best governments, didn't have any suggestion in the minds of their best safety people that people should be observant of problems with as bestos fibres. Now are you going to say that the best governments and the best companies and all the rest of them should pay up for that? I think that's a strict case of "we've learned our lesson and now as a community we have to support the cost." MR. DILLEN: I have a few other questions.

Is the Canadian Manufacturers' Association as an association or a governing body of manufacturers throughout the province and throughout Canada, then doing any research into the effects of chemicals or combination of chemicals and dust on the human body ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dillen, you're transgressing on the rules. Questions have to be directed towards clarification of the brief. You're going way beyond that. The question's out of order. Mr. Patter son. MR. PATTERSON: Yes, through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Swann .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Mr. Cavanagh. MR. PATTERSON: Mr. Cavanagh. I was looking at the brief. MR.

PAULLEY: On behalf of Mr. Swann. MR. PATTERSON: Well, Mr. Cavanagh, would you agree that when an employer makes up a budget for the year and it's usually projecting a year ahead that moneys for compensation benefits are considered in that budget. MR. CA V ANAGH: Everything that he can foresee is considered. MR. PATTERSON: Would you agree that moneys made available for payment of compen sation benefits are part and parcel of the wage structure? MR. CAVANAGH: Well no, and I'll give you good reason.

In the company that I operate as a Manager, I'm charged with the refinery at Imperial Oil out here in East Kildonan, or East St. Paul, and for three years we didn't have any accidents,but we still incurred a sub stantial compensation charge. We didn't have anything to pay for. And so therefore, if you want to say that these are benefits to the employers, they're only benefits to the employers whose employees receive them . In that case at least, and there may be others and there may be a special case, and I don't want to, Mr.

Chairman, take yoti away from the substance of their discussion, but I think that's the answer I have to give to that. MR. PATTERSON: Would you consider compensation benefits to be deferred wages? MR. CAVANAGH: No, I think they're more in the matter of an insurance, that in the event you 're unfortunate enough to experience an industrial accident that you will be compen sated. If they were wages, or anything like that, they'd be taxable. They're not considered compensation in the eyes of the income tax, am I not right? MR.

PATTERSON: Well I understand, now I could be wrong, but I understand effective the first of this year the compensation benefits are going to be taxable. MR. CAVANAGH: I'm not aware of that. I'm not a tax expert. MR. PATTERSON: No that's what I s ay, I understand that. I know unemployment insur- ance benefits are and that's why I thought that compensation benefits were too. MR. CAVANAGH: I don't think so. No. MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Fine. Thank you. MR. CAVANAGH: All right, Sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: No further questions? Oh, Mr. Dill en. MR.

DILLEN: In your experience with the manufacturing industry, have you ever known of any industry to leave a province or move to another province because of an increase in the compensation benefits they are required to pay?

42 June 6, 1974 MR. CAVANAGH: I can't think of one offhand. I think that's a rather loose answer to your question because I haven't got a memory of sufficient depth to know all the statistics on that matter. MR. DILLEN: Well I'll break it down a little closer to home, then. Have any of the companies or subsidiaries that you are directly related to, directly involved in, have they ever moved from one province to the other because of an increase in the compensation bene fits? An increase in the assessment? MR.

CAVANAGH: Well, in families that I'm mostly connected with we're more capital intensive than labour intensive. Now the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is involved with many types of companies, and I might say in regard to an earlier remark you made that we're not a regulatory body. We 're merely an association that represents and brings forward infor mation on behalf of our members. Sometimes, I guess, like my friend from the union move ment, we have to make representations we all don't feel entirely sure about, but we do the best we can under the circumstances. And that's the way with us.

Now when you talk about an industry and the manufacturing sector, where maybe they are labour intensive rather than capital intensive, you may have quite a different situation. And labour costs and costs per taining to labour, which compensation is one, might loom much larger in their P & L situation their viability of operation, than it would in companies like I'm connected with. So I think I'm not an expert witness relative to whether or not anybody would have to move. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cavanagh. Mr. John Huta, Injured Workers Association. MR. CRUMB: Mr.

Huta, due to illness, will not be able to attend tonight. He is our President. My name is Dave Crumb and I'll . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: David Cromwell? MR. CRUMB: Crumb, CRUMB . I shall read the brief that Mr. Huta prepared. - -(Interjection)- - Would you like me to wait until they're all handed out? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. Please. Would you proceed, Mr. Crumb. MR. CRUMB: Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the Industrial Relations Committee and guests.

The Injured Workers Association of Manitoba thanks the government for intro ducing amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act, and also thanks those who support Bill 44. I want to begin with thanks. I want to thank these members of the Legislature that made a very extensive presentation to the Legislature in helping to bring about the changes to the Workmen's Compensation Act. I want to thank especially Mr. Sherman, who has made such a wonderful presentation on our behalf; also Mr. Patrick, who has also contributed some worthwhile recommendations.

Also, I want to thank the Ministers for allowing me and our Association the time to give it the consideration at this time that we wish to give it. In spite of the bill, the most critical aspects have not received their due.

These are: 1) The recourse to appeal when he is aggrieved with a decision of the W .C .B. 2) Obtaining medical evidence from physicians in making application and in furnishing, in connection therewith, such certificates and proofs as may be required, without charge to the workman. 3) The whole question of pre-existing or so -called underlying conditions, the board shall in addition to any disability compensation arising out of an accident and include a neurosis and a psychoneurosis. 4) Medical Review Panel. 5) The amount of compensation an injured worker should receive. 6) The question of ceiling on compensation. 7) The recognition of the Injured Workers Association of Manitoba, Inc., as a legitimate and responsible body of people representing men and women who have, in their view, a legitimate series of grievances to raise on the subject of Workmen's Compensation. 8) The costs of upgrading of pensions should not be the expense or burden to the employers.

I believe all you gentlemen were given briefs that we have presented to Mr. Paulley previously. I'm not going to read that. I hope everybody here does read it though. The provisions for appeal within the Act are inadequate and Bill 44 does very little to rectify the problems previously presented by the Injured Workers Association of Manitoba and the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Dissension of the Board occasionally arises out of the medical advice received from the medical officers of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

Often this advice is taken in evidence as expert opinion, whether or not it is supported by the attending physician, by facts, data, or is in agreement with general medical knowledge. The W .C .B. thus circumvents the

June 6, 1974 43 (MR. CRUMB cont'd) .. . intent and spirit of the _Act by being both prosecutor and judge. Ultimately, the medical opinion, such as it may be, ricochets back for review and ruling to the Board that perpetrated in the first instance. We suggest that such a juristic function should be independent of the Board and, further more, that it is the providence of the legal nrofession. A barrister would examine all the evidence, interrogate witnesses, etc. , and he would not be biased nor liable to protect the Board. Mr. Chairman, in reference to

Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act amended in 1972,

Chapter W 200, there are provisions in the Act stating that, and I quote:

Sec. 17 "Every physician attending or consulting upon any case of injury to a workman by accident in any industry within the scope of this Part, shall give all reasonable and neces sary information, advice, and assistance, to the injured workman and his dependants in making application for compensation, and in furnishing in connection therewith such certificates and proofs as maybe required, without charge to the workman". This, Mr. Chairman, is not carried out.

Most attending physicians and the Board refuse to give out such information, advice and assistance to the injured workman and his dependants in making application for compensation, and refuse to give such certificates and proofs as may be required. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, provision should be made that the injured worker, when applying for compensation, should have the access to his personal file and see on what grounds the Board has rejected his claim for compensation. In reference to Bill 44, there is no provision made to alleviate this situation.

Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that we should be entitled to have the access to our personal files. The whole question of pre-existing conditions or so-called underlying conditions, the neurosis and psychoneurosis, is very important in fact, the need of a further and deeper recog nition of this kind of condition. It is an area that has not been explored too well. It is an area that needs more thorough exploration because it involves the physical, emotional, psychological aspects of the injury. It has great impact and effects on the recovery of the injury itself.

It is an area that the Board is very well known to reject, many back problems, because the medical profession has not yet found or not yet medically established to treat the public to a great deal of success, and someone at the Board has come up with this little phrase, "pre-existing", which the Board is using quite extensively, to their advantage, in disqualifying back injuries. The fact remains that just because a doctor cannot find the cause of a problem, particu larly in the area of back injuries, does not mean that there is nothing wrong or that there is no injury.

Medicine, as a profession, does not have all the answers to all the ailments that people bring before them. Advances are being made in medicine, as in other fields, every day and some day they may have the answers and find the causes of the medical problems that the injured worker has come to them with, only to be told they could find nothing wrong. What really distresses me is the fact that a workman can produce a whole body of evidence and yet he cannot prove it - so he's like the other unfortunate gentleman in that his diagnosis "will be proved on the autopsy table".

I contend that mental, emotional and physical ailments are so closely connected that I'm sure that most doctors would find it difficult to be able to separate them, and these three factors have a relation to the injury. In reference to "pre -existing injuries" that the Workmen's Compensation Act be amended so that all claims become retroactive to the date of the original compensable injury and benefits are based upon potential earning capacity at the time of the original injury.

Also, provisions be included within the Act to cover neurosis and psychoneurosis as diagnosed, c:>.used by the anxiety of b6ing physically injured, unemployed and unable to support a family. This should also apply in situations where the mental disorder has been caused by job tensions, family problems, and the inability to obtain or maintain employment due to a physical disability. Such claims should be retroactive to the date of the original compensable injury and the compensation rate based upon the potential earning capacity at the time of the original injury.

In July, 1972, the government passed Bill 63 introducing this section. In present Bill 44 the government has repealed this

section and has made no other provisions in the Bill 44 to alleviate this serious problem. The appointees of a Medical Review Panel consist solely of medical practitioners, who usually are biased in using so-called expert opinion as the only valid evidence. The one exami nation conducted by these appointees cannot always ensure a proper evaluation. Failure to

44 June 6, 1974 (MR. CRUMB cont'd) . .c onsider other evidence can and does result in miscarriages of justice, and especially to those injured workers who suffer from remissions and recessions. It is on record that the Canadian Medical Association accused the chiropractors of quackery and that they are completely useless; the CMA went so far as to initiate a committee. Meanwhile injured workers are receiving chiropractic treatment with success when the medi cal profession has not helped or claim there is nothing else they can do. In many such instances physicians resort to the claim of neurosis.

The main point is that members of the Medical Association sit on Medical Review Panels where evidence of chiropractors may be introduced. Therefore, the Board obtain and assess all evidence, whether it be expert opinion or opinion of trained personnel such as technicians, chiropractors, therapists, etc. , as well as any reports ,records, notes, affidavits and even testimony from laymen, all such evidence to be given due consideration. Furthermore, old medical evidence as well as new medical evi dence shall be valid and shall be used in making a decision.

Approaching the doctor for new medical evidence sets friction between the doctor and the patient and the doctor-patient re lationship starts to deteriorate. The injured worker should be able to receive and present his own medical report to be submitted and this should be made available to the injured worker so that he can present this own doctor's report to the Medical Review Panel.

We wish to thank the government for making amendments to Bill 44 for upgrading of pensions and pension benefits paid to injured workers, paid to the wives and dependents of injured workers and paid to widows and surviving dependents of injured workers of indus trial accidents. It certainly is in the right direction, but the dispute remains that the pensions that the injured workers are receiving are inadequate to begin with and are beyond survival in this day and age.

Surely, in the papers it looks a great deal, but if you take into considera tion pensions that were awarded before this increase were, for example, $60.00 a month and 25% of $60. 00 is $15. 00 a month, then $75.00 a month pension is below minimum living wage and is certainly beyond survival. We have many, many injured workers who are receiving below $100. 00 a month pension. Do you consider this a fair living pension? Surely it is an improvement, but it sure does not go far enough. Let us be a little hit .more realistic about the whole situation. We realize Mr.

Paulley's feeling for the labour community and that he would like to make it a lot better if it were practical and reasonable to do so, but he is in the position to make all possible provisions to better this crucial situation and alleviate this situation for those who need it most. We appreciate the attitude Mr.

Paulley is taking that the Workmen's Compensation program is not a welfare program, so make the injured workers feel that they are not asking for hand-outs; they are only asking for something that they are entitled to through industrial accidents from Workmen's Compensation Accident Fund not from the welfare department, because it is an insult to the injured worker to be referred to the Welfare Department for assistance and place the burden on the ratepayers. Place the respon sibility where it really belongs.

The W .C oB. have in reserve in the neighborhood of $60 million dollars - why not use it - e1at is the purpose of the whole thing - that is why it was put there to begin with. Mr. Chairman, Labour Minister of Ontario, Mr. Fern Guindon has announced in the Globe and Mail, October 20, 1973, quote: ''Until today, the policy of the Workmen's Compen sation Board has been to reduce benefits to workers as soon as a physician considers they are capable of modified employment, or "light work". In the new policy, Mr.

Guindon says, quote: "Anyone who is judged to be capable of modified employment but has no job to go to will now receive up to six weeks of full compensation. " "However," he admits, "that six week period of full benefits to a worker considered capable of light work is not a very long period of adjustment for a man who faces the blows of reduced working capacity and unemploy ment. " "We recognize this fact, " he says, "and I intend to put forward an amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act to extend the six -week period perhaps to as much as 12 weeks.

" This Association feels that if an injured workers is judged to be capable of modified employment or "light work" and has no job to go to, because employers do not want to hire a physically disabled worker because they feel we are a burden to them, and who is considered so by the physician; therefore the injured worker is entitled to full compensation for at least 12 weeks, taking Mr. Guindon 's confirmed statement into �ccount. If Ontario can have it, why can •t Manitoba have it too. Mr. Paulley, let us be in step with other provinces, let us not be called "sleeping Manitoba".

The policy of judging injured workers as capable of light work raised many problems, and due to lack of education, it does not enable them to have light jobs; and therefore the

June 6, 1974 45 (MR. CRUMB cont'd) . . injured worker is left holding the bag in the middle of the street and no compensation. Therefore, provision should be made for those who .are lacking education. The Workmen's Compensation Board should be held responsible to rehabilitate these workers; to fit them into the labour field, and to make them feel that they are wanted and not left out, completely forgotten. I don't think, Mr. Chairman, the injured workers are that hard to get along with, as Mr. Paulley may think. The injured workers have been put in a terrible situation.

They have been discriminated by employers just because they sustained an indust rial injury through no fault of their own while they were carrying out the responsibilities of their position during the tour of their employment, and which did not call for disciplinary action. But disciplinary action was taken against them to the extent of them losing their job due to the physical disability which they suffered on the job. Many of the injured workers are not able to find a job and the employer, if he hires them, expects them to do the same kind of work as a healthy man, but this isn't possible.

Members of our Association, the Injured Workers Association of Manitoba feel that we have many legitimate grievances, and we believe that the Minister of Labour has a responsibil ity to sit down with us and listen to our grievances and try to help us work out our problems. But to this time, we were not too successful in dealing with our Minister of Labour, because his time was too valuable to sit and listen to us; he is always too busy in order to ignore us.

We have presented a few presentations to the Industrial Relations Committee, New Democratic Party Conventions, but it seems that we are bucking a brick wall, our presen tations are ignored. We, the members of the Injured Workers Association, feel very strongly that the Workmen's Compensation Board is in a great need of substantial overhaul. It is too far outmoded, outdated, and substantial revision should be done immediately to alleviate the crucial situation that exists in the present day and age.

We believe that Workmen's Compen sation Board and the Minister are c\oing a thorough and conscientious job, but there are many areas that are overlooked and need immediate attention and should be remedied immediately. We have approached the unions, associations and organizations with our brief, which we have presented to the Minister of Labour and all MLA 's. We have received some worthwhile responses, complimentary and favourable to the position that our Association has taken.

The persons signing those comments, signing those responses, represent a cross-section of our community and are highly successful and responsible citizens. Therefore, these signatures represent the responsibility and the integrity of the Association, proving that our Injured Workers Association of Manitoba is a responsible body of people representing men and women belonging to our Association, and that our grievances are legitimate which we raise on the subject of Workmen's Compensation. Therefore we ask the Minister for his attention on the whole subject.

I think that also was handed out - the partial list of responses we received. The Minister in Bill 44 has mentioned about appointing an Advisory Committee under the Workmen's Compensation Act to review pensions and compensation on ·a continuous basis. We, the members of the Injured Workers Association of Manitoba feel that our Association should have a representative on the committee, because we are the ones who are directly involved with the crucial situation which exist with the Workmen's Compensation Act. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister is introducing a bill for upgrading of pensions to the injured workers of industry, and this the Minister estimates at $10 million. Also, he states that the whole contribution will be placed upon the burden of the employers in industries, but the Government will not be involved. This we feel is wrong - the Government should share the responsibility, should share the contributions and the Government should be involved.

Upon conclusion of our presentation to the Committee, we feel that it is very important to injured workers, as well as to the whole labour force in the Province of Manitoba, to have the Minister of Labour examine all aspects of working conditions - the recourse to appeal, obtaining medical evidence from physicians in making application for compensation, the whole question of pre-existing or so-called underlying conditions; the Medical Review Panel, up grading and the amount of compensation an injured worker should receive; the question of ceiling on compensation; the recognition of the Injured Workers Association of Manitoba; and the representative from the Association to be appointed to the Advisory Committee be given due consideration.

Also that the Minister of Labour should equally represent the employer and employee - and to equally consider the injured workers who have been in the labour force, but now are physically disabled, as well as those who are presently in the labour force.

46 June 6, 1974 (MR. CRUMB cont'

d) It was announced in the Winnipeg Tribune on Wednesday, May 15, 1974 that the MLA's may be receiving about 50 percent increase to the range of 14, 000 from the present 9, 600 and an additional 2, 40 0 for expenses per year. We of this Ass ociation are in full agreement to the increase, but let us be a little more realistic about the whole situation.

The injured workers who have suffered an indust rial injury through no fault of their own are rec eiving a monthly pension, a large majo rity of claimants of which is under $100. 00 a month - and if you figure this is adequate, then you should try this out only for one month and see if you could survive . Our Minister of Labour has introduced an increase for the injured workers from 8 to 25 per cent, which on paper looks great; which is comp letely inadequate and unrealistic . This method of payments cer tainly requires some adept budgeting on the parts of the injured workers.

If the Minister of Labour is going to make a genuine attempt to correct the sit uation, he will have to be bold enough to accept the crit icism. The injured workers must be paid at a rate which will not force them to accept a lower standard of living and become the burden of the ratepa yers. In addition, the injured worker must be able to exist in his own rights and should not be dependent on welfare in order to be able to exist and make ends meet in this day and age of high cost of living.

For example, gasoline went up ten to eleven cents a gallon, groceries are steadily rising; natural gas, hydro, water, has risen, but our Minister of Labour has not taken this into account. He feels 8 to 25 percent is adequate. It would be adequate if the pen sions would have been kept up in the first instance, but they were terribly neglected. There cer tainly should be some consider ation given to the injured workers of industry. The public must keep in mind the relative insig nificance of the amount paid to the injured workers of industry.

Perhaps it is time to instit ute some form of unemployment insurance for injured workers and the benefit time, bearing a relationship to the period they were success ful in being in the labour field without them suffering financia l loss . I have no conclusions to make other than thank you for listening. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crumb. Are there any questi ons ? Mr. Patt erson. MR. PATT ERSON: Mr . Crumb, how many persons does your As sociation represent at the present time ? MR. CRUMB: I would say between 20 0 and 300. MR.

PATT ERSON: Now on the first page of your brie f, Item No. 1, you mention re course to appeal. Could you explain ju st what you mean by that ? MR. CRUMB: Well I think - I didn't make the brief, and I'm sorry Mr. Huta couldn't be here. But I think what Mr. Huta was trying to get at is the fact that injured workers just have a heck of a time trying to get appeals in the first place, and when they do, it' s rushed through from the same people that granted them their whatever disa bility allowance they got in the first place.

I think that's what he's trying to get at there, the fact that we're not success ful in dealing with this prob lem. MR. PATTERS ON : On your No. 7, just what does your associ ation intimate by recog nition of the Ass ociat ion ? MR. CRUMB: Well we don't feel we have ever really been recognized as an associa tion of people that have been injured in industry. We don't feel we have been given our due so to speak. We feel we should be given a little bit more consi deration, as tonight for example.

We presented, as I mentioned in the brief, several briefs to different organizations and the Minister and what not, and nothing has ever come to any of them - none of our rec ommendations have been taken up, we ju st haven't had any succ ess. And as I say, the people who make these briefs and recommen dations are injured workers themselves that are in our organization, they are the ones who make these up. These people aren't lawyers or well educated men, they are just working men who have been injured, and I think they do pretty well to make up these briefs and what not.

They are not doing it for some thing to do in their spare tim e. They are doing it because they feel there are problems and they would like to see them corre cted. MR. PATTERSON: Did you have any trouble in getting recognized to be present here this evening ? MR. CRUMB: No, I don't believe Mr. Huta had any. MR. PATTERSON: On Page 2, the second paragraph, just what does your Ass ociation have in mind in regard to the legal profession ? MR. CRUMB: Well we'd like to see the legal profession get more involved. Instea d of

June 6, 1974 47 (MR. CRUMB cont'd) ... maybe going in front of a board, the same board, time after time, we'd like to see maybe an independent barrister examine all the evidence and help decide on a just verdict as far as granting pensions and what not. MR. PATT ERSON: On your Page 3 in the third paragraph, you talk about pre-exist ing conditions . What has been your experience since 197 2, since your latest amendments to the Compe nsation Act ? MR. CRUMB: It hasn't changed at all as far as our membership' s concerned. MR.

PATT ERSON : I ju st want to make you aware that on Page 7 when you mention MLA 's indemnities, that there's a typographical error there, that the 96 should rea d 72 - just to keep you square. MR. CRUMB: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bilton. MR. BILTON: Mr. Chairman, some of the q11estions I intended to ask have been asked, bJt there is one question on Page 3, Sir, I would say paragraph 5 - "t he appointees of the Medical Review Board" - you make quite a bold st atement there, "who are usually biase d" . Do you keep a record of people that accept that sort of feeling when they go before the Board ? MR.

CRUMB: It wo11ldn' t have been in here if we didn' t feel that way, Sir. I have a filing cabinet full of case histories of o11r members - and I think part of this problem stems from, you go in front of the same doctors every time, and our membership j11 st feel that they are getting nowhere with these people. MR. BILTON: Mr. Chairman, you're telling me that it's q11ite prevalent that the inj11red people are not sa tisfied with the present system of the Board or Panel of Doctor s. MR. CRUMB: Definitely not, definitely not. I can say that they are very unhappy with it. MR.

BIL TON: Would yo11 say there were 10 0 cases of this kind last year ? MR. CRUMB: I'd say there was probably more than 100. MR. BILTON: Thank you. MR. CH AIRMAN: Mr. Dillen. MR. DILL EN: Are you yourself an injured workman? MR. CRUMB: I was injured, that's how I got involved with the organization, MR. DILLEN: How would you like to describe for us the difficulty you had with the Workmen's Co mpensation Board ? MR . CRUMB: It's pretty hard, because I think we all want to go home tonight actually. I'm not trying to be facetious or anything.

I was - you know, kind of treated like - you know, here's a guy tha t's injured, big deal, you know - fill out the form. In the first place I wasn't informed of what I had to do to cla im compensation. That was where part of the problem started. The Co mpensation Board paid most of the bills. I had a back injury. I had a fall and I injured my back that way. To this day they haven't found out what the problem is, I still have a problem. They claim there is no problem, that I am fit as a fiddle. I don't deny that I'm not in pretty good health, but I still have a problem.

I am more fortunate than some of our members. I went to several doctors. I had X-rays, mileogram, everything that medicine could do to try and find my problem. It was never found, therefore I didn' t have a problem. This is the point that is the most frus trating thing for an injured worker, when you can be really suffering and somebody can say to you, "t here's nothing wrong with you at all, you go out to work;" and me anwhile your wife has had to help you on with your shoes that morning because you couldn't bend over to tie up the laces. This is what I'm trying to get at, eh? That's one real problem we have.

I can show you our files - there is maybe, oh, at least 100 cases of back injuri es. That was one problem I had. Then because of my injury, I had to leave quite a good job with the Cit y of Winnipeg Engineering Dept. I was on supervisory st aff with them . I left it to go back to school and I have been atten ding school at nights for several years and I am now just finishing a year at Red River. The Compensation Board said because there 's nothing wrong with me, they couldn't help me through school. I 'Saw Mr.

Patter son, he also tried to help me in this matter and he was unsucces sful, as was the union because the doctors couldn't find a problem. There was apparently none that existed and this is where this psycho neurosis - we have records on file of marriages breaking up, people turning to alcohol, and it' s because they have a problem that can't be found. I think this is just about the main problem. If a man brea ks a leg, you can see the leg is broken, you can put the leg in a cast and the man will go back to work. You know, it us ually heals up. But there are some things the medical profession

48 June 6, 1974 (MR. CRUMB cont•d) .•• just doesn't have all the answers to, and dealing with back injuries is one of them. I would say the major ity of people that come to us for help are with back in juries. You can get a lot of them together, and they'll all have the same symptom s; there can be fifty people, I have spoken to more than 50 people with the same symptoms I have - and yet we're all fine. It seems strange to me that we can all have the same symptoms and nothing be wrong with us . So there we go.

And some of these people ca n't work because the injury is so severe, and yet they don' t get any compensation whatsoever. MR. DILL EN: Have you gone through the entire process of appeal in your case ? MR. CRUMB: Well I never even got to the Ap peal Board. I phoned them and they said, send us a letter and we'll have an appeal. One gentleman from the Compensation Board phoned me and informed me that the appeal was all over with. I didn't attend it. I don' t know what happened, I haven't got a clue. He said, well maybe we can help find you a job, and that was the end of it. So at that point I never bothered again.

I've never heard of an appeal like that, where you don' t even get to go to it. MR. DILLEN: What was the year of this injury ? MR. CRUMB: February of 1972 . I should mention, just to give you a little more insi ght, they told me at first it was back strain and that I could receive compensation. It bothered me some more and I went in the hospital and had a mileog ram and everything done, and I came out and they said they could find nothing.

I came out, and it bothered me again the next sum mer, but miraculously by next summer I couldn't even receive compensation because there was absolutely nothing wrong with me as far as they were concerned. Initially they recog nized it, they called it a back strain, a chronic back strain, which led me to believe that this was something I'd have to live with. So I have to live with it, but they won't rec ognize it. MR . DILL EN: Did you have a medical board ? MR . CRUMB: I wasn't in attendanc e at one. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johnston. MR.

GORDON JOHNSTON: I notice that you have a number of comments and rec ommend ations by various agencies, and many of them are unions, and I'm struck by the rec ommend ation made by Local 144 United Auto Workers. They say Local 144 membership feels that you would get better res ults if you would work in conjunction with the Winnipeg Labour Council, the Manitoba Federation of Labour . So my question is, have you tried to work with the unions, or do the unions prefer to help one of their members and not be concerned with a problem at large that exists in the w ork force ?

In other words, have you explored the possi bility of affiliating with the labour moveme nt, to have their help. MR. CRUMB: We have alre ady affiliated with one union. I have spoken to Mr. Coulter on one occas ion, but we don' t want to get tied in with everybody else . We feel we have a special problem and we think that it sh ould be dealt with as a special problem.

The Federa tion of Labour is concerned with all labour matters and problems; we are concerned spec ifica lly with injured workers because we don' t feel they are getting a fair shake, and we don' t know if the big organi zat ions and big unions will give us as much time and consideration as we expect really. We feel that we'll be better off to go out on our own. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Crumb, how long has the Injured Workers' Association been in actual existence as a formal associat ion ? MR. CRUMB: I believe since 1971, it was incorporated. MR. SHERMAN: Since 1971.

So the Ass ociation as a formally organi zed body has only dealt with one Manitoba Government, the pres ent government. MR. CRUMB: That's right. Yes. MR. SHERMAN: Could you tell me how the membership is affected in terms of member ship in the trade union movement and in individual labour unions ? In other words what I'm getting at is, when a worker becomes a member of the Injured Workers Ass ociation does he or she automatically cease to be a member of the union that they might have belonged to ? MR. CRUMB: Definitely not. No. They continue if they're working.

If they're working and their work is unionized there' s no reason whatsoever that they can't belong to both. They have to be an injured worker to belong to our associa tion. MR. SHERMAN: But as long as they're working they can continue to be members of their union, so there would be a kind of an overlapping membership to a ce rtain extent, at least among some members of your associ ation, an overlapping membership between the Injured Workers Ass ociation and the regular official organized trade union movement ?

June 6, 1974 49 MR. CRUMB: Right . MR. SHERMAN: On those grounds presu mably there shouldn't be any animosit y between the trade union movement and the Injured Workers As sociation. Would that be a fair assump tion ? Or is there a kind of a rivalry and an an imosit y or a competition for membersh ip? MR. CRUMB: No I don't think there is any competi tion for membership. As far as animosity goes I've never rea lly encountered any. Some of the bigger unions don't rea lly recognize us for what we are.

I guess it' s because we don't have any great amount of funds and a huge membership; we're a small organization of people with a specific problem . We haven't got the accep tance we would have like to have got ten from the unions but they haven't really showed us any animosit y; they haven't co-operated 10 0 percent either. MR . SHERMAN: Well would you have any views on that as to why the unions would not take up your fight on your behalf ? MR. CRUMB: Well for one thing we've never rea lly direct ly approached the unions. We plan to.

As I said we have affiliated with one union, and many of our members who are union members are planning to go to their unions and tell them a little bit about us. Part of it is a lot of unions don't even know about us, to put it quite bluntly. They've never heard of us. We aren't that well known really. MR. SHERMAN: So part of your problem is perhaps stems from the fact that you're new and the information about your organization has not permeated through the union movement. Is that correct ? MR. CRUMB: That's right. We haven' t had very much publicity really. MR.

SHERMAN: But once you get that line of communication going you presuma bly would expect that the trade union movement would probably be sympathetic to your posit ion, would you ? MR. CRUMB: We certa inly hope so. This problem exists, and I think most of the unions know that there is a problem and I think that they'll co-operate with us. MR. SHERMAN: I just have one more ques tion, Mr . Chairman. If I may, I wanted to ask Mr .

Crumb: Hi s organiz ation proposes in its brief that the Workmen's Comp ensation Board could do with some subs tantial overhaul, and I wondered if he could give us an idea of what the Injured Workers Asso ciation has in mind there. MR. CRUMB: Well, we'd like to see the whole thing changed. The me thod of reviewing one's case, the met hod of asses sing what you are going to be granted in the way of pension. We'd like to see that the doctors that are in there pres ently - we don't feel that there' s a need for them for example.

We think that a perso n's own physicia n, or a specialist who a personal physician has referred him to, for instance, a doctor that may deal spec ifically with back injuries . If your family doctor refers you to him, his word should be good enough. You shouldn't have to go all through their doctors also. I don't see the need for it. MR. SHERMAN: Would you envision a Workmen's Com pensation Board that didn't have any permanent doctors appointed to it at all ? MR. CRUMB: That's what I'd like to see.

I think these people deal day in and day out with the same problem, and I think that after a while they tend to get a little warped, to be honest with you. They see it all the time and they don' t tend to treat it all that seriou sly, where we think they should. For my own personal example I don' t know what good the doctor did. He talked to me for a minute and that was just about the extent of it. How can you base your de cision on just looking at a person, or talking with him, or whatever ?

I think it should be the perso n's doctor, his perso nal physician who knows him, knows that this fellow isn' t trying to get somet hing for nothing, and maybe refer you to a specialist, and that's enough. I don' t know why we have to have all the doctors. If there' s still some doubt get another independent doctor that doesn' t belong to the Board. MR. SHERMAN: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Jenkins. MR. JEN KINS: Through you, Mr. Chairm an, to Mr. Crumb. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you speak into the mike, Mr. Jenkins. MR . JENKINS: Yes. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

In your pres entation here you make -- on Page 3. "T he appointees to the Medical Review Panel consists wholly of medical practition ers. " Were you not aware of that in 197 2 when the Act was passed that this would be, the Medical Review Board would be doctors, that the Medical Review Panel would be medical practitioners upon application by the Workmen's Compensation Board and the MMA would supply them ? From here you say that they are biased. Are they the same people ? Now you say you had

50 June 6, 1974 (MR. JENKINS cont1d) ... approxima tely 150 cases in 1973. Would they be the same people all the time practically ? MR. CRUMB: Well I think there's some of those doctors who have been on staff there for several years. MR. JENKINS : No, no, no. You misunders tand me. The Medical Revie w Panel, if my understanding of the Act is correct, are not members of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

They're members of the Manitoba Medical Ass ociation who are appointed upon request, but the Board does not request Doctor A, or Doctor B, or Doctor D, they just ask for a medical re view panel of experts in the various fields of what the person may be suffering from. Are you saying now that in the case of a back injury that the same recurring names of doctors on the panel are reappea ring? MR. CRUMB: I've never gone in front of the panel. I don't know who the panel is. MR. JENKINS: You say you have 150, approximately, cases in your file s. MR. CRUMB: Yes. MR.

JENKINS: Surely there must be some recurrence if there is a bias. Surely not all the doctors are biased, are they ? MR. CRUMB: Well just to clarify this. First of all not very many injured workers act ually go in front of this panel. As far as I'm concerned most of the work this panel does is look over what the other doctors have st ated, the other doctors' reports. I can honestly say that I don't know of one of our members who has act ually gone in front of this Medical Review Panel of doctors that the MMA has supplied. MR. JENKINS: You mean they have not req uested ? MR. CRUMB: They've requested. MR.

JENKINS: Made formal applicati on ? MR. CRUMB: I have requested myself that I would like to go in front of whoever I could. By that I mean the doctors, the head of the Board, anybody. I didn't, and I don't know anybody who has gone in front of this panel. MR . JENKINS: I mean did you make a formal application ? MR. CRUMB: I wrote a letter to them requesting that my case be reviewed, and I don't remember the exact words but I did request that it be reviewed and could I appear before the Medical Review Panel. I didn't appear before anybody and I just received a letter saying that my appeal had been turned down.

MR . JENKINS: What did you do then ? MR . CRUMB: I did absolutely nothing. At that point I had almost given up. You get awfully tired of going down and si tting there and wri ting letters. MR. JENKINS: I quite unders tand that, and don't think that I'm unsympathetic, but I think that you know you've made a statement here, and I want to know as a member of this Committee. I was a chairman of the Industrial Relations Committee that sat between the session in 1971, and we heard briefs, and we heard a brief for the first time from your organization. MR .

CRUMB: We feel they're biased, the doctors that we see we feel are biased. MR . JENKINS: You state that you have 15 0 ca ses. Now from what you've just said not one of these people has made application for a Medical Review Panel. MR. CRUMB: Oh I'm sorry. MR. JENKINS: How many have, or have you any idea ? MR. CRUMB: I really couldn't say offhand. I know several have. I can't give you an exact number, but I know out of all that have that I haven' t heard of one that has actua lly gone in front of this Medical Review Panel.

They go back to see the Compensation Board doctors, these people who we are claiming are biased, but they have not got to see this Medical Review Panel . They haven' t gone into a room where there' s been 12 doctors sitting . . . MR. JENKINS: . • • I think it's three. Right, Mr. Minister ? Three that will be appoint ed by the Manitoba Medical As sociation. MR . CRUMB: Well I just picked 12 out of a hat. MR . JENKINS: Now it disturbs me as a member of this Committee, as a member of the Legislature, that when you make a statement such as you are saying that these people are biased.

Now we want to know if they are biased, but we want to have some proof of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you speak into the mike, Mr. Jenkins. MR . JENKINS : We want to have some proof of that. I mean I'm not going to charge somebody with being biased unless I- if I can see you can give me say 30 or 40 cases of back

June 6, 1974 51 (MR. JEN KINS cont'd) . InJUries, and the same, say, six or seven doctors' names are continually appearing and these people are being reject ed, then I can see that there is some thing to make a charge on. But that is a very serious charge . MR. CRUMB: Well if that's how you would want us to prove our opinion of biasness, then I feel that I could subs tanti ate it with - I can get people to tell you exactly what I have, with no problem at all. MR. JENKINS: I mean they've appeared before the Review Panel. MR. CRUMB: No, this is the problem. They haven't. They have never gotten that far.

This is the problem ri ght there. I haven't seen anybody who has gained access to it. MR. JENKINS: I think we're talking at crossed purposes. MR. CRUMB: That could be. MR. JEN KINS: You state that you thought you went to a Review PaneL But that is not what the Act says. The Act says that you have to make a formal application for a Review Panel, and you didn' t do so. So your case was reviewed by the Board. MR. CRUMB: What do you call a formal application if not a letter request ing it? MR. JENKINS: I believe there is a formal form that goes out if I'm . . . MR. CRUMB: Well this is another problem.

I wasn't informed that I had to fill out a special form. MR. JENKINS: Is there not a special form that you fill our, Mr . Minister ? MR. PAULLE Y: Well I can answer that if you give me the permis sion, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: With the permi ssion of the Committee, proceed. MR. PAULL EY: Any injured workman whose physician makes an application for a hear- ing before a Medical Review Board, a medical review board shall be held. A MEMBER: A doctor has to do it. MR. PAULLE Y: A doctor. MR . CRUMB: I see. Well I suppose I did it wrong then. They told me my review had been ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order. Order.

Mr. Osla nd, if you have quest ions ... MR. JEN KINS: I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. MR. PAULLEY: I'm sorry, Mr . Chairman. I didn' t want to disrup t the normal pro cedures but I was asked that question for clarification. I'm a little knowledgeable of the Act. MR. JENKINS: You state that the present amendments to the Act call for the repeal of . MR. PAULLE Y: Repeal of

Section 72 . MR. JENKINS: Just what

section of this present Act that we' re discus sing now is that ? Oh, yes, pre-e xi sting conditions and so-ca lled underlying condit ions. MR. CHAIRMAN : Page 3 ? MR. PAULLEY: Page 3. Starting the paragraph that says in July, 1972, the govern- ment passed Bill 63, and the Government has repealed this

section in the present Act. A MEMBER: Repealed ... Sections 33 and 34 of the exist ing statute s. MR. JEN KINS: What would you suggest that we would replace that with? MR. CRUMB: I don't really have - could I just take a minute to read this ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. All right. MR. CRUMB: Well I person ally don't have anything rea lly to suggest on that. I wouldn't suggest anything on it anyway until --(Interj ection) -- Well no, it' s not a matter of that but when we make rec ommendations or that, I don't do it perso nally. We like to have our membership and our executive, and what not. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any further quest ions ? Mr. Paulley. MR. PAU LLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask Mr. Crumb a question for clarification purposes. I don't want to attempt to argue with Mr . Crumb at all, but I do believe he did make a statement to the effect that about 153 appeals were made, or Medical Review Boards were held in 1973. I believe that• s what you said, Mr. Cr umb, and I can check that because it is being recorded. I think it is fair to say to Mr. Crumb that everything that is bein g said is being recorded in Hansard. It's my impression, Mr. Chairman, that Mr.

Crumb did mention somewhere in the neighbourhood of 150 medical review boards, and I believe Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Chairman, also referred to this figure. I'm informed that there were 50 medical review boards, or appeals, held in the year 1973 rather than 150. There' s a slight discrep ancy. MR. CRUMB: I didn't have the figure right in front of me. Thank you. MR. PAULL EY: And also, Mr. Chairm an, I do want to ask apart from the figures,

52 June 6, 1974 (MR . PAULLEY cont'd) ... whether or not Mr. Cr umb is knowledgeable of the fact that every injured worker who has requested a medical review board has the right to have his own physician in attendance during the review, and indeed I believe that there are provisions made that he can be a member of the actual review board as well. So therefore I wonder, Mr. Chair man, whether Mr .

Cru mb would not agree that the injured worker insofar as medical evidence - I'm not talking about the adequacy of the award of the pension, which is some thing different - but insofar as the extent of the injury is concerned itself, has medical representation, and further to that that there is a provision that if the injured worker is being treated by a chiro practor, that he also has the right to appear before the medical board and give evidence insofar as the injury to his client is concerned. MR. CRUMB: I was aware of the fact that chiropractors do go in front of the board but I'd ju st like to ... MR.

PAULLEY: They're the only quest ions I have, Mr. Chairman. MR . CRUMB: Could I comment on what you've just said. MR. CH AffiMAN: Proceed. MR. CRUMB: About these people being -- the injured worker being allowed to bring his doctor and himself into a Review Board. As I stated before I personally wrote for a review board, I wanted my case reviewed, and I said that, you know, I didn' t know exactly all the pro cedures to follow. If my letter wasn 't correct I asked them, well let me know what I have to do, and as I stated before all I got was a phone call for an offer to help me find a job.

So I don' t know what I did wrong but I think I'm ju st one of several hundred who get frustrated at this kind of thing. MR. PAULLEY: A phone call to the Minister, would have suggested you see your doctor. --(Interjection)- - Oh, yes, there are pamphlets out by the thousands . However, I'm not going to get into any argument, just state the facts. MR. CHAffiMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, could I have the floor for one more moment now be cause of the confusion that has resulted from, I think, from perhaps a misunders tanding on the line of questioning pursued by Mr. Jenkins . Mr.

Jenkins was asking about

Section 23 of the new bill which repeals and amends existing Sections 33 and 34 of the existing Act, and those sections, as I unders tand it, had to do with compensation for pre-exist ing conditions, and underlying conditions, and so when Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Cr umb what he would like to see in there, I would like to take that ques tion and now ask Mr. Cr umb whether the Injured Work men' s Ass ociation would not like to see those sec tions left as they are. In other words, some rec ognition of the problem of pre-exis ting conditions and underlying conditions left in the bill. Is that not the point of your objection to

Section 23 ? MR. CRUMB: Well we'd like to clarify that a little bit more. We have problems they say of pre-exis ting condition, but nobody is very clear on a pre-existing condition anyway, we'd like it clarified to begin with because so many people are told it' s a pre-existing injury, and you'll ask the man and he'll say, well I never injured my back anywhere or whatever, how can it be pre-existing. Pre-exis ting from what, to where, how? It' s not clear, that• s one problem. MR. CHAffiMAN: Mr. Sherman, I'm informed by Legislative Counsel that the pre existing injury sec tion is not being repealed. MR.

SHERMAN: Sec tions 33 and 34 of the Act as existing. --(I nterj ections)-- repealed and the following sect ions substituted therefor. MR. 'Jl\LLIN:

Section 34. 1, not sect ion 34. MR. SHERMAN: That' s not affected by the . MR. TALLIN: No. MR. SHERMAN: So there is recog nition still remaining in the statute for pre-existing conditions, and underlying conditions, and you want clarification as to ju st what that means. Is that what you're after ? MR . CRUMB: Right, right. Because it's very easy to count a man out by saying a con dition is pre-existing, that' s very easy to say, but when you ask them how they can prove it, or what they based this pre-exis ting on, you don' t get very many answer s. MR . SHERMAN: I see. Well that' s fine, Mr. Chairman.

I think there was some, cer tainly on my part, some area of misunders tanding from the earlier q11estion. MR. CHAffiMAN: Any further q11estions? MR. PAULLEY: If I may, Mr. Chairman, in the presen t Act there is a definition of

June 6, 1974 53 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) ••. pre-existing conditions, and it' s clearly defined. So I would suggest in all due respect to Mr. Sherman, and possi bly to Mr. Crumb, they take a look at the present Act, which was amended in '72, August of '72, to look at

Section 34. 1, subsection 2, wherein there is a definition of pre-existing or underlying conditions, and it' s there, and this particular bill that I am proposing to the Ass embly today, Mr. Chairman, does not remove that

section in the Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. Any quest ions ? MR. CRUMB: Could I just comment on that, just what Mr. Paulley said. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well the pr ocedure is that you comment to questions. MR. CRUMB: Oh I see. Are there any questions ? MR. SHERM AN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to rep hrase the quest ion and ask Mr. Cr umb whether the Injured Workers' Ass ociation is satisfied with the existing definition in the existing Statute of pre-existing condit ions ? MR. CRUMB: Well just because it is defined, to me it doesn' t mean a heck of a lot.

You can define a lot of things, but it' s how you use them that counts. We don't like the idea of pre-exist ing injuries to begin with. Just because it' s properly defined there, it doesn' t mean that we agree with it. Defining it is fine, there's still a problem with it and a lot of problems, and a lot of people come to us -- I've seen letters - I believe I've showed you one, Mr. Sherman, from the gentleman in Fort Garry who they attributed his back operation to a pre existing condition.

That's fine, they defined it as pre-exist ing, but to this day he doesn't know what they based that definition on, what they based the fact that it was pre-existing on. So be cause it 's defined, it doesn't help our problem any. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Neil Chernick, Ca nadian Pacif ic. MR. CHERNICK: Mr. Chairman, members of the committ ee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you hold on for a moment while we have your brief dist ributed. Woald you be gin, Mr. Chernick please. MR.

CHERNICK: I would like to preface my remarks to this Committee by referring first ly to the historical background of the es tablishment of Workmen's Co mpensation legislation. This legislation was introduced to avoid lengthy and co stly battles in the courts. Thus, em ployers gave up the various defences it had at common-law which could thwart a claim by the employee and agreed to pay all valid claims, whether there was liabilit y at common-law or not, while, on the other hand, the employees acce pted less than perfect compensation.

To spread the cost of compensation over industry at large and to avoid crip pling any one industry, a mutual insurance principle was proposed and the basis of Workmen's Compensa tion, as we know it today, was laid down. Hist oric ally, Workmen's Compensation has not been, and was never meant to be, an old age pension scheme, a system for disp ensing charit y, or an employ ment insuran ce. It is simply a form of insurance against fortuitous injury. The major thrust of Bill 44 is aimed at increasing and upgrading benefits to injured work men and/or their dependants to keep abreast of the current cost of living.

The public has been told that the increased pension benefits will cost employers an additional $10 million. Can adian Pacific recognizes that in view of current economic conditions, increases in benefits to in jured workmen and their dependants are necessa ry from time to time. We submit today, as we have on numerous occasions in the past, that it is unjust to im pose upon today' s employer the cost of accidents suffered in other years.

We further submit that the cost of past accidents should be borne by societ y as a whole and that funds for same shoald be provided from the Cons olidated Revenue Fund of the Province. In 1972, Bill 63, the last Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act before the curr ent bill, was introduced in the Legislatu re. The Honourable Minister of Labour informed the House that his Government recognized a point raised by industry on a number of occasions that the whole of the cost of past pensions or p:1st accidents should not be charged to industries operating today.

He further stated that government in its consideration felt that it would be reas onably fair to accept at least p:1rt of costs of the provision in respect of past pensions to injured work men, their widows and the children to the degree of $1 million. At that parti cular time, it was the es timate of the Government that the total cost would be between 4 and 5 million to provide for the increased benefits suggested under the amendments of that particular Bill.

In closing debate on Bill 63, the Honourable Minister recognized that the basic concept of Workmen's Compensation is not welfare and so informed the House. It appeared at that time that the Government recognized that the burden of the increase in benefits relative to

54 June 6, 1974 (MR. CHERNIC K cont'd) ••• past accidents should not be placed completely on the shoulders of industry. The contribution of 1 million in public funds was greatly welcomed. However, Bill 44 contains no provisio n, and there has been no indication that the Govern ment intends to contribute anything towards the proposed cost of $10 million to employers generally. Once again there appears to be an absence of recog nition of the intention and the purpose of Workmen's Compens ation legislation.

As this Committee may be aware, our neig hbouring Province of Saskatchewan has intro duced a bill amending that province's Workmen's Compensation legislation which also upgrades pensions and increases current benefit s to injured workmen and their dependants . During a press conference held on March 26th, the Honourable Minister of Labour, Mr. Snyder, an nounced that the total cost of prefinancing the changes in benefits in that province would be more than $16 million. At the same time, he indicated that the Workmen's Compensation Board could only afford to provide $9 million with its present revenues.

And I would pause here, these comments were made by one of the gentlemen that pre ceded me, and I 'd like to point out that it seems to me, and it was my impression, that the Saskatchewan Workmen's Compensation Board would out of its revenues provide at least a portion of the increased costs, and practically the entire balance would be provided by the government out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the province.

The Minister of Saskatchewan suggested that it would be wrong and unfair to expect employers at this point in time to make up the difference and, accordingly, committed the Government to contribute $6. 5 million in a one-time payment to the fund. No doubt the Honourable Minister of Labour for the Province of Saskatc hewan took into account the comments made in the report of the Task Force established in that province on Workmen's Comp·:msation which report was distributed in March, 1973. In that report, at Pages 54 and 55, -- and I'm sure the Honourable Minister of Manitoba has a copy of that report. MR.

PAULLEY: I've read it very thoroughly. MR. CHERNICK: ••. it suggests that governments cannot deny their resp onsibilit y in utilizing the Consolidated Revenue Fund to meet the increased expenditures necessit ated by the Task Force recomm endations which to a great extent deal with the up-grading of pensions. The report goes on to say that a large portion of the expenditure neces sitated by some of the Task Force recommen dations will essen tially be a catch ing- up expense and the Government cannot lay all the blame for the lag in Workmen's Compensation benefits at the feet of Sask atchewan employers.

The report further states that the problems associa ted with compensation did not begin coinciden tally with the reign of a particular Government. Therefore, if viable changes are going to require Government financin g, the Government has a moral respo nsi bilit y to provide it. In conclus ion, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking this Committee for hearing the repres entations made by Canadian Pacific in regard to this bill.

In our submi ssion we have concentrated on the funding aspects and sincer ely hope that the Government of Manitoba will give careful consideration to our comments in this regard. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chernick. Are there any questio ns ? There are none. --(I nterj ect ion)-- Thank you, Mr . Chernick. . . . . • continued on next page

June 6, 1974 55 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grant Nerbas, C. N. R. MR . NE RBAS: CNR and Ai r Ca nada, Mr. Chairm an. I'm an employee of thos e two com panies . MR. CHAIRMAN: Ar e you speaking on behalf of the companies or as an individual. MR. NERBAS: On behalf of the two compan ies , and I hope I can be of assis tance to the commi ttee. MR. CHAIRM AN: Will you wait until we've had the br ief distri buted. MR. NERBAS: Some of my associ ates claim that I'm acc ident prone, that I'm a candidate for workmen's compensat ion almost every working minute, so I have some first -hand informa tion.

I won't delay the commi ttee too long I hope. MR . CHAIRM AN: Would you proceed ? MR. NERBAS: Mr. Chair man, members of the com mittee, I have submitted a two para graph brie f and for the record I will read it into the record. The submissi on of Ca nadian National Ra ilways and Ai r Canada relates to

Section 37 of Bill 44 and is a suggestion that

Section 37 be changed to include a contr ibution from the Consol idated Revenue Fund towards the cost of upgrading existing pensions. A contribution of approxi mately 25 percent of the est imated cost of retroact ively up grading exist ing pensions was made in the 1972 am endments and we suggest that the same prin ciple be followed in 197 4. The same princi ple, we suggest perhaps the contribution could be as high as 100 perce nt but we're told by the Honourable Mi nister of Labour that the cost of upgrading exist ing pensions could be $10 million.

We have som e figures dealing with amendme nts in 1972, the contr ibution from Consol i dated Revenues in 1972 was approximately 25 percent; in Br itish Co lumbia faced with simi lar problems , the contribution was 50 percent; in Saskatchewan, again with si milar problems, the contr ibution was 40 percent. I do sense some degree of confus ion; I don't want to add to the confus ion, but there se ems to be a lack of disti nction between the two types of increas es in Bill 44. One relates to a retro active effect, the other to a progress ive effect.

Retroactively it 's upgrading exist ing pensions, going forward it 's adding benefits that will be paid to people injured, unfortunat ely, in the future. There's a disti nction between the two, the cost of upgrad ing is estim ated at 10 million, and I assume that that figure comes from the Workmen's Com pensation Board's actuar ies. There is no es tim ate of the cost of increas ing benefits. Those are benefits in the futur e that haven't been granted as pensions to date. I sense som e confusion between those two aspects, and I hope I've not added to the confus ion.

In preparation for this evening I've read Hansard for 1972 and the current debat es, and I've found an explanat ion, and a statement of prin ciple by the Honourable the Mi nister of Labour, that was referred to by Mr. Evan McCor mick and the Mi nist er this evening, and I won't go through that aga in. The principle is clearly stated in Debates and Procee dings 1972.

I find another st atement in the current debat e, and that relates to the reason for these two types of increas es , namely, firstly, the eroding effect of inflation - that 's why we have Bill 44 and the increas es ; and se condly, the need, the apparent need, to raise levels of old and new benefits. There is no change, as I read Bill 44, in the ai ms and objectives and the intent of the Workmen's Compensat ionAc t, no change at all. I'm going to suggest that if Bill 44 proceeds unamended, Se ction 37, there is a departure in principle from the intent of the Ac t.

The intent of the Ac t, as I read it, historic ally to date, is to provide industr ial accid ent insurance and I have seen for the first tim e an am endment ton ight to

Section 37, my

section in my br ief, the only

section referred to in my brief, in which there is a provision very si milar to the Saskatchewan provisio n for taking into account co st-of-living on an annual basis where a per cent of the employees are out of step with average earn ings as defined in the Ac t and ceilin g placed on average earnings, which by Bill 45 I believe will be $10, 000. Now there's an auto matic adjust ment procedure now proposed in the new Sec tio n 37 (1) . To me that is the cost of doing business today.

That's inflation today, th at's provision for taking care of inflation today, and that relates to that sec ond part of the benefits I tried to define ear lier, that's the benefits ongoing from this day forward. Where is the co mparable provision for coping with inflation today, 197 4 inflation, but old benefit s. That 's the upgrading of exist ing benefits. That 's the cost of doing business yesterd ay. And I'd like to just read a note because it goes to the pr inciple, and I'm saying that if you

; 56 June 6, 1974 (MR . NER BAS cont 'd) . .... pass Bill 44 unamended you're departing from the principle of workmen's compensation, the princ iple being we'll look after cost of living in granting benefits day to day as acc idents occur because that 's industr ial acc ident insuranc e. Why should employers pay for the increase in cost of doing bus iness yesterday, in doing yesterday's bus i ness when that increase is caused by today's inflation . Inflation is not one of the industrial acc idents insured aga inst in the Workmen's Com pensation Ac t.

The aims, intent, and objec tives, of the Ac t have not been changed. Why should the principle be changed ? How could it be changed ? Unless you change the definition of industrial accident in the A et itself. Mr. McC ormick defined that better than I can in his brief and I identify Ai r Ca nada Ca nadian National with the comme nts of Mr. McCo rmick in that connection . I lis tened to the debate about the reason why there is not universal hospital and medical coverage in Manit oba and it remi nded me of a submission made by our companies in 19 71, and Mr.

Chair man, I'd like to refer to that and it deals with the lack of universality of medical and hospital coverage in Manitoba, and it says at Page 6 of a submissi on made to the Minister of Labour November, 1971: "This si tuation appears to stem from the provisions of the Federal Statu tes ", and refers to chapters H-8, N -8, Revised Statutes of Ca nada, 1970, which set out the conditions under which the Federal Government will make a contribution to the provinces in respect of hospital and medical services, which were carried into the Man itoba Health Services Insurance Ac t, Ch apter H-35,

Section 74. We are well aware that the province cannot re medy the si tuation by unilateral action, but a recomm endat ion by this Co mmittee might be instrum ental in inaugurating any necessary dis cuss ions lead ing to a solution. That 's 1971 . Nothing has happened since then although I under stand that Manitoba has requested Ottawa or Can ada to alter the federal st atu tes . What has happened si nce then, I understand, is that the Au tomobile Insurance Ac t, Autopac has the same exemption from universal coverage as we have in Workmen's Compensation .

And by that I mean, if a worker is injured during the course and scope of his employment he isn't covered by his hospital and medical coverage, although you'd think he would; if he was injured at home he would be, but if he's injured during the course of his employment he doesn't get insurance coverage, he gets workmen's compensation coverage. Of course we know that the insurance fund under workmen's compensation is a fund by way of assess ment of employers. There's a contradiction ther e; there's an absence of universality, and I'm not saying that it 's dishonest, it's just incomplete.

Now I'd like to return to the main point in my brie f, and that is the princ iple of Workmen's Co mpensation as I understand it, and I believe it to be industrial acc ident insura nce, a means of giving co mpensation for injuries. In the debates on Bill 44 I have read with interest that there will not be a contribution from general revenues this year, that the reason is that employers can well afford to absorb the $10 milli on, and the reason is that the cost of that $10 million will be under

Section 37 before it was amended, under

Section 37 of Bill 44, apportioned over seven year s. Well that is very little relief for emoloyers . I want to close with this point, that before you vote on Bill 44, Sect ion 37 unamended, that in voting for it in its pres ent language you are departing from the princ iples of Workmen's Compensation legislation, and I think you should do that clearly understanding that you're departing from that. Industrial accid ent insuranc e is a narrow field, it's not general insurance, it's not welfare legislation.

If you want to go backwards in tim e and have presen t-day employ ers pay for yesterday's accidents, upgraded because of today's inflation, you are in another field, and you're departing from workmen's compensation. I think every member of the Com mittee should realize that, and every member of the House, when voting on it should fully realize that. I think that is all I have to say. Havi ng checked my notes that is all I have to say. Thank you very much for lis tening to me. MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Ch ernick. Mr . Paulley. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Nerbas. MR . CHAIRMAN: Oh pardon me. Mr. Nerbas.

I'm one brief back. MR. PA ULLEY: Well this really applies to three briefs that we heard tonight, Mr . Chairm an. The brief of the Chamber of Comm erce, to some degree, the Ca nadian Manufac ture rs, CPR, and the CNR, and particularly it 's a question that could have been directed towards Mr. Chernick. I understand that both the Ca nadian National and Ai r Ca nada and CP R se lf-as sessed insofar as compensation recovery payments are concerned .

June 6, 1974 57 MR. NER BAS: We have a deposit account, Mr . Mi nister. MR . PAULLEY: Yes , that 's right. On the incident of accidents, and I can appreciate, Mr. Chairm an, the reference that has been made in respect to past accidents. The only com ment, if I'm perm itted to comme nt, maybe the CN R and Ai r Canada, and also the CPR, might be able to lessen their costs with a further intens ification of safety provisions and devices, so that the inc ident isn't as hard on them as I know that it is at the pres ent time because of some deficiencies. But apart from that, Mr. Chairman, Mr . Nerbas and Mr.

Chernick were dealing with the matter of principle, and I notice in the brie f, Mr . Chairm an, and my question to Mr . Nerbas is that his second paragraph says, "a contr ibution of approximately 25 percent of the esti mated cost of retroactivity upgrading existing P.ensions was made in 1972, and we suggest that the same principle be followed in 19 74. " If we're deal ing with a matter of principle should we not, Mr. Chair man - and this of course is dire cted to Mr. Ne rbas - state a firm policy rather than a hedgy-hedgy policy.

If 25 perce nt is good isn't 100 perce nt just as good, insofar as the contr ibution is concer ned ? MR . NERBAS: I thought, Mr. Chair man, that I had made that point clear. That the two reasons for amendment, upgrading benefits and pensions in Bill 44 were, first of all inflation, which I regard as a soc ial disease and not an acc ident, and the other was that perhaps the levels were too low to begin with, and I think the employers must accept some responsibility if the levels in fact were too low. That 's why I don't say 100 percent. Twenty-five percent may be too low.

Forty percent Saskatchewan has deemed to be the right one. B. C. said 50 percent, with a maximum of ten million. So I don't think I'm in a position to say wher e the perce nt should be. I ce rtainly know that the people with the stat istics are in the Workmen's Com pensa tion Building, and not here tonight. MR . PA ULLEY: But, Mr. Chair man, to Mr. Nerbas, he says that he is not in a position to ascertain as to whether it should be 25, 40 or 50 percent.

Should not we then as government, and respo ns ible for the introduction of amendments to The Workmen's Compensation Board, have the same license to say that the investm ent should be 100 perc ent ? MR . NERBAS: Well, Mr. Chair man, I'm at a disad vantage in that, in the debates intro ducing Bill 44 there was an est imate of $10 million as the cost of upgrading pensions. I assume, as I indicated earlier, that that estimate must have come from the actu aries of the Workmen's Co mpensation Board, and I know from exper ience that those actuar ies have sta tistics which they keep to themselves .

I would not have access to those sta tistics. I do think though that they are available and costs and est imates can come from that source. MR . PAULLE Y: But really that 's not the point, and I'm not trying to argue, Mr. Chair man, it 's on the matter of principle. If it's good for 25 percent, or 40 perce nt, or 50 percent, is it not good also for 100 percent, despite the fact as has been quoted by at least three briefs this evening, if not four, that the Mi nist er of Labour in 197 2 made a statement that there should be a contr ibution of a million dollars from the Co nsol idated Revenue.

I'm sure that my friend Mr. Ne rbas would acknowledge that I could have made a mistake then, and that I am not making a mistake now in my reco mmendation. MR . NERBAS: I have to acknowledge that we can't be definite on percents. Perc ents to me are degrees; principles are not degrees . You can't water down a principle. A principle is a prin ciple. MR . PAULLEY: Sometimes I'm wrong. I was wrong in 1972 . MR . NERBAS: You were too low in 1972. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Sherman. MR . SHERMA N: That ant icip ated my question, Mr. Chair man. I was just going to ask Mr.

Nerbas whether it wasn't poss ible that the Minister of Labour did indeed make a mist ake in 1972, but the other way from the way that he is suggesting. A ME MBER: That could well be. MR. CHAIRMA N: Any further questions ? Mr. Dillen. MR . DILLEN: You have made reference to workmen's compensation as being a form of insurance against acc idental injury - I think that was the ter m that you used. MR. NERBAS : Yes. By definition in the Ac t. MR . DILLEN: Well if that were the case and the employer is contr ibuting an assess ment or a premium on that insurance policy . . . MR.

NERBAS: Yes he is the sole contr ibutor to the plan, apart from contr ibutions from general revenues.

58 June 6, 197 4 MR. DILLEN: That would mean then that the plan itself may be misnamed, or mis nomered, in that it 's referred to as the Workmen's Com pensation Ac t. Wouldn't it be better named as the Companies Co mpensat ion Ac t? MR . NERBAS: In the eyes of the public , Mr. Dillen ? MR . DILL EN: Well in your opinion. MR. NERBAS: No I think the correct name is the Workers' Com pensation Ac t. The intent of the Ac t is well defined, and my only concern isn't that we rename the Ac t, it's that we do not depart from any pr inciple which is the basis of this Ac t. MR.

DILLEN: Well if the situation should occur that the, you know, in the case of acci dent premiums paid by an acc ident insurance company ... MR . NERBAS: As a matter of contract, yes. MR. DILLEN: If they don't receive enough premi ums to cover the amount of claims paid out they increase the assess ment, or the fee. MR . NERBAS: That's how the Compensation Board works too . The assess ment is based on a percent of payroll and industries are class ified, and on their acc ident ratio a percent of their payroll is assessed monthly, or weekly or whatever it is. MR . PA ULLEY: In that class ification. MR .

NERBAS: In that class ification, yes . MR. DILLEN: Well my unders tanding, you know, it's been my underst anding that the railroad companies, of which we've heard represe ntation from here tonight, have been in busi ness in this country for longer than the Workmen's Com pensation Board has bee n in effect . MR. NERBAS: I think that's correct. MR . DILLEN: Well then why do you make a prese ntation on the quest ion of pens ions to those people who are rece iving pensions from your companies when it was the cost of doing business when the Ac t was introduced.

Why shouldn't that still be a part of your ongoing cost of doing business ? MR . NERBAS: That's a good question because the cost of doing bus iness today, as we can see from the new ame ndment to

Section 37, will include an automatic adjustment to take into account ris ing costs, cost of living. That's current, and that 's what employers are faced with in doing business today. An d they're going to pay for that in benefits from now on that ar e granted for industrial acc idents.

Now say an acc ident happened in 1950, a man was injured and was granted a disability pension and it took into acc ount the inflation of 1950, and any up grad ing that has occurred in legislation to date - and if we look at 1972 the upgrading included contribution from General Revenues - well now in 197 4, because we're faced with increased inflation, increased inflation, we're going to ask employers today, who may not have even been in business in 1950, to pay for the problem of an acc ident in 1950 which was made worse be cause of 197 4 condi tions. To me that is a matter of principle.

That 's a matter of everyone in the province sharing the cost of, not one part of the province, namely the employers, that to me is a social problem, not an insurance probl em. MR. DILLEN: Can you tell me then whether in your opinion if two years ago the pensions that were paid to injured workmen were high enough? MR . NERBAS: Well I'm an employee of this co mpany that I represent and if I'm injured I want to be looked after .

You know that we have - 75 percent of your average earnings , which is the maximum you can obtain under the insurance scheme of Workmen's Com pensation, then the Ac t provides that there is going to be a maximum on the definition of average earnings , and that's $10, 000, so that the most you c an get if you're injured is 75 perce nt of $1 0, 000.

And now with the proposal in Sect ion 37 there can be $1, 000 increments above the $10, 000 ceili ng, so the maxi mum I can get will be 75 perce nt of 10, 000, plus any of the 1, 000 increments, and that 's what I understand when I go to work is my maximum insurance aris ing out of indus tr ial accident. Now I can hope for the moon, but I know I've got that . MR. DILLEN: Would you ... MR. NERBAS: Se venty-five percent. You might wonder why it 's 75 percent, why not 10 0 percent ? As far as I know every province has 75 percent.

It takes into account the sub st itution of damages for injury in the days before workmen's compensation where you had to sue your employer. You bad to go to court, you had expenses, and so forth. Now all that has gone by the boards . You're going to go, by filing the claim - your employer in fact has to file the claim for you. You report the accident, he files the claim. You're entitled to that kind of coverage and the principle behind it is that you don't pay tax on the compensation of damages awarded, therefore it can't be 100 percent of your salary, therefore it's 75 perc ent of your

June 6, 1974 59 (MR. NERBAS cont'd) ..... average earnin gs . It replaces 10 0 per cent of your earnings. MR. DILLEN: Ca n you tell me what the assess ment is for your company? MR. NERBAS: Well I think the Minister indicated that the railway is in class "C " in the Ac t, and it is a deposit account rather than an assess ment account.

As an acc ident occurs we fund for that acc ident, and the Compensation Board sim ply phones us, or writes us a letter , and says we need another 100, 000, and we send him a cheque for 100, 000, that covers the actual pension and benefits awarded, plus the cost of administer ing that thing for us . MR. PA ULLEY: I think, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dillen could find that in the annual reports of the Workmen's Com pensation Board, that's all in there Mr . Dillen. MR. CHAIRMA N: Oh, do you have another question ? MR . DILLEN: You don't have the am ount with you? MR .

NERBAS: Well we're dealing with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's like a cost plus si tuat ion. We may for every benefit. If a pension is granted to a CN employee, it's capitalized, we put the capital into the fund, the Co mpensation Board sends out the monthly cheques, and then we pay the Board for that se rvice. So whatever it costs the board, plus their operating margin, we fund it as a dep osi t rather than an assess ment. MR. DIL LEN: Do you get a per centage of interest on the deposit ? MR . NERBAS: You're really saying, is there any reserve left ?

I think the reserve would come about, and I stand subject to correction, if a per manent disability pension were granted to an employee, and say he was aged 40 and he died at age 45, we would have capital ized that pension for his work life, and the difference between age 45 and his work expectancy would be unused capital, and we don't get that back, that stays in the fund. MR . DILLEN: When you're talking about a fund, I'm wonder ing if it's a se parate bank account on which, or an investment on which interest is acc ruing to the company? MR. NERBAS: I'm sorry I can't answer that. I perhaps should know that.

I could prob ably find out quickly. --(I nterjecti on)--A minimal inter est each month I'm told . MR . PAULLEY: Mr . Chairman, I may just to clar ify this for Mr. Dillen, if I have that per miss ion, for the year 1972 - it 's the last full year that we have the figures for it here - the assessm ent for Class "C" which Ai r Ca nada and the CN happen to be, it was $3 17, 000-odd, and the C. P. R. about $411, 000, Mr. Dillen. Those figures are contained in the annual report of the Workmen's Com pensation Board, including administration. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Pre mier . MR . SCHR EYER: Mr.

Chair man I have two questions to address to Mr . Nerbas. The first has to do with the written part of the brie f, the prese ntat ion. You describe Se ction 37 as a departure in principle for the reason that industry is bei ng asked, or assesse d, to pay some thing toward s the cost of making an adjust ment that has a retroactive impact, and I would like to ask you if you have any recollection or knowledge as to whether this has been done, say in 196 4 spec ifically, and in 1966 ? MR. NERBAS: Mr. Premier, I perhaps should know the answer to that . I again could find out in a hurry. I do not know the answer . MR.

SCHREYER: Well, I'd suggest to you, Mr. Nerbas, that in fact in 1964 - I was here at that ti me, I have some recollection of it - that an adjustme nt was made with respect to widows' benefits, and also partial disability, and again in 1966. I'm less certain about 1966, but I believe it's correct that an adjustment was made then as well that had som e retroactive impact and ther efore retroactive cost, and I belie ve that there was no provision from Consol idated Revenue. MR. NERBAS: May I comment on that, Mr. Chair man. MR.

SCHR EYER: Well I'm asking, if that is so, we can check this ; but if it is so, would you still describe

Section 37 as a departur e? MR . NERBAS: I have attempted to find out how those retroactive increases were funded and I was not able to answer this question. I asked it myself, were those increase s funded out of Re serves on hand by the Board and returns on invest ments of res erves by the Board ? I do not know the answer to that . Subj ect to that com ment, and if that wasn't funded in some specia l way, your point is correct that there was a departure in 64 if that's the case. I do not know. MR . SCHR EYER: The second question Mr.

Nerbas is, and here I hope I misu nders tand your verbal pres entation, at least that part of it where I inferred from what you said, that you believed that the cost of, the medical cost, the related health care costs that are the result of

60 June 6, 1974 (MR . SCHR EYER cont 'd) ..... an indu strial accident, and I believe you intimated even of a car acc ident, really ought to be paid for by the universal plans, or the so-called general plans, rather than from the speci fic purpose injury protection plan, namely Workmen's Co mpensation, or Autopac. Let me change that, not Autopac, a car insurance plan, whether it be public or pr ivate. Now are you suggesting that the general health care plan should pre-em pt the res ponsibility of industrial insurance and automobile insuran ce, public or private ? MR. NERBAS: My point, Mr. Chair man, and Mr .

Prem ier , was that if we were going to have in Man itoba a universal health and hospital plan, and if that was to be universal in Canada, and other provinces as well, it should be universal to cover industr ial hospital and medical care as well as domestic, or all other types. MR. SCHR EYER: Well then what about car acc ident injur ies ? MR.

NERBAS: Well as I underst and it, and the reference was by analogy to the Autopac, Auto Insurance Ac t, that if the driver injured in a car accid ent is driving a vehicle in the course of his employment, his hospital and medical bill will be referred to for payment to the Workmen's Compe nsation Board, and the comme nt again is the same that if we want a univer sal plan, let's make it universal and cover everything. MR . SCHR EYER: Well then by virtue of that reason ing Mr.

Ne rbas would you agr ee that it's a mere matter of extens ion, and one can then make the case that the medical and health care costs that are incurred as a re sult of an automobile acc ident, really ought to be paid for by the general taxpayer through the health plan, rather than by the specific purpos e automobile insurance plan, or company. MR . NERBAS: Well the reference to the auto mobile insurance was by analogy.

The point I was attempting to make was Workmen's Compensation, the injury to an employee on the job, and the distinction that if he's injured on the job, one thing happens to his medical and hospital; if he 's injured at home, some thing different happens, and we're talking about plans that are funded to a large extent, to the extent I'm not sure, by tax money in the case of hos pital and medical; and then we're talking about Workmen's Co mpensation funded by assess ment or deposit from employers and I say , I point to that as an exception to the universal plan.

I put that forward for the consideration of the com mittee. MR . SCHR EYER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppo se it would be argumentation if I per sis ted further with the questioning, with the line of questioning. Thank you. MR . CHAIRM AN: Thank you. Any further questio ns ? Mr. Patterson. MR. PATTERSON: Mr. Chair man, I have a sort of a general polic y question aris ing out of the seco nd paragraph of Mr. Nerba s' pres entation. It also relates to the philosophy of the CPR brief, and that is, Mr. Ne rbas . MR . NERBAS: We can call Mr. Chernick back if ... MR . PATTERSON: No I think you will do quite well.

Do you agree with the pres ent-day policy which finds curre nt taxpayers paying for improvements of benefits, pension benefits to veterans of World War I? MR . N ERBAS: I can't speak with authority on that. MR . PATTERSON: No . I'm just asking if you agree with that policy ? MR . NERBAS: I' m sorry I can't follow the ... MR. PATTERSON: The Government policy is pres ent-day taxpayers have to pay for improved benefits of the pensions being paid to veterans of World War I. MR. N ERBAS: I think that is a social problem for taxpayers generally. MR . PATT ERSON: Do you agree with that type of philosophy, or policy?

MR . NERBAS: Yes. I think that 's a general application an acce ptance general ly of a so cial obligat ion. MR. PATTERSON: Yes, well then my se cond question is , why would you disagree with current industry paying for benefits that would improve the back pensions of people prev iously injured in industry ? MR . NERBAS: Well, that is a very sound question and I thought we'd answered it before that there were two reasons why you have increases in the exist ing pensio ns, that's the retro active effect of Bill 44. The first reason is 197 4 inflation.

I say that 's a soci al problem, should be funded at least in part from general revenues . The other part of it is, perhaps the levels were too low back in whatever date you mention, 1950, perhaps those levels of benefits were too low when the pension was granted, and I think the employer perhaps should pay some of that-- (Interj ection) --but not all of it.

June 6, 1974 MR . PATTERSON: Would you agree that all of the increased costs are not accruing to inflation but maybe some to the increased standard of living ? MR. NERBAS: Increased standard of living means that the people want to spend more, have more things to buy - is that what you ... 61

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-1-ir2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 1st hansardpdf ir2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7a9e12a34aaa5f70690466547234cf7ea5c2974e

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).