Manitoba Committee Hansard — 5 September 2013 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 7, 40th Legislature, 2nd Session)

40-2-sed7

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. Bidhu Jha Constituency of Radisson Vol. LXV No. 7 - 6 p.m., Thursday, September 5, 2013 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital NDP ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson NDP BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli NDP BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park NDP BRAUN, Erna Rossmere NDP BRIESE, Stuart Agassiz PC CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East NDP CHIEF, Kevin, Hon. Point Douglas NDP CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan NDP CROTHERS, Deanne St.

James NDP CULLEN, Cliff Spruce Woods PC DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk NDP DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FRIESEN, Cameron Morden-Winkler PC GAUDREAU, Dave St. Norbert NDP GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Liberal GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Richmond NDP JHA, Bidhu Radisson NDP KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Swan River NDP LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. Dawson Trail NDP MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns NDP MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden PC MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor, Hon. Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel NDP MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East PC NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake NDP OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River NDP PALLISTER, Brian Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PETTERSEN, Clarence Flin Flon NDP REID, Daryl, Hon. Transcona NDP ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Kewatinook NDP RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia NDP ROWAT, Leanne Riding Mountain PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron St. Paul PC SELBY, Erin, Hon. Southdale NDP SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo PC STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin NDP SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto NDP WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas NDP WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WIGHT, Melanie Burrows NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC Vacant Morris

383 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Thursday, September 5, 2013 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Ashton, Hon. Ms. Howard, Hon. Messrs. Rondeau, Struthers Ms. Blady, Mr. Cullen, Mrs. Driedger, Messrs. Eichler, Gaudreau, Jha, Mrs. Rowat Substitutions: Mr. Ewasko for Mr. Eichler at 10:40 p.m. APPEARING: Hon.

Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 31 –The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act Ms. Michelle Gawronsky, Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union Mr. Dave Sauer, Winnipeg Labour Council Mr. Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Cory Szczepanski, Brandon and District Labour Council Ms. Choele Chapple , Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Mr. Rob Hilliard, United Food and Commercial Workers Mr. Clint Wirth, Public Service Alliance of Canada Ms. Michelle Balina, Manitoba Hydro, Cupe Local 998 Mr.

Marty Dolin, private citizen Bill 37 –The Emergency Measures Amendment Act Mr. Kenton Friesen, International Association of Emergency Managers–Canadian Council Bill 40–The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act Ms. Marianne Cerilli, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg Ms. Lynne Summerville, private citizen Mr. Gordon McIntyre, Winnipeg Rental Network Mr. Brian Grant, private citizen Mr. Josh Brandon, Canadian Centr e for Policy Alternatives Bill 208 –The Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Act Ms. Andrea Richardson-Lipon, private citizen Ms. Sharen Ritterman, private citizen Ms.

Maureen Penko, Manitoba Speech and Hearing Association Ms. Diana Dinon, private citizen Mr.

Darren Leitao, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 2 –The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Respect for the Safety of Emergency and Enforcement Personnel) Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Bill 31 –The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act Ben Kolisnyk, Canadian Federation of Independent Business Bill 34 –The Property Registry Statutes Amendment Act Peter Currie, Ontario Association of Professional Searchers of Record Bill 37 –The Emergency Measures Amendment Act Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities John Lindsay, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 2 –The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Respect for the Safety of Emergency and Enforcement Personnel)

384 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 Bill 31 –The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act Bill 34 –The Property Registry Statutes Amendment Act Bill 37 –The Emergency Measures Amendment Act Bill 40 –The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act Bill 208 –The Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Act Bill 211 –The Personal Information Protection and Identity Theft Prevention Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Ms. Monique Grenier): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.

Before the committee can proceed with its business before it, it must elect a new Chairperson. Are there any nominations for this position? Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister of Family Services and Labour): I nominate Mr. Jha. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Jha has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Jha, would you please take the Chair. Mr. Chairperson: The next item of the business is the election of a Vice- Chairperson. Are the re any nominations? Ms. Howard: I nominate Ms. Blady. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Blady has bee n nominated. Any other nominations?

Hearing no other nominations, Ms. Blady has been elected as Vice-Chairperson. Meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 2, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Respect for the Safety of Emergency and Enforcement Personnel); Bill 31, The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act; Bill 34, The Property Registry Statutes Amendment Act; Bill 37, The Emergency Measures Amendment Act; Bill 40, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Bill 208, The Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Act; Bill 211, The Personal Information Protection and Identity Theft Prevention Act.

I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour for adjust – adjournment. Except by unanimous consensus, the standing committee to consider a bill in the evening must not sit past midnight to hear presentations, unless fewer than 20 presenters are registered to speak to all bills being considered when the committee meets at 6 p.m. As of 6 p.m. this evening there were 21 persons registered to speak to these bills as noted on the list of presenters before you. Therefore, according to our rules, this committee may not sit past midnight to hear presentations.

Considering this, what is the will of the committee? Ms. Howard: Yes, I think we definitely should sit until we're completed our business. And, if we get to midnight, we can reassess at that point. Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed? [Agreed] On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have out-of-town presenters in attendance marked with an asterisk on the list. As well, we have two presenters, Michelle Gawronsky and Dave Sauer, who are presenting at both committees this evening.

In order to avoid any timing conflicts perhaps I may suggest that the committee hear from these two first. With these considerations in mind then, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Chair, we'll hear the two earlier pr esenters and then, if there's will of the committee, we'll hear the out- of-town presenters after that. Mr. Chairperson: Agreed? [Agreed] Public presentation guidelines –before we proceed with presentations we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider.

First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with the staff at the entrance of the room. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written material as–we ask you to provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak to our staff.

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 385 As well, I'd like to inform presenters that in accordance to –with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with other five minutes allotted for questions from the committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their n ame is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.

The following written submissions have been received and distribu ted to the committee members: Doug Dobrowolski , Association of Manitoba Municipalities, on Bill 2 and 37; K en Kolisnyk, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, on Bill 31; Peter Currie, Ontario Association of Professional Searchers of Records, on Bill 34; John Lindsay, private citizen, on Bill 37.

Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in Hansard transcript of the meeting? [Agreed] * (18:10) Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with the public presentations.

Bill 31–The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: The first presenter here is Michelle Gawronsky, president, MGEU. I'm sorry if I have mispronounced your name. Ms. Michelle Gawronsky (Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union): You've done a wonderful job. Gawronsky. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Go ahead. Ms. Gawronsky: I have copies . Thank you very much. On behalf of the Government and General Employees' Union and our 40,000 members, we are pleased to provide our comments and recommendations on the bill introduced by honourable Ms.

Howard, Minister of Family Services and Labour, as Bill 31, The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act. My name is Michelle Gawronsky, and I am the proud president of the Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union. I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to present here today and als o for the opportunity for our staff and members of the MGEU to actively have participated in public consultation and review of the process conducted by the minister's advisory council on matters related to the workplace safety and health.

The Manitoba Gove rnment and General Employees' Union supports the bill, as it has incorporated changes which benefit not only MGEU members but all Manitoba workers. The objective of The Workplace Safety and Health Act, or the act, is to prevent death, injury or illness be ing caused by working conditions. The act establishes a framework for preventing or minimizing exposure to risk. We believe that Manitoba's review of the act moves the Province in a positive direction, making our legislation consistent with other provincia l jurisdictions and, in some respects, advances beyond.

A number of technical, miscellaneous and editorial amendments are also suggested in Bill 31, which assists in clarifying intent and administrative process. These changes will support the effective administration of Manitoba's workplace safety and health regime. I'll highlight some of the areas of significance where we support the direction of the proposed act.

In 'punticular,' the entrenchment of the four fundamental rights of workers–the right to know, the right to participate, the right to refuse dangerous work and the right to protect from discrimination–in plain language clarifies the very purpose of the act, the protection of workers from poor working conditions, and their ability to participate in positive resolution without fear of retribution. The right to refuse dangerous work is strengthened to ensure conditions in the workplace are actively investigated before a subsequent worker is asked to perform the work.

This process should ensure th at unsafe work isn't simply offered to another worker, putting them in harm's way. This is wonderful.

386 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 In recent years, prosecutions and the application of the administrative penalties have been woefully lacking. With renewed focus on enforcement, we anticipate that the legislation will be applied as intended, as a deterrent to those who may otherwise fail to comply with the law. Also, Bill 31 expands and improves the application of administrative penalties to immediate risk situations, discriminatory action and non- compliance with legal orders. It also streams lines–streamlines the process for application of the penalty.

This will hold the employer accountable. Workplaces with smaller workforces and/or seasonal employment will see changes to requirements for safety and health training and also establishment of safety and health representation. This will only improve Manitoba workplaces. Workplace safety and health committees will have their ability to fulfill their duties strengthened, to access training and receive compensation to prefare’–prepare for and attend meetings and to make written recommendations to the employer and receive a written response in a timely fashion. This will, too, empower the committees.

We also support the establishment of the chief prevention officer position to provide independent monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of prevention activities. And, of course, we also support the recognition of unions as the interested third parties and their inclusion in variance appl ications, appeals and Labour Board decisions. Although the aforementioned changes move us in a positive direction, there are areas of legislation reform that we will continue to pursue.

We suggest that the numerous issues raised during the review of the act that were set aside for inclusion on regulatory review be addressed in the near future: orientation and training provisions, additional improvements to construction zone safety, and greater recognition of occupational diseases. In addition, we would–I would also like to thank the government for moving forward with recent reviews on prevention services, development of the chief prevention officer five-year plan, and the WCB claims suppression pass–this past fall and winter.

We would like to commend the government on the recent announcement of a study related to qualifying the issues of claim suppression. Thank you very much. In closing, we believe these reviews and, in particular, the review of The Workplace Safety and Health Act will make a positive diff erence to the working experiences of all Manitobans in the future. We request that the Cabinet approve Bill 31, The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act. Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Hon.

Jennifer Howard (Minister of Family Services and Labour): Yes, thank you very much, Michelle, for coming and on this hot night. It's not as hot as it has been, but. I just wanted to ask you, I know you got long experience both as a labour leader but also, I know, as a worker and someone who's worked on safety and health issues. From your experience, is there anything you that you have seen that you think are best practices or models for other workplaces or other organizations when it comes to encouraging safety in the workplace?

One of the things we're trying to do, this bill is a lot about enforcement, and that's what legislation is about, but one of the things that we're also trying to do is build a safety culture throughout workplaces. And I wonder if you have any advice for us on a couple of best practices or hints that we could be doing to do that. Ms.

Gawronsky: The best that I can suggest right off the hop is the inclusion we had as employees in a health facility, the first time we were actually asked to come and sit in on a health and safety meeting and actually have us listened too –when you listen to the front-line workers on what's happening. So that's the best advice I can give to any employer anywhere. The best production you're going to get from your employees is to listen to what they have to tell you. They just want to be able to do their job, do it safely and go home to their families at the end of the day. Mrs.

Leanne Rowat (Riding Mountain): Thank you for your presentation, Michelle; it was great. I’m wondering if you would go into a little more detail with regard to the orientation and training provisions–and improvement in construction zones is pretty self -explanatory–but the orientation and training provisions and the greater recogniti on of occupational diseases, can you just explain a little bit more to our committee? Ms. Gawronsky: The orientation and training provisions, I believe that is we need to improve and keep improving.

I know there's going to be some improvement to them, but we need to keep improving all employees to the orientation and training of health and safety. No matter where you

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 387 work, no matter what your age is, I believe everyone should go into it knowing that their safety comes first, and that's first and foremost. S o, if we do a very in-depth orientation and training session when they first come into the workplace, that's one of the biggest areas that we can also start improving on. And the occupational diseases, of course, there's many, many out there, too numerous to actually mention right off the hop.

The one that hits me the most, of course, is the firefighters with asbestos fires, different lung cancers, different cancers that are caused through stress in the workplace and that kind of stuff. Mrs. Rowat: Just one further to that. But the occupational diseases, I realize the firefighters have done a lot, but is there any other occupations that you are aware of through your [inaudible] Floor Comment: I know of– Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Gawronsky, kindly address the–through the Chair, if you don't mind. [interjection] Thank you very much. * (18:20) Ms.

Gawronsky: One of the greatest ones that I know, just from a personal experience, is farmers. Farmers are often–aren't trained, and they often have their children working in areas where there's chemicals and different uses of different machinery that could be causing different occupational diseases and stuff –especially the chemicals that they're spreading on their fields in doing certain things.

I know within the health f ield, people that are doing CSR work or sterilizing of equipment for operations and stuff, there's chemicals that they're using to clean the instruments, and we're not sure exactly how that's relating, but some of the lung diseases–asthma and such like tha t–could be a contribution. So I think some more study needs to be done into that, as well. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you, Michelle. Manitoba has tended to have higher time-loss-to-injury rates than other provinces, and I wonder if this cam e up in your deliberations and if you have any particular comment on this. Ms.

Gawronsky: It's been a–it's always a discussion around our tables in the Union Centre. It's been a discussion in my home, in my community, other areas that we go to. The lack o f training, safety equipment, that is in a lot of private industry places, and now this is going to address a lot of them, will bring it up. I believe that has a lot to do with injuries that are happening.

And people that are injured, perhaps, that don't realize they need to look after that injury before they go back into the workplace, that's 'perative.' People don't understand that, so a lot of education and training, that'll come into–that will help. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. There are no more questions. I thank you for your presentation. Ms. Gawronsky: Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Chairperson: And I would now request Mr. Dave Sauer to come and make the presentation. Mr. Dave Sauer (Winnipeg Labour Council) : Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for pronouncing my name correctly.

That doesn't happen very often. Anytime, or do you want to wait 'til everybody gets coffee? Mr. Chairperson: Go ahead. Mr. Sauer: Okay. All right. The Winnipeg Labour Council is pr oud to have an opportunity to present its views regarding Bill 31, The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act. My name is Dave Sauer; I'm the president of the Winnipeg Labour Council. We're an organization that represents 47,000 workers in the city of Winnipeg from 76 affiliated union locals. We've been in existence since 1894 and have a long history of civic engagement.

Issues of workplace safety and health have been a priority of the labour movement since day one. Many unions affiliated to the Winnipe g Labour Council formed under the pretext of safer working conditions for their members. It's in this spirit that we appear here today in support of Bill 31. From the government of Manitoba's Five -Year Workplace Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, of which Bill 31 is a part, the goal is to make Manitoba the safest place to work in North America. This is an important pursuit.

Workplace injuries and death destroy the lives of workers and their families, disrupt workplaces and communities, and puts an enormous strain on our health -care system and our economy. Preventative action is the best protection against workplace death and injury.

388 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 Bill 31 is an important step in ensuring a safer and healthier Manitoba. The Winnipeg Labour Council is most pleased to see the enshrinement of the four workplace safety and health rights into law: the right to know, the right to participate, the right to refuse unsafe work, the ri ght to exercise these rights without repercussion. These four rights are essential to safe and healthy workplaces. They enable workers to have full understanding of their workplaces, how their workplaces operate in a safe and healthy setting.

Should a workplace fail to meet safety and health standards, workers are empowered to protect them and their co-workers. All workers, no matter the size of their workplace, have a right to go home safe to their families every day. Among other things, Bill 31 expands the scope of these rights to workers in smaller workplaces, ensure stronger workplace safety and health committees, and prevents employers from assigning dangerous work to other workers after said work has been refused. We believe tougher penalties for employers who operate unsafe and health –unhealthy workplaces are warranted.

Workers need protection when they speak up; all too often workers who voice their concerns over health and safety issues are targeted by employers. This needs to stop. Workers should have every right to raise matters of health and safety to their employer without retribution. They're only ensuring that everyone goes home safe and sound to their families at the end of each workday. This noble action should not be met with scorn. We believe free passes on workplace safety and health violations is wrong. Under current rules, employers can be cited multiple times for violations without financial penalty.

We believe this approach allows for lax health and safety standards in workplaces. The WLC believes automatic penalties for high- risk violations are an appropriate response; otherwise, how will repeat violators get the message? Similarly, we believe expanding penalties to employers that put off improvement orders is also warranted for similar reasons. Employers need to understand that safe work practices are the law and not simply recommendations. Lives and livelihoods are at stake. There are recommendations that we'd like to make.

However, just to show respect to Brother Kevin Rebeck from the Manitoba Federation of Labour, his organization did work hardest on recommendations, so I've left it up to this evening to field those recommendations. We are in support of this bill, and we are in support of the, I guess, words you will hear from Brother Rebeck later on. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Ms. Howard: Thank you very much, Dave, for your presentation. I appreciate your support for some of the directions we're taking on the enforcement.

And we're going to talk mostly about enforcement tonight, because that's what the bill is about, but I know that you know that there's a whole strategy that talks about prevention and education and training and all of those other things. And I guess I just want you to know that the new enforcement measures, I think when our officers go out, their first effort is always to educate, to work with employers to get safety, but we've experienced, and you've experienced, a few instances where, even though those are the best intentions, you have an employer who just absolutely will not do what they're asked to do.

And, in those instances, we feel that our officers do need the ability, especially if there's an imminent risk, to apply a penalty immediately, and so that's why that's in the bill. And the ot her thing you talked about, that workers should be able raise concerns without fear of retribution, although that is a right currently, there is no penalty if that happens. And, in our opinion, when that happens, it creates a chill through the workplace, and it's necessary to say clearly that that's not acceptable practice. So I want–just want to thank you for your support on those efforts to strengthen our enforcement. Mr.

Sauer: Thank you for doing it. Mr. Gerrard: One of the things that I raised earlie r on, and I would offer you an opportunity to comment, our rates for time loss for injury have been tended to be higher than other provinces and whether you can comment on, you know, why you think this has been, and what sort of discussions you've had relative to this in moving forward on the bill. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Sauer. Mr. Sauer: Sorry. I would hearken back to the discussion that was about creating a safety culture. I think that is something you need to do.

You look at a lot of European countries; their time -loss injuries are much, much lower, because they've actually taken the time to go through it with their workforce

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 389 and establish proper, you know, safe work procedures. And it's become a safety culture. I just spent the summer i n Finland with a friend who works, actually, in a nuclear power plant, and he asked me last year –I remember when we were travelling together –you know, how many workers die on the job every year in Canada? It's over a thousand. He was absolutely astounded. A country of five million, they had, I think, three last year, is what he cited. That's incredible. I think that's a safety culture.

That's something you want to emulate, and I think that's what needs to happen in this. Now, to create a safety culture, you have to sort of establish it from the top. The business owner's the one who owns that workplace; it's their responsibility to make sure it's a safe and healthy workplace. If they get it, then the workers will start getting it, because it's –training will trickle down. If that training does not trickle down, the unions will be there, the workplace health and safety committees will be there to sort of uplift that. So I think it is an entire change in safety culture.

Another thing I would like to encourage and something that I've seen happen frequently with this government is they've operated on an increased funding model for the SAFE Workers of Tomorrow program that goes out to high schools and teaches students about workplace safety and health and creating that safe and healthy workplace culture.

I actually had an opportunity yesterday to volunteer with the Steinbach Regional Secondary School; they were doing all of their grade 10 students, quick, little half -an-hour, 45- minute presentation, basic right s on the job, hazards to watch out for on the job, and workers compensation. That's creating a safe and healthy culture in workplaces, so I think that's the model that we need to keep following. This is one more step in that direction. We've got a five-year plan; I think we're on year 1. Got a lot to do. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Sauer: Thank you for having me. Mr.

Chairperson: Now, I'd like to request Mr. Kevin Rebeck. Mr. Kevin Rebeck (Manitoba Federation of Labour): Thanks and good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to provide input into the consideration of Bill 31, The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act. The Manitoba Federation of Labour represents over 96,000 unionized workers from 27 unions across the province.

For decades, the Manitoba Federation of Labour has been the leading voice for Manitoba workers in promoting safe and healthy workplaces. * (18:30) Workplace health and safety's an issue area, about which our members are very passionate and actively engaged in. To support this concern, the Federation of Labour holds an annual health and safety conference, providing training and workshops from a worker perspective, nominates labour representatives for the minister's Advisory Council on Wor kplace Safety and Health, the Workers Compensation Board and the WCB appeals commission.

We support the MFL Occupational Health Centre, and SAFE Workers of Tomorrow in their work, promoting awareness of workers' health and safety rights. We have active com mittees where health and safety activists work together to promote safe and healthy workplaces, and promote the interests of workers at WCB, and we lobby the provincial government and WCB for stronger workplace safety and health measures. Before speaking to the specifics of this bill, I'd like to comment on the Manitoba's Five-Year Workplace Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, of which Bill 31's an important component.

The plan followed a comprehensive consultation and review process in which we were pleas ed to participate, and although the plan doesn't go as far as our members would like in some areas, it is a comprehensive and ambitious plan, and we urge all members of the Legislature to support the government in implementing it. In particular, we like the goal of making Manitoba the safest place to work in North America. That's an aggressive goal, but we believe it's achievable and Bill 31's one part of a strategy to get us there.

I want to put it on the record that we support Bill 31, and we have some modest suggestions to improve it. We support the bill for three main reasons. First, the bill would enshrine in law and strengthen the four fundamental workplace health and safety rights: the right to know about hazards in the workplace; the right to parti cipate in identifying, assessing and eliminating workplace

390 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 hazards; the right to refuse unsafe work; and the right to exercise those rights without punishment. Although government training courses reference these four rights, The Workplace Safety and Health Act does not currently recognize them in a clear and explicit way. Workers regularly consult and reference the act and regulation booklet when dealing with safety issues in the workplace. A clear statement on their rights will make it clear to both workers and employers that these rights are the foundation of our health and safety system and must be respected.

Bill 31 would make the right to know more meaningful for workers in workplaces with fewer than five employees by granting these workers the same information rights currently granted to joint health and safety committees and to health and safety representatives. It's critical that all workers have a meaningful right to know. The bill would also strengthen the right to participate in workplace health and safety decisions by strengthening joint health and safety committees in the workplace.

Committees would be mandatory in more workplaces and seasonal workplaces; employers would be required to respond in writing to communicate recommendations tha t come from either the worker or employer co -chair, preventing the employer from systematically blocking worker recommendations; and, finally, the bill will clarify rules to ensure that workers must be fully compensated for time spent working on official committee business. The right to participate would also be strengthened by requiring health and safety representatives in smaller workplaces than before.

Bill 31 would strengthen the right to refuse unsafe work by prohibiting an employer from assigning work that's been refused as unsafe to another worker, until the process for investigating that concern has been completed. This would prevent employers from pressuring or intimidating vulnerable workers into performing unsafe work. And the bill would also r equire provincial safety and health officers to provide written reasons if they rule that work refused under the right to refuse is not dangerous. Obviously, a work refusal's a serious matter, and requiring written reasons would reflect that seriousness.

A second general reason why we support Bill 31 is that it would impose tougher penalties and sanctions for employers that flout safety rules. Expanding the application of administrative penalties to employers that take discriminatory action against workers for exercising their rights is a very positive step. When employer punishes a worker who speaks up for their safety, they do send an intimidating message or a chill, as the minister put it, in a workplace that makes it clear that raising health and safety issues is not welcome.

That threatens the safety of all workers in the workplace and is obviously a very serious violation that merits a financial penalty. The MFL has, in the past, raised serious concerns about the fact that employers get at least one and, in many cases, several warnings before financial penalties are imposed. This essentially gives employers free passes, by which they know that, even if they are caught breaking the rules, they have one or more opportunity to avoid a penalty. By enabling automatic penalties without warnings for high-risk violations, Bill 31 moves to address our concern, and we applaud this.

We also applaud the move to expand the scope for stop-work orders, to streamline the application of administrative penalties and to apply penalties to employers that backslide on improvement orders. These changes help send a message to employers that flouting safety rules will not be tolerated in Manitoba. And the third reason we support Bill 31 is that it will enhance transparency and accountability. Workers deserve to have access to information about the health and safety records of their employers. Parents should be able to find out information about the safety records of their kids' employers.

And this bill would empower the Province to make more such information public. Other provinces already provide more information about workplace safety records, details about serious injuries and fatalities, compliance records, et cetera. Manitoba workers deserve the same. Entrenching the office of the chief prevention officer in the act and providing him or her with a legislated mandate to provide independent advice about workplace illness and injury prevention is a very positive step. We look forward to public annual reports on the state of health and safety in Manitoba workplaces.

Although we support Bill 31 for strengthening safety rights, for toughening up penalties and sanctions and for enhancing transparency and accountability, we do have some modest suggestions to improve the bill.

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 391 First, we believe the chief prevention officer should be empowered to conduct investigations and make recommendations in areas not assigned by the minister. This would provide the CPO with some independence and autonomy to pursue safety concerns and solutions independent of government. We also think all recommendations and reports prepared by the chief prevention officer should be made public, not just the CPO's annual report.

And while the power of the director of the Workplace Safety and Health branch to conduct investigation is going to be laid out in the act, the MFL recommends that timely, prevention -oriented investigations that are made public be legally required for all workplace fatalities. Where the training rights of joint health and safety c ommittee members are clarified and strengthened, we recommend that the training rights of committee members be converted from a right to a requirement to ensure that all committee members are adequately trained and that it be expanded from two days to five.

Provisions dealing with the rights of workers and employers to appeal decisions of the branch should also be expanded–the right to appeal decisions about the right to refuse dangerous work and decisions about medical investigations of workers. This bill should ban workplace incentive programs that discourage reporting of injuries. Such programs constitute organized claims suppression and they should be banned. Thank you for this opportunity to provide a worker perspective on the bill. We hope you'll pa ss this into law at your earliest opportunity. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Rebeck. Ms.

Howard: Thank you very much. Thanks, Kevin. I'm just chuckling to myself at your last statement. Our earliest opportunity, I think, has passed, but our next opportunity is around the corner to pass the bill. So I want to thank you for your input into this law and other issues. I know you work on many of our committees, along with representatives from employers, and that process is one tha t tries to achieve consensus. And I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your commitment to that process.

And, as usual, you've told us where we're going right and you've laid out a path for the future, and I appreciate that. We're not probably going to be able to do everything that you've suggested here today, but, like all bills, this is one step and there will need to be future steps if we're to put in place our strategy for prevention. So thanks for your ongoing commitment to this work. Mrs. Row at: Thank you for your presentation. Obviously, you have some very good points with regard to Bill 31 and the reasons for its implementation. You also indicated there were some areas to be considered going forward.

Of these that you've listed, which one would you consider the most concerning or would fit mostly –most with the current bill in itself. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Rebeck. Mr. Rebeck: I was waiting. Thank you for the question. I think we've been pretty straightforward with government that our largest concern is where employers have incentive programs to prevent reporting of workplace injuries and claims. This is a far too frequent process.

It's a hard thing to pin down because people are intimidated, people are put into a position where the culture is: let's not report a claim, you'll still get paid; let's not a report a claim and everyone will get a pizza lunch at the end of the month. And you're put in a position that if it isn't a life -or-death type injury, that there's a lot of pressure to stay sil ent about it, to not address what caused that workplace injury and to not get it fixed so that others aren't protected and made safe. * (18:40) So this is an ongoing concern.

There's been some good work by this government investigating claim suppression. There's a bunch of committees and work being tasked through Workers Compensation Board to work on this file, and it's one that we'll be aggressively drawing attention to, until we feel that it's been adequately addressed. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation, and I agree that the goal to be the safest place in North America's a good one. My question to you is: How will you measure it? Will that include things like the time -loss-to-injury rates? Mr. Rebeck: Sure.

I think that's an excellent question on how we do measure that because some of the measurement tools that we use don't paint the whole picture for things. And time -loss rates is one that I think is a measurement that's there, but, again,

392 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 if people are being told not to report claims –and claim suppression isn't a unique problem to Manitoba; it's something that is rampant with the funding model of the Workers Compensation Board. So we need to have more measurements than that. We need to have an aggressive prevention plan in place, and there's some steps being taken to do that.

And we need to figure out what the might – right metrics are to be able to see our health and safety committees meeting regularly in workplaces, or concerns being raised through some of the new mechanisms that they can be raised. So I think there's a number of ways that we need to figure out how to do that, and the best way to do that is by getting employer and worker representatives together to figure out what are those metrics that we can track and keep track of to make sure that we are making improvements and gains that are real to workers. Mrs. Rowat: You've indicated that that's where you'd like to go.

Is there any country or jurisdiction that you would share with committee that would be a model to follow? Mr. Rebeck: I think there's a number of countries that have been dealing with a funding model, so I guess there's a few areas that you're really touching on there. There's the Workers Compensation Board system itself, and then there's health and safety measures and acts, so I don't have a specific country that I'd name. I think some different countries are leaders in different ways, and what we need to do is find our best way to use those best practices and bring them forward.

And, as has been mentioned earlier, the best way to do that is when you have true worker input and employer input to make workplaces safe, to make them productive and to ensure that everyone who comes to work in the morning or evening goes home at the end of their shift, safe and home. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Now, I would like to call on Mr. Cory – [interjection]–Szczepanski. Mispronunciation of your name, I apologize. I wish I could read better than that. Thank you. Mr. Cory Szczepanski (Brandon and District Labour Council) : Sorry. Thank you. My name is Cory Szczepanski.

Thank you to all the committee members for allowing this submission. I hope you take what I'm about to say into consideration, due to the fact that health and safety is the most critical part of the work that I do every single day. I work in steel production manufacturing facility that handles millions of pounds of steel a month. In our line of work, it's very easy to lose a limb or get killed while trying to put in an eight-hour shift, five times a week.

I also represent thousands of United Steelworkers, as the president of the southern Manitoba area council of United Steelworkers, and I'm also the president of the Brandon and District Labour Council, again, representi ng thousands of more workers in all kinds of jobs, from meat -cutting to firefighting. My work as an advocate for workers' rights steps outside the realm of union shops as well.

I've been contacted by many non -union workers, telling me stories of their wo rkplaces and many times asking for help in figuring out ways to make their bosses listen to health and safety concerns or, worse yet, being fired for getting hurt or simply asking questions. These real life stories of the every -day worker, trying to earn a living; in Manitoba, we see far too many workplace deaths and serious injuries. This is not due to the fact that we have dangerous industries in Manitoba, but a multitude of issues that can be corrected through proper legislation. And Bill 31 is a great step towards that.

I applaud our government for bringing these ideas forward and the conduction of reviews of Workers Compensation Board, prevention and health and workplace safety. It shows this government recognizes there are issues out there and they'r e trying to work on them. There are parts in this bill that are much needed to strengthen our basic rights in the workplace, such as our right to refuse dangerous work. I've been involved in the exercise of the right to refuse, and many times have seen confusion between supervisors and employees and what is supposed to happen when a worker invokes this right.

I've seen management try to dance around the situation and ask others to do the work or intimidate the worker who is refusing the unsafe work. Legis lation is needed to clear up this area and make a law that employers must follow a series of clear steps to address the safety concern and that employers cannot pressure others to do the work that's been refused before the safety concern is addressed, and Bill 31 will strengthen that right to refuse in this way. Bill 31 will improve health and safety workers – will improve health and safety for workers across

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 393 this province by making joint health and safety teams mandatory for our–more workplaces. A further improvement to our health and safety committees that will help thousands of workers across the province and get home safely every day is a proposed change to allow either worker or the employer co-chair to bring forward safety concerns and recommendations. When companies put profits ahead of employees' safety and they refuse to allow costly safety initiatives to be brought forward, people's lives are at risk. These committees are designed to be equal.

By allowing either co- chair to present ideas is a positive step to safer workplaces. Bill 31 also –will also save lives by enforcing laws with stiffer penalties. The only way business seems to listen is when their pocketbooks or bottom lines can be affected. If our Province brings penalties with large financia l implications they will act on safety concerns, better train workers and create prevention programs. As it stands now in Manitoba we do not have nearly enough health and safety officers for the amount of workplaces and the geographical area they are requi red to work, and employers know this.

Many companies would rather gamble with people's lives and cut corners to get the job done faster or to do the job–rather than to do the job in a safe way or what legislation requires them to do. We need laws in Manitoba that would penalize companies that try to play the system or ignore their responsibilities as employers. Prevention is something that has been overlooked for many years now, and I'm very pleased to see the provisions in Bill 31 on the chief prevention officer role. Companies need to have programs and tools available for them to start programs in the workplace.

Right now, we have private companies that teach a variety of behavioural-based safety programs that skew statistics and don't really prevent accidents or deaths. I would further recommend the committee look at allowing this role to work at an arm's -length from the minister and the government and give this office the power to call for inquiries or conduct investigations and make recommendations. As I've already stated, I am in favour of Bill 31 and I think it's a giant step towards safer, healthier workforce, but would also like to point out some other recommendations I believe should be considered.

First, when it comes to training our health and safety committee members, currently we have the right to two days of training per year and, I believe, like the MFL, that this should be expanded to five days of training. Today we work in very complicated environments and we deal with many issues on day -to-day. Our health and safety team members could be dealing with exhaust and fumes, accident reports, asbestos in our workplaces, to deadly temperatures.

Our health and safety team members are on the floor and they are relied on by co-workers, but also by m anagement, and I believe we owe it to these volunteers to train them properly with the most up-to-date training we can. The final concern I would like to talk about is one of workplace incentive programs that was just brought up. These programs vary in nature, but all have the same result and that's claim suppression.

There are programs designed by private industry that are intended to bring down the number of claims companies make to WCB in order to take financial advantage of the –an incentive in the WCB -rate model. This problem has grown to an epidemic proportion. Some workplaces pay straight -up cash if you don't file a report of an injury. That is a very large bonus to many workers and it creates a hostile environment.

Fifteen hundred dollars has been reported to me that some workplaces give out by month to their workers if they make it throughout the month on their shift without reporting a claim of an injury or lost time, and that large bonus can cause a hostile workplace. On those work crews, you'd be cast out pretty quickly for getting hurt and losing money for others. * (18:50) In my workplace, we've had, up until recently, an incentive of free meals for each quarter our shift could go without having an injury in our department. Each meal would escalate in desirability the longer our department went without an injury.

This alone causes bullying and intimidation amongst co-workers, and very often, too, today, when somebody gets hurt, the first words out of their mouths is: Oh, oh. There goes our chicken dinner. This, of course, has led to people not reporting their injuries because of programs as they didn't want to anger anybody, pardon me. We need to recognize these types of programs as claim suppression and not allow companies to use this type of intimidation in the name of profits.

I would like to conclude by asking the committee to think about the recommendations that I have made and go forward with Bill 31, a great step towards making Manitoba one of the safest places to

394 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 work in North Americ a. And thank you, again, for allowing me to be here. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Ms. Howard: Yes. Thanks, Cory Szczepanski, for coming. Floor Comment: You're welcome, Minister Howard. Ms. Howard: You can call –it's okay –you can cal l me Jennifer. I want to talk to you a bit about the incentive programs, and I know this is an issue that you and others have raised a few times with me and publicly, and what I've been thinking about is, I think, not all, but for some employers the inte nt behind that is honourable.

What they're trying to do is create incentives for safe behaviour. The impact may not be that. They may be, indeed, creating incentives for not reporting injuries, which is not in anybody's interest. So one of the things I've been thinking about is a way to get at it, instead of direct banning it, is there a way to frame some guidelines or something that says, you know, you could have an incentive program for–if a certain percentage of your crew gets this kind of training you get–there's an incentive?

Or that kind of turns it on its head a little bit so that you're ensuring that what you're 'incenting' is behaviour that leads to greater safety. And just trying to refine some of the guidelines so it's not just an incentive, go without an injury for this long and you get something, but take some positive action that leads to a safety culture and there's an incentive for that. So I don't know if you have any thoughts or other examples about that, but that's kind of –that's the way that I've been thinking that we might try to approach this issue. Mr. Szczepanski : That's a very valid point.

It's something that we've discussed many times. When I first started at my company 10 years ago, they used to pay you to report –not every indiv idual, but they would do draws for hazard reporting. So, if you put hazard reports in by identifying hazards in the workplace or unsafe conditions, they would make monthly draws out of the amount of people that put in these hazard reports and you would get a $25 gift certificate to a local business in Brandon. We've gone from that to the incentive meal programs.

They've backed away from training; they've backed away from monthly health and safety meetings because they–this program seems to be working for them. But, in reality, as I said, I hear more and more stories of my co -workers who said: I didn't want to say anything because of the dinner, that we've had blood poisoning, we've had to have hospitalization because of unreported injuries. We've had fights with WCB about why my co -worker didn't report the injury, and I'm, as a worker rep with them, having to explain the fact that they didn't want to say anything because they didn't want to lose the pizza.

Workers Comp wasn't –they didn't really care about our incentive program when it came to that. So, in our last round of negotiations, we had to negotiate an incentive program that did not include anything to do with health and safety, and, thankfully, our company had listened. So we have incentives on, like you had mentioned, training, on overtime things, on absenteeism, on cleanliness of the area, which includes hazards and different things, keeping a clear area. So they've got a bit of health and safety involved in there, but it's not based on reporting injuries. Mrs.

Rowat: A couple of things: One, going off of what Jennifer just indicated with regard to incentives, would that –does that have to be in legislation or regulation? Would education of business maybe be a better way to do that? Because I know that if non- union companies that have a few employees, this may not be something that would necessarily work for them, so do you believe that this would be something that you need to legislate or regulate? Mr. Szczepanski: Yes, unfortunately I do bel ieve that this is something that needs to be in legislation.

We've created a b illion-dollar industry of third -party companies coming in to teach companies how to save money through the rate-setting model program– that's what we've gone to. They are all about incentive programs, all sorts from DuPont safety STOP, which is a very popular one; we have Safety Services Manitoba, which has several different incentive programs that they can teach your company. We do not have education on prevention. We do not have the tools out there on prevention that companies can access in the same way as we do have behavioural-based safety programs.

Unfortunately, statistics show that it saves money, and if you take a company that is a multi - million dollar global company and they're paying millions of dollars in premiums to WCB, it is definitely a financial incentive for them to bring

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 395 those costs down. If they can save a million dollars a year and put that in their books by having less claims, it's an easier route for them to go rather than to invest in strategies on prevention and training that costs them money. Mrs. Rowat: Again, you were talking about large corporations; I'm not sure about smaller ones.

But I'm–if you wanted to just address that at one –and then also go into e xplaining your position here with regard to two days of training per year and this would expand to five days of training, and I know that Kevin also mentioned that. Can you explain to me the reason for that expansion to five days and do you–again, I'm looking at smaller operations. I know that within your corporation and your association that may be easier to do, but what about small operations or farming operations, you know, small businesses? How do you see that fitting into their schedules and their opportunities to be– Mr.

Chairperson: Yes, unfortunately the time has expired–five minutes. But I'll request an answer. Mr. Szczepanski, please give your response. Mr. Szczepanski: You bet. I'll roll it all into one, Leanne. So we've been talking a lot about prevention and training, so the two days versus five days and a smaller company versus a bigger company, anybody's life is worth more than what we're talking about here when it comes to a floor of any sort or a farm.

If we can train people to work safely, to recognize hazards and remove them, to work with different chemicals, to know what an MSDS sheet is, to know how to look them up in different things –this is the training that requires more than just two days.

To learn how to write an accident report, to learn how to take notes and do interviews, to learn how to look things up with MSDS, to learn all the great laws that we have in this province that already do protect workers and families, to be able to exercise that on the shop floor or in your workplace , any sort of leadership training –investigations are probably the largest ones that take the most complicated amount of time to go through– and that's why I would recommend going from two days to five days.

And to–just to finish off with that, as a worker on a shop floor and having co- workers beside me who are identified as health -and-safety team members, I witness every single day people rely on those people to know everything. They're under a great amount of pressure to know everything, but it also comes from the supervisors and management, and they'll say your own team didn't do that. Well, our own team is made up of volunteers that are production welders and everything else. We are not professionals in this. So any amount of training would benefit every worker in the province. Thank you very much, everybody.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Now the next presenter is Laura Ealing– [interjection] If the person is absent, their name will be dropped to the bottom of the list and we will continue with calling the next presenter. The next presenter is Choele Chapple. Do you have any written presentation or are you– * (19:00) Ms. Choele Chapple (Mani toba Association for Rights and Liberties): I just have brief [inaudible]. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. So kindly distribute that, thank you. Yes, go ahead and make your presentation. Ms. Chapple: Thank you for having me.

The Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties applauds the new Manitoba Five -Year Workplace Injury and Illness Prevention Plan and the work to strengthen The Workplace Safety and Health Act through public consultation and review process conducted by the ministry's Advisory Council on Workplace Safety and Health.

These amendments strengthen and clarify the four health and safety rights of workers: the right to know about hazards in the workplace; the right to participate in health and safety activities in the workplace; the right to ref use unsafe work; and the right to exercise these rights free from discriminatory action.

This is done through a number of measures including expanding and improving the application of administrative penalties, empowering the Province to make public informa tion about enforcement activities, strengthening joint health and safety committees in the workplace, expands the number of workplaces requiring a workers' safety representative and more internal safety resources for small workplaces. The new five -year plan aims to make Manitoba the safest workplace in –sorry–the safest place to work in Manitoba.

To achieve this goal, MARL believes the bill should include the following amendments: ban workplace incentive programs

396 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 that discourage reporting of injuries as s uch programs constitute organized claims suppression; and a specific requirement for an extensive new young-workers safety orientation at the time of hire. Bill 31 amendments make Manitoba a safer place for workers, which is in the best interest of business and industry. This bill is a positive step forward for workers and employees. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Ms. Howard: Thanks very much. Thanks for coming tonight.

On the suggestion of a requirement for an extensive new young- workers safety orientation at the time of hire, I do want to assure you that is our intention to go forward with that. I think that's something that was in our five -year strategy. We need to do a little bit more work on that.

One of the things that we need to do some more work on specifically is ensuring that everybody knows what constitutes a training and orientation program, and that's something we've heard both from workers, but also from employers, particularly small employers that often employers will shell out a lot of money for a training program. They'll put everybody through it and then they'll find out that, oh, actually, it doesn't actually train people to do the things that are in the law.

And so we think we probably do have a role to help everybody know what is a comprehensive training program, to regulate that somewhat so that both when employers are laying out money to train people, but also so everybody knows, oh, as a young person or a new worker I've been through this training program. This training program complies with all of the parts of the law so I know what I'm supposed to know. So it is our intention to go down that path, but we're going to take a little bit of time just to make sure that when people are trained we all agree with what they're trained to do.

So I just wanted to let you know that. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Chapple, do you have any response? Ms. Chapple: No, that sounds good to me. Mrs. Rowat: Thank you for your presentation. I think you've outlined a couple of unique areas that I will, at some point, give you a call and learn more about. So thank you for that. Mr. Gerrard: One of the things about Manitoba's situation is that we've had a higher time-loss-to-injury rate than most other provinces, and I wonder if you're –this suggests that we have a less-safe work environment and maybe you would comment on this in respect to this bill. Ms.

Chapple: That's something that I would not have the expertise in. From MARL's standpoint it would be more anecdotal and, sort of, more reading the research that was done by –more of the labour movement. So they would probably be the individuals to speak to on that. Sorry. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Now, the next presenter is Rob Hilliard. Go ahead, Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Rob Hilliard (United Food and Commercial Workers): Just for the benefit of the committee, I'm not going to be reading from the submission that's being handed around here right now.

Our union has addressed many of the amendments in Bill 31, and the rules don't allow me half an hour here to read that to you, so what I'm going to do instead is show one example of, in our experience –in our union's experience, of how one of the amendments can make a real -life change–effect, positive effect in workplaces and help prevent injuries. We do want to point out, however, that that is our position on the bill. We are in favour of the bill.

We think it can make a nu mber of good improvements and we wanted to leave that with you so that you understand where we sit on a number of those particular amendments. I also want to say something about our union. We represent about 15,000 workers in this province, across a whole range of economic sectors from retail to food processing, manufacturing, warehousing, hospitality industry, security, health care, and our membership is approximately 50 per cent male and 50 per cent female, and we also have a very high percentage of new arrivals to Canada in our membership.

So we have a very broad experience in dealing with a very broad array of issues in workplace safety and health in Manitoba. What I would like to discuss is one of the amendments in Bill 31, and that's the amendment that will allow either committee chair to refer an issue to the employer for a written response. I'm going to illustrate for you why that's important, in our opinion. Early in 2009, at a poultry processing plant where UFCW represents the workers, an air

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 397 quality problem developed. The workers were being exposed to something in the air that was causing them to have red irritated eyes with excessive tearing, runny noses, sneezing, coughing, difficulty breathing, sore scratchy throats, and for some of these worke rs, they even had difficulty sleeping at night because these symptoms would persist through the night and kept them awake.

The workers complained to management, they filled out WCB green cards, which is an incident report card kind of a situation –kind of a report and they made complaints to the joint workplace safety and health committee. Management responded by hiring a firm to conduct air monitoring tests for–to determine what the levels of chlorine in the air might be. The reason they did it–they tested for chlorine is because chlorine had been recently introduced to the process. There was a chlorine-like odour in the air and it was suspected that chlorine must be the problem.

The air monitoring, however, indicated that the concentrations for chlorine we re very low, very much below the threshold limit values. Nevertheless, the workers continued to have these –experience these symptoms. However, after conducting the air monitoring, management took a different attitude about the whole thing. They felt that s ince they had tested for what they felt was the likely problem and it had been demonstrated that chlorine was not at a sufficient level in the air to cause any problems, they then started to threaten workers for continuing to fill out these incident reports.

They also started to berate them, said that this is all in your head, you've got colds, you're making this up, you're exaggerating the problem. As a result, the workers stopped filling out these incident reports; however, they still continued to experience the symptoms. They made complaints – they still continued to make complaints to the joint workplace safety and health committee. The employer then said, okay, we'll get you some respirators. About 75 per cent of the workers in this area were able to use the respirators which helped a lot but didn't eliminate the problem.

There were still about 25 per cent of the workers that couldn't use the respirators because they couldn't breathe properly through them. Management said, okay, try goggles to help with the problems with the eyes. The problem with the goggles is they fogged up, and, if you're holding sharp knives on a production line and you're making cuts in birds that are going by, fogged goggles is a much greater hazard , so the goggles were abandoned. The workplace safety and health committee started to deal with the problem in July of 2009.

It's recorded in the joint workplace safety and health committee minutes of that month. Over the course of the next two and a half years, this issue was raised in 21 more meetings as a problem that was still not being dealt with. Every time it came up for a vote on the committee about referring it to management for a written response, it was a tie vote. All the management representatives voted one way and all the w orker representatives voted another way. Tie vote, nothing happens. And nothing did happen.

The issue just went on with workers complaining, with workers going to see their doctors, but nothing done to change the situation. * (19:10) In April and May of 2011, our union decided to conduct what we call a symptom survey. We gave cards to all the workers in the area and asked them to fill them out about what there were experiences were when–on any given day that they had problems. A hundred and seventeen of t hese cards were returned to us in those two months, and they listed all the symptoms that I talked about before.

We even got two cards back from two inspectors from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, who weren't our members and we didn't even give them the cards, but they found out they were there and they wanted to fill them out, because they, too, were having problems. We gave this information to management. They ignored it and did nothing. So UFCW then decided to contract with a firm who had expertis e in occupational hygiene, Elias consulting. Mr.

Elias, the principal, was a former head of Occupational Hygiene of the Department of Labour in Manitoba; he had more than 20 years of experience as a senior corporate occupational hygienist for the Health Sciences Centre and over 40 years’ experience in the field. Mr. Elias met with some of the workers who were–had these problems. He also conducted some of his own research. And he found that this used to be a very common problem in poultry plants in the United States, in the 1990s in particular.

He also found that the national institute for safety and health, NIOSH, which is a federal agency in US, conducted several studies. And what NIOSH determined was that chlorine was not the problem after all. They said instead what

398 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 it was was chloramines, which is a compound formed when chlorinated water comes into contact with ammonia from the eviscerated birds. When it's combined like that, then this compound of chloramines is produced. Chloramines has a chlorine-like odour; chloramines also produces symptoms that all of these workers had. NIOSH recommended that better ventilation be put in these –in places where this occurred and that engineering controls be implemented such that the chlorinated water no longer came in contact with the ammonia from the eviscerated birds.

When they did that, the problem disappeared. Again, we gave this information to management; again, they did nothing and ignored it. The union felt we had no options left other than to make a formal complaint to the Workplace Safety and Health division, which we did. They responded by sending out an occupational hygienist to the workplace on two occasions. She made inspections; she determined that in fact it was likely chloramines was the problem agai n; and she met with management and made the recommendations that NIOSH had made. She asked them, are you prepared to put these recommendations, and they said no.

They didn't see any real need to do that. So she wrote an improvement order, and management i nitially appealed that improvement order, but eventually they relented and put in the recommendations that NIOSH had made and the Workplace Safety and Health division had made. And the problem diminished greatly. It's not gone, but it's diminished greatly.

Now, if the amendment of Bill 31 had been in place that either co -chair could have referred this matter to the employer for a written response, that issue could have been dealt with long before the three years it took to deal with this and clean up the air for these workers. A lot of these workers went through an awful lot because they could not deal with the problem. Bill 31 addresses that. So we think that's a very good amendment. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hilliard. Ms. Howard: Well, thank you very much for giving that very tangible example of the difference that this can make.

I have to tell you that there are many days in this Legislature where I ask myself, are we making any difference to anybody, and you've answered that question in the affirmative today. And I'm really thankful for that. I wanted to ask you, I know that both you and your union have a lot of members who are newcomers to Manitoba, and this is –we know this is a population that's at greater risk for workplace injury. And I want to ask you if you have any advice for us on things –probably not in legislation –but things that we could be doing to diminish that risk.

We've done things like help fund translation of information and documents, but I think beyond language there is a cultural gap often that, even when we try to help people understand that they have these rights, they may come from a place where rights are, you know, they may also have rights to safe workplace, but exercising those rights is a dangerous thing to do. And so, how do we get over some of those gaps in understanding and help newcomers to Manitoba understand that we have workplace health and safety rights in place and we expect them to exercise it and they won't be punished for exercising them? Mr.

Hilliard: It's–you've pointed out the problem, really, and it's more than language; it's culture. And it's not enough to tell people they have rights if they don't know how to exercise them. And, in many cases with our members, they don't know how to exercise them. And even when they're told what to do, they fear employer retaliation because where they come from that can be very dangerous for them to raise those kind of issues. There is a–you mentioned that–I'm going to refer to a couple of things here in my response –but you mentioned there's not a lot you can do in legislation.

Well, I think there's a few things you can do, and we did mention it in our written brief. We had made a recommendation at the advisory council that one of the amendments should be that each co -chair should get a written copy of every improvement order. And the reason we suggested that is because we have a workplace where the majority of the workers are new to Canada. And it was a problem with a lot of heat stress.

There was a high h umidity level and high heat, and the Workplace Safety and Health division did issue an improvement order, but the improvement orders for dealing with high–with heat stress don't reference an objective number that triggers action; it talks about symptoms and how you respond to them. Our members didn't understand that. The improvement order was posted on the bulletin board. They read it but they didn't understand it and they didn't know how to react to it. They phoned us for help. We said, can you give us a copy of the improvement order? The employer

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 399 would not allow them to take a copy off the bulletin board. The law says it has to be on the bulletin board, but it–that's it. And they would not allow them to take a copy of that and fax it to us so that we coul d look at it and give them concrete advice. It took us several days to get into the workplace, take a look at it, have a meeting with the workers and explain what they had to do. If they had've had a hard copy, we could have got it that day, we could've addressed it much more quickly. That's one small issue.

Information is important and also how telling workers what they can do and how they can do it is important. There is –the occupational health centre does a training program now, funded, I think, through your department in part, that has a train-the-trainer program. And they take representatives from different ethnic communities and they put them through a 12- week course, and they train them on what the law says in workplace safety and health, w hat the law says on workers compensation, what they can do and what workers need to do, what –to protect themselves and to report injuries.

And then they –these trainers then go back into workplaces and they talk to other members of their own ethnic communit ies and spread the knowledge around. I think that's a very useful thing to do, and I think it's a great program and probably should be more broadly used. Mr. Gerrard: Two things: one is just a clarification as to whether that company was in Manitoba ; and, second, we have had a higher time-loss-to-injury rate than most other provinces . A nd I wonder whether you would comment and why that is and what we need to do to. Mr.

Hilliard: Yes, just for the record, yes, that is – that company is in Manitoba. In terms of workers compensation statistics, I have to tell you I'm a pretty big cynic when it comes to those. There –those are reported accidents. It's important to differentiate between reported accidents and accidents themselves. We've heard from earlier presen ters about different incentive programs that encourage workers not to report. We've had that experience broadly in our union. I'll illustrate an example. I'll name the company. It's Maple Leaf Foods in Brandon.

And, by the way, in my naming them, I'm not singling them out for –I don't think they're a terribly bad employer; I don't think they're any worse than anybody else. But they have a number of incentive programs that are based on not–on how many reported accidents there are in the department. And, when you add them together, it could add up to a dollar an hour for workers. I talked to one of our members, a single mother, and I said, you know–and she was walking around; she wouldn't report her accident. And I said, you need to report this, it could get worse.

And she says, I need the dollar an hour; I'm going to continue to work the way I'm working. * (19:20) So there's an accident that didn't get reported. So I see–I can't even tell you how many. I get it a lot from our retail workers who say there's no point to it. My employer has a WCB advocate based in London, Ontario, a legal firm that fights all of our claims. I don't want to have to go through that. I'm not reporting it to Workers Comp. So, if you're asking to compare Workers Comp stats, I'm a huge cynic. I just simply don't know what they mean.

And if we're talking about comparing them across jurisdictions, I just don't know what they mean. I don't know what those other jurisdictions are doing. I don't know what kind of claim suppression's going on there. I do know that there is claim suppression. I sit on a national committee for UFCW where I have colleagues from all the other provinces and we make our reports, and I know claim suppression is broadly practised right across the country. But I don't know how to compare our stats with the other ones because there's so many unknown variables that I jus t don't know what it means. So– Mr.

Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Hilliard. The time has exceeded. So I hope it's all right with you. Now, we will have t o now go to the next presenter which is Clint Wirth. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Wirth. Mr. Clint Wirth ( Public Service Alliance of Canada): Yes, thanks for having me today. It's a little bit out of my comfort zone doing this kind of thing, but–so bear with me. On the Bill 31, The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act, I represent the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and we are very pleased with the work that has been completed in the review of the current Workplace Safety and Health Act.

We look forward to the passing and, more importantly, the effective implementation of most of the enhancements taking place. There remain certain areas of concern which we would like to see addressed further at this stage. The

400 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 majority of Public Service Alliance of Canada members, PSAC, working in Manitoba are covered under the Canada Labour Code,

Part II, in regard to health and safety. However, in addition to those covered under such federal legislation, we do represent many workers under provincial jurisdiction in regards to health and safety. This segment includes most workers at Deer Lodge Centre, all unionized workers at Avion, providing security at saint –at James Richardson international airport and a number of workers in the education sector. Myself, I work at Deer Lodge Centre in the central sterilization area.

So in addition to those that we represent we also recognize a responsibility to all Manitoba workers to support initiatives that are beneficial to our social well-being. We feel that in addition to the recommendations that we support this would be an appropriate time to carefully consider increasing the committee training time from the current two days per year to five days per year. There are many aspects of health and safety that require a great deal of understanding, and this requires a more reasonable allowance in a time–in order to meet these expectations.

A well-educated and well-trained committee member leads to effective and productive workplace safety and health. We also feel that it's time to move towards a mandatory expectation that training will be completed annually by all committee members. Currently, training for committee members is not mandatory, but can merely be as an acceptable option. It's there if you want it. The vague nature of the wording of the act was intended to give flexibility for committee members and their employers, not to have it sit idle unless specifically asked for.

We do understand that there will be a need to recognize exceptions, but this can be addressed by requiring a written explanation for any of these exceptions. It is vital in these times that every effort be made t o ensure that committee members are trained and refreshed in their responsibilities and able to effectively complete their mandate. This is a cost-efficient use of resources, particularly given the great social and economic cost of workplace illness and injury. In

summary on this point, we believe that it is the employer's or prime contractor's responsibility to ensure that joint workplace safety and health committee members receive the necessary training to meet all of their responsibilities on the committee. This in no way –this must in no way detract from the independence of the employees in selecting their representatives.

We have a concern with the referenced to competency in 40(13) and 41(8) which would–could be interpreted as providing the employer w ith the authority and requirement to assess competency for committee members and employee representatives in smaller workplaces. This process underlying the deter–this determination of competency is not explained. The legislation lacks the definition of competency. The concept is very vague and open to abuse. There is no requirement that the employer explain or is required to justify their analysis or process. This puts employers in a difficult position.

It is unnecessary and contradicts the intent of providing fair and balanced representation through the process. As stated in our previous point, it is essential that training be provided and made available to provide sufficient knowledge and expertise to complete all duties required under the legislation. We also feel that the current practice of many employers providing incentives creates the impact of decreasing reported accident incidents which are seen as counterproductive. Known as claim suppression, they should be specifically against the law. The historic thought was formulated with a positive intention.

In fact, the process through the manipulation of the process creates a benefit in not reporting accidents. It attempts to take advantage of employers who may not know their rights, fear discriminatory action if they speak up or not understand the future repercussions of not reporting accidents or near -miss situations. The impression of rewarding safe behaviour sounds, on the surface, like an admirable and positive goal. The practicality is that providing incentives for not reporting accidents results in fewer accidents being reported.

That does not correlate with the fewer accidents taking place, only with a reduction in reported incidences. When this becomes ingrained in the workplace culture, the result can be disastrous. There is a combination of confidence that everything is okay and a lack of understanding of the potential dangers. These serious injuries that often –the serious injuries that often result over time far exceed the costs involved in correcting the issues from the onset. We therefore feel that it is essential that changes be made to prevent employers from offering any form of incentive for reducing reported accidents.

Reporting of all incidents, hazard and near misses creates a safer workplace and promotes a culture of hazard

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 401 recognition. In short, a culture of safety is supported by proactive reporting of accidents. We also recommend that the four fundamental rights of workers be clearly and firmly entrenched in the act. Currently, the right to know, the right to participate, the right to refuse and the right to be free from discriminatory action are all covered under the act. We respectfully ask that these rights be prominent, clear and unambiguous in the act so it is clear to the layman that these are the fundamental rights of workers in regards to health and safety.

Thank you for your time and consideration for my presentation. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Ms. Howard: Thank you very much for your presentation. You did great. I just wanted to go back to your comments about the clause in the bill that has to do with employers ensuring competency. We have heard that criticism. We do intend to bring an amendment through committee tonight to clarify that.

The intent in the bill is that, as you have said, that employers are to provide for adequate training, time to get adequate training, so that people can be competent members of the worker –of the safety and health committee. The intent was never that the employer is the sole judge of who's competent or not because we recognize, as you do, that that could be open to abuse and violates the idea that those representatives are representatives of the employees.

So I just want you to know, because you may want to stick around 'til whenever we get to the bill and amendments, but in case you want to go home, I want you to know that we do plan to bring an amendment to clarify that. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Wirth. Now, the next presenter is Marianne Hladun. Marianne Hladun is not here. Okay, we will go to the next presenter then. This name is dropped to the bottom of the list. And we will call the next presenter , which is Michelle Balina. Thank you, Ms. Balina. Go ahead, please. * (19:30) Ms. M ichelle Balina ( Manitoba Hydro, C UPE Local 998): Hi, I'm new.

First time I ever spoke in front of you guys so I'm really, really nervous, but I want to do my best. I'm her e basically to support the bill and just a few statements I wanted to make. My name first is Michelle Balina. I'm here on behalf of our local CUPE 998–local CUPE union members. I also currently am the vice -president for local 998 representing Manitoba Hydro. Currently, I sit on the Manitoba Federation of Labour, health, safety and environment committee, also CUPE Manitoba health, safety committee as a member and also recording secretary. Workplace safety and health affects all of our workers.

We all wan t to go to work every day and return home safe at the end of each day. These Bill 31 amendments will help us to reinforce the message that workplace safety must also come first for all Manitobans. The amendments that affect us are: Strengthening provisions for a worker exercising their right to refuse unsafe work. Our workers are put in some unsafe situations, and I believe that we should all know our rights, especially our right to refuse work if it puts us at risk to get hurt.

It's our job to make sure our workers know their rights and how to exercise them properly without any fear of repercussion from their employers. Requiring a worker safety and health representative in every workplace with five or more workers rather than 10 and also that goes into seasonal as well. I'm just combining the two. Dangerous work or workplace hazards are the same whether they are a small or large workplace. They should include all seasonal workers as well, especially with a lot of young workers entering the workforce in the summer months.

I hate hearing the media reports, he was only 17 his first day on the job. If they know and understand safe work procedures at their workplace, it's going to make it a safer environment for everyone. How can we put a price tag on our mem bers' lives? It's our civic responsibility to keep our workers safe. As a society, we all want to go to work and be safe. Clarifying provisions for paid training and other activities for social–for safety and health representatives and committee members. Workplace health and safety awareness is key to everyone in the workforce.

We shouldn't let the budget dictate some practices in training. All of our workers should know all safe work procedures and when their rights –and their rights when the procedures a re not followed. We can't put a price tag on education and we can learn the less accidents there will be. Workers should not lose pay to access safety training.

402 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 Expanding the list of activities or contraventions for other administration penalties may be i mposed for strengthening the enforcement of these –of those penalties. I feel strongly on this one. We need stronger consequences and penalties for those violators. When good–what good is legislation without any proper enforcement or penalties? Without the enforcement, the same workplace accidents will be happening over and over again. Together we can make Manitoba a safe place to work, and we can educate all our workers today, tomorrow and years to come.

I support the amendments to Bill 31. Thank you. Ms. Howard: Yes, thanks very much, Michelle, and thanks for coming and presenting. I know you said it was your first time, and I know this can be an intimidating place to speak. It's intimidating still to those of us who speak in these rooms on a far more frequent basis. So thanks very much for being courageous to do that. It should be intimidating to some of us. It is intimidating to some others of us. I want to thank you for your comments. You said you were at Hydro, right? That's –yes.

So I just also wanted to tell you how much we enjoyed Hydro hosted a lot of the activities for the kickoff of Safety and Health Week, and there were some great speakers there and just really great examples of the fabulous work that you and your colleagues are doing to enco urage safety there. So I wanted to tell you how much we appreciated that, and I hope you take that message back to your members. Floor Comment: For sure, thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Balina. No, Ms. Balina, there is another question here from another member. Mrs. Rowat: Thank you for the opportunity.

I just wanted to thank you for your presentation. My husband works for Manitoba Hydro and has actually sat on some of the workplace safety committees, and he does share that with his household. So, you know, not only does he share that with his co-workers but makes sure that the family is safe when they're cutting the grass or doing any outdoor activity so– Floor Comment: And also I am the chair of workerplace– Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Balina, please address through the Chair. Thank you. Ms. Balina: Sorry, okay. I also am the chair of our workplace health and safety with our local union.

I also–I sit on the committee at Manitoba Hydro and the corporate committee as well. So I'm involved a lot with workplace health and safety. Mr. Gerrard: The target of the five -year plan is to make Manitoba the safest place in North America. Maybe you can h elp us figure out how you measure that. We've been talking a little bit about the time-loss-for-injury measurements. It may not be perfect, but at least it is one that's reported across many jurisdictions. But what would you suggest? Ms.

Balina: What I would say, is, like I'm not here to represent Manitoba Hydro, but our CUPE members in a whole, so we hit on different aspects, Manitoba Hydro, CUPE 500, city workers, health care. So those numbers I don't have, but one thing I wanted to say is, I think to get more people aware, more young people especially, is have interaction events, you know, where people can interact and figure this stuff out instead of given a book, like here's the rules and regulations, read it. People don't want to do that.

If there's so mething that can implement some more interaction, I think that our members would come out more and, you know. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Now we will have the next presenter, Marty Dolin. Madam Vice-Chairperson in the Chair Mr. Marty Dolin (Pri vate Citizen): Thank you for allowing me to present, you know, like one of the things– Madam Vice- Chairperson: Mr. Dolin. Mr. Dolin, we just need to wait for you to be acknowledged so that they can turn the mics on so that we can record every word that you speak. So, Mr. Dolin. Mr.

Dolin: I want to say first that I appreciate what the act is attempting to do, and I agree with my friends in labour, in particularly, with the Winnipeg Labour Council that talks about the enforcement issue. One of the concerns I have is that there's a spanner in the works, and it would be apparent if the intent of the act is to protect workers from injury and death and provide penalties for employers who allow unsafe working conditions which would endanger workers. The goals of this act are commendable but are undercut by

section 13(1) of The Workers Compensation Act, which exempts all employers, whether or not they comply with The Workplace Safety and Health Act and rights of action by the injured worker and his or her heirs, quote: The right

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 403 to compensation provided by this

part is in lieu of all rights and rights of action, statutory or otherwise, to which a worker or his legal personal representative, or his dependants, are or may be entitled against the employer or director o f the corporation that is the employer, for or by reason of personal injury to, or the death of, the worker occasioned by any incident which happens to him arising out of, and in the course of, his employment; and no action in any court of law against the employer or director of the corporation that is the employer in respect thereafter lies, unquote. This

section protects both the employers who respect The Workplace Safety and Health Act and the employer scofflaws who do not. The penalty is for the viol ators of The Workplace Safety and Health Act who are often seen as, quote, a cost of doing business, and weighed against the costs of compliance. There have been many injuries and deaths over the years in workplaces in violation of The Workplace Safety and Health Act, and the penalties have provided minimal benefit to the injured worker or his heirs and do not inhibit repeat offences.

It appears that both the honourable employers who make the effort and incur the expense to provide safe workplaces and the workers injured and killed in unsafe workplaces are being treated unfairly by this

section of The Workers Compensation Act. A simple amendment to exempt employers from the protection of this section, if a worker is injured or killed while the employer is in violation of the terms of The Workplace Safety and Health Act, would be fairer to workers and to employers who honour the legislation and better served to ensure safe workplaces. If workers were given the right of legal action where their injuries or dea th were caused by illegal acts of the employer, they or their heirs would be able to gain the real losses incurred by their injuries or death.

Such an amendment to exempt scofflaws from the protection on the 13(1) of The Workers Compensation Act will proba bly go further to cleaning up dangerous workplaces than all the penalties under the Bill 31, and the workplace safety and health and amendment act. * (19:40) All right, let me give you one of the reasons I'm here as an individual representing nobody but myself.

As a former MLA, an executive director of a community health centre, and executive director of a refugee centre, back when I was principal secretary to the NDP leader in Nova Scotia, a young man came to us who had half his face blown off and his right arm gone–he was 20 years old. At that time he had been told on the construction site to drill a charge – there were five charges, four of them exploded, one did not–he was told to drill the charge because it was a dud. Obviously, when he drilled it, it bl ew up and blew the right part of his body off.

We then said that he should –he came to us, we contacted Dalhousie law school, we got the dean of the law school and we took–said he should not apply for workers comp. Now, basically , it is exactly the same se ction; this 13.1 is universal across the provinces, to my understanding. W e went to the Supreme Court –I forget whether Supreme Court of Nova Scotia or Supreme Court of Canada ; the decision of the court was that he was eligible for workers compensation, therefore could not take legal action–so, basically, under the act.

When I arrived in Manitoba about six years later, there was a construction site on Portage Avenue where there was an employer who had about 35 penalties against him. A 19 -year-old young man fell off a guardrail which was improperly installed and died. And I don't know if people remember that. It would have been about '82, '83. But the reality was the penalties were only the fines under the workplace health and safety act. What I'm suggesting is –I'm not saying employers shouldn't be exempt, I'm saying employers should be exempt if they obey The Workplace Safety and Health Act.

If they do not and if they are found to be in violation when a worker is injured or killed, then an employee –the worker should have a right to take action over and above the action taken by government. That is my suggestion. It does not deal with the specific bill, but for future reference I think it would–it would make the enforcement provisions of The Workpla ce Safety and Health Act much more enforceable and would keep the employers –the honest ones would continue to be honest and the dishonest ones would now have the stick and not just a carrot. So thank you for that, and if there are any questions.

Madam Vi ce-Chairperson: Do members of the committee have any questions? Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

404 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 Ms. Howard: Thanks, Marty, and you always come with an angle I haven't thought of before, and you've done that again tonight, really. And I –but I think what you're speaking to is a larger problem that we've been seeking address , and that is we've got mechanisms to deal with employers who don't obey the law and maybe don't obey the law because they don't know any better or they think it's too expensive and we h ave remedies. We haven't found a great mechanism yet to deal with employers who are negligent.

It's not just a –we didn't know, we haven't had time, we'll get to it, but who know what they're doing is going cause an injury or accident or could and don't take any action. And we're trying to put some of that in here. There is a federal statute, criminal statute, as a result of the Westray disaster, that hasn't been effectively used anywhere really in Canada, either. So I think what you're talking about is, is this another tool? And it's something that we'll give some consideration to.

But while I've got you here –and you can answer the first part, but I also wondered given your long, long experience working with refugees and newcomers if you had any additional advice for us on things that we can be doing to ensure that that population is protected in the workplace, because we find that they are some of the most vulnerable workers in our province. Mr. Dolin: You know, Rob Hilliard came and talked about that and–you know, and about the –getting the information across. I think part of that goes into– you know, you talk about employers who are creating dangerous workplaces out of ignorance.

What I'm suggesting is that once they get an order saying that they have to fix something up and they have 30 days to comply, at the end of the 30 days, if they haven't complied, they can't plead ignorance anymore. And at the end of that 30-day period is when they are now in violation of the act. If an accident or death happens, a t that point they become –the worker would then have legal recourse to them.

So saying employers don't understand, is once they've been given an order they damn well better read the order, you know, and understand what they're in violation of and what they have to do and how much time they have to do it. And if they have not complied by the end of the period, then the worker should have a right to–not only to get compensation, but to take civil action against the employer, you know. And it strikes me that t his would clean up workplaces very quickly. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr.

Gerrard: Thank you, Marty, for your suggestion, and I think that you're pretty clear in suggesting that this occur where there is a specific violation, where there has been an im provement order, and so that carrying this out would be pretty specific in terms of the conditions under which the exemption would no longer be there. Is that right? Mr.

Dolin: If somebody is given an order and they've got 30 days to comply, and within that 30-day period that –and an accident happens or a worker is injured or killed, I would not –that would– they would not be exempt in 13.1 It is the person who has not complied after the period they were given, who was still in violation, and, yes, they should be exempt from 13.1 and the worker should have a right to take legal action, or the union can on his behalf, or his heirs. And that's what I'm suggesting should be the amendment that should be considered.

And I would think, you know, like, I'm sure the other provinces have very similar, you know, clauses in the worker's comp act, and I think Manitoba could set a very distinct precedent in telling employers if you don't obey The Workplace Safety and Health Act you will be doubly penalized not only by the government, but by the worker and the worker's heirs. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Bill 37–The Emergency Measures Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: I'd like to call presenter, Kenton Friesen. Yes, Mr. Friesen, go ahead. Mr.

Kenton Friesen (International Association of Emergency Managers–Canadian Council): Thank you for having me this evening. Again, my name is Kenton Friesen. I'm here today on behalf of the International Association of Emergency Managers, specifically, the Canadian Council. The Internationa l Association of Emergency Managers, or IAEM, is an international network of over 5,000 emergency management professionals. In Canada this network represents –is represented by the IAEM Canada Council, which networks Canadian and managers –emergency managers, from coast to coast to coast.

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 405 IAEM Canada felt it important to 'repre' –to have representation here today to show our support for this–for the improvement process of this important legislation. At this time, the IAEM Canada Council does not have specifi c recommendations for the current amendments included in Bill 37. However, IAEM Canada recommends that the government of Manitoba conduct a comprehensive review of The Emergency Measures Act to align it with the legislative reviews that have taken place in other provinces such as BC and Alberta.

Such a review would modernize and align Manitoba's emergency management efforts with those of other Canadian provinces, industry best standards such as the Canadian–or the CSA, Z1600 standard emergency management as well as the Principles of Emergency Management that have been established by IAEM which I've handed out to you, which is being distributed to you now. If and when such a review were to occur, IAEM Canada would welcome the opportunity to provide feedback by utilizing our network of emergency management professionals from across Canada and from around the world. Thank you. * (19:50) Hon.

Steve Ashton (Minister responsible for Emergency Measures): Well, thank you very much for your presentation, and I certainly appreciate the offer. I do want to indicate, we did do a comprehensive review a number of years ago and, of course, over the last number of years we've had a fair amount of experiences, you know, with natural disasters which have led to much of what's in Bill 37. I certainly appreciate your general support for that.

What I did want to ask, actually, though, is –in a sort of a–in a broader context, you know, which does relate to this bill, is what your sense is, really, of the evolution of dealing with emergencies, emergency management, the various emergency measures organizations, certainly from your perspective, and if we were to proceed to a further review –as I said, we did have a comprehensive review a number of years ago–what your suggestions would be in terms of parameters and the kind of areas that we should be looking at. Mr. Friesen: Definitely.

I'd actually draw you to the principles of emergency management itself, which it's built on eight main components, and that is that have been comprehensive, considering all hazards, all risks, all phases, which is mitiga tion, preparedness, response and recovery. A lot of the traditional emergency management in North America has focused on the response, not the mitigation, which then can reduce the amount of preparedness needed, which then reduces the amount of response needed.

You can't get to a perfect world where it's zero, but you can try –as well as being progressive, trying to think about what's going to change because one month or one year you have pandemic, the next month you might have floods and next you'll have f ires, and you have to be progressive. Needs to be risk driven, risk driven meaning that you're not going to deal with earthquakes in Manitoba if you are in BC. What are you going to deal with in Manitoba? Well, flooding always happens. It has to be relevant to the situation at hand.

And the flooding that occurs in the –into the Red River Valley is different than that that happens in the Agassiz valley, so it depends. Integrated where it's a team effort. Integrated and collaborative and co -ordinated are al l trying to achieve that same thing, that we all need to be on the same page, whether it's health care, the private sector, the public sector and all of its stakeholders.

In terms of looking at in Canada, it was after the 2003 forest fires in the Kelowna valley that Premier Gary Doer, or former Premier Gary Doer, did the review on that fire, and then what followed out of that is what's called the BC emergency response system or BCERMS, and that was a major step forward in Canadian efforts to– An Honourable Member: Filmon. Mr. Friesen: Filmon. What did I say? An Honourable Member: Doer. Mr. Friesen: I apologize. You can kill me later, okay. Mr.

Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): In regards to the Bill 37, what suggestion would you have for our organization in Ca nada as opposed to other jurisdictions? What do you see as shortfall then? Mr. Friesen: At this time, I don't want to enter anything because our team hasn't reviewed it in great detail. We'd rather see a comprehensive end -to-end review of the entire legislation. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I think your suggestion is an excellent one. There are clearly

406 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 areas where we need to learn a substantial amount here, even though some things we do quite well. We still have, from the flood of 2011, almost 2,000 people who are still not able to come back to their communities, and I think that, you know, accelerated return to normal would certainly be one area where we could learn from experiences elsewhere. Mr. Friesen: I don't think there was a question there, right? So there's no response. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Friesen, do you want to respond? Mr. Friesen: No, I was–I'm just saying that I don't – Dr.

Gerrard, I don't think there is a question there, right, just a statement? Mr. Gerrard: No, I just put it –I just wanted to give you a comment. Mr. Friesen: Okay. Yes, I'm sorry –learning from other areas, whether it is on the other side of the planet or whether it's right in our own back door, doing after -action reports and learning from what happened with Hurricane Sandy, Katrina, all of those things, all tho se efforts, need to file into what we're looking at, and I know that my colleagues in EMO and in Manitoba look to those things all the time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Friesen: Thank you very much.

Bill 40–The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: Next presenter is Rita Kurtz. She's not here. Looks like Ms. Rita Kurtz's not here, so her name will be dropped in the bottom of the list. I'd like to call, now, Marianne Cerilli. Do you have anything to distribute, Ms. Cerilli? Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Social Planning Council of Winnipeg): I'm sorry, I do not have a written presentation. I'm just going to speak and it'll be on the record. Mr. Chairperson: Go ahead. Ms. Cerilli: Thanks to all of you for being here after a long, hard sessi on–[interjection] No choice, hey, Stan?

I want to give the government recognition, to start with, for another amendment to The Residential Tenancies Act in Bill 40 and to say that many of us in the community had a chance to meet with representatives of th e department and raise some concerns and make some suggestions. We don't know at this point if any of those suggestions have been put forward as changes to the bill, so I'll be interested in knowing that. And I'd also like to say at the beginning that I'm listed as speaking on behalf of the Winnipeg Rental Network, but I'm actually–work at the Social Planning Council.

I'm representing the Winnipeg Social Planning Council this evening. I do chair the steering committee for the Winnipeg Rental Network, but my colleague, Gordon McIntyre, will be speaking on behalf of the Winnipeg Rental Network. And I also want to say that, at the beginning, that the Bill 40 does include, I think, some balance in the sense that there are provisions in the bill that recognize the challenges facing tenants and there are some provisions in the bill that recognize the challenges facing landlords. And I'm not here representing the interests of landlords.

I'm–spend my days concerned about those in our community that don't have enough to eat and can't afford housing and are challenged by inequality and social exclusion and poverty. So I'm going to be speaking mostly from that perspective, and I do want to say, too, that, you know, regulating the relationship between landlords and tenants is a challenging thing and it's kind of like trying to regulate a marriage, I would say, that it's tricky.

The–so the detail that these amendments get into are trying to negotiate that relationship between landlords and tenants, and there's a lot of de tail and there's a lot of opportunity, I think, for trying to close loopholes and gaps that either side can try and find. So I recognize the challenge of this legislation. That said, I think I'm going to deal with the legislative changes first, and then I will have some other comments about the –some of the regulatory changes. So the first one is the

section that is going to make more transparent and to put some kind of provisions around the way that the rent regulation is set. And we've been told that the consumer price index is going to be used and we recommended that it be–the things that really affect the landlord that are going to be taken into consideration and–sorry –that we want the consumer price index to include everything to take out the peaks and valleys of setting the rent regulation, and we appreciate that there's going to be more predictability.

One of the things that we want to make sure happens is that there is some consideration of income and ability to pay, which I think is maybe difficul t to do if you're only using the consumer price index.

September 5, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 407 So that's one of the suggestions that we've had when you're setting the rent regulation. And there's been a lot of attention over the last while about the rent gap in terms of the increase in rent comp ared to things like social assistance or fixed income for seniors who are on pension.

So those are the kind of other considerations that we want to see come into play, and we're not clear how that's going to happen with the current provision. * (20:00) The other thing is I was in conversation with staff from the department about the difference of having this provision in the act, and I had said initially that I would prefer to see the requirement for rent regulation and the formula or the direction for the formula to be in the act and not only in the regulation to ensure that there's protection that the rent regulation actually has to be set each year.

So I've been concerned that the way that it's worded would allow for one year that the rent regulation simply to not be enacted, and that would be permitted under the –the way that these changes are being put forward. The other area I wanted to comment on is –it's either

section 161 or 145– and that's where tenants are losing the right to appeal their eviction for non-payment of rent. So, as you can imagine, any time that someone is losing their right to appeal, the community is going to be concerned, and people who are on a low income and often don't have a mailbox– they're in a rooming house, they may not get notices– there can be all sorts of reasons why someone would not show up to a hearing.

So to lose the right to appeal in those situations is of great concern, and I think that's one of the most disconcerting things about the bill, is we can understand that landlords are often faced with having a tenant go to the longest possible time when they're being evicted and then they may have to go without having the rent covered, and we understand that's the issue that this is trying to address.

But to end up having a tenant who no longer has a right to appeal because they failed to show up for a hearing, I don't know if that's a balanced approach to take to ensure that landlords are protected from losing their one month's rent. Also, that provision is moving the e viction process from seven to five days, and people, again, are going to have a shorter time to get themselves organized in order to deal with the eviction. The next

section I wanted to comment on is

section 29, and that's the provision to allow a pet damage deposit, and while it may sound like it’s a great thing to encourage landlords to create more pet-friendly units because there's going to be a new pet damage deposit, which is up to one month's rent, the concern is, for very low income people, those on social assistance or on a pension, they will have a very hard time coming up with which is essentially two and a half months' rent if they're coming into a new unit, because they'll have to cover not only the pet deposit, they'll have to cover their own half month's rent for their own damage deposit, and then they'll have to come up with their first month's rent, so it's really two and a half months' rent.

So, for someone on social assistance, forget it. They're never going to be able to do that. So, real ly, in effect, a lot of folks who aren't coming from another unit where they're getting their former damage deposit are not going to really be able to have a pet under this new scenario. So, again, it's something to recognize that pets are valuable in people's lives, but, on the other hand, for people that are on a really low income, it's not really going to help them out.

And in a few of these provisions I'm going to comment on, there really is kind of a double standard for folks that are at a low income, or doesn't really recognize the situation that they're in. The next session–section is another

section that we have a lot of concern about in the community, and we'd really like to see, not only some way that this provision is going to be monitored and evaluated, similar to what we asked for when the EIA legislation, the employment income assistance legislation, was changed to allow people to be cut off if they have outstanding warrants. It's the same kind of issue that's allowing people who are believe d or suspected of being involved in criminal activity to be evicted by the landlord without any police involvement at all.

So we're concerned that this is another way that the government is using social policy and public policy to do criminal justice wor k, and we're very concerned that this could be abused. There's a lot of racism out there that a lot of tenants face, and if that can often lead to stereotyping and they're being suspected of doing all sorts of things, there is going to have to be evidence gathered and presented to the Residential Tenancies Branch.

However, all of that is going to put a lot of onus on the individual that's being evicted because they're being suspected of dealing drugs or whatever else that they are being suspected of doing.

408 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 5, 2013 And the way that it's been described to us, is it's even just making people in the –other tenants in the building feel uncomfortable. So there's a lot of concern about that

section 74 and the provision to allow landlords again to have an easier time to ev ict tenants who they believe are causing a disturbance in their property. We don't want to see the kind of two -tiered system for lower income people, and we expressed this when the changes were made to the employment income assistance act where folks that are on social assistance and have an outstanding warrant, if they don't deal with that warrant they can be cut off. And other people will not lose their job if they are not dealing with an outstanding warrant.

So it's really setting up a two -tiered system of justice and I'm concerned that this is kind of the same –going down the same road. Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, your time has expired, so we will now go to questions. Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living, Seniors and Consumer Affairs ): I'll give you an open-ended question, okay, Marianne? I'd like to thank you very much for your advocacy and I'd like to tell you that we have considered a lot of the things what you have said and they will be taken under consideration on the drafting of the regulations in certain instances.

And I'd like to say thank you very much for your advocacy on behalf of low -income people. I think you've really pushed it and they –you've really presented a lot of what their issues are, and if there's any other issues that we s hould consider, if could let us know, that'd be great. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Riding Mountain): Excellent presentation, Marianne. Just a couple of – [interjection] Oh. Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, did you want to respond? Ms. Cerilli: If there's anything else –well, actually that was the end of the comments I was going to make on the legislative changes.

I think the regulatory changes are more positive in terms of tenants, because they're the ones that are actually trying to control the increase in rents from –of above guideline because of renovations. So I think those provisions are positive, and, you know, we wanted to encourage limiting the number of years that the rent regulation is exempt, considering that, you know, there has to be some kind of formula or cap, because right now it definitely is not a tenant's market. So we're just conc

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-2-sed7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 2nd hansardpdf sed7.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8d43ff2b4ad21ca40a29b4c52d54f6285961e9e1

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