Manitoba Committee Hansard — 2 June 2005 (Human Resources Committee, Sitting 2, 38th Legislature, 3rd Session)

38-3-hr2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Human Resources Chairperson Ms. Marilyn Brick Constituency of St. Norbert Vol. LVI No. 2 - 6:30 p.m., Thursday, June 2, 2005 ISSN 1708-6655

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon.

Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

47 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES Thursday, June 2, 2005 TIME – 6:30 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere) ATTENDANCE - 11 QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mses. Allan, Oswald Messrs. Aglugub, Altemeyer, Ms. Brick, Mr. Cullen, Mrs. Driedger, Mr. Loewen, Mrs. Mitchelson, Messrs. Santos, Schellenberg APPEARING: Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster WITNESSES: Mr. David Sinclair, Private Citizen Mr. Graham Starmer, President, Manitoba Chambers of Commerce Mr.

Bill Gardner, Chair, Manitoba Employers Council Ms. Darlene Dziewit, President, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Pete Walker, Health and Safety Representative, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Ted Hudson, Private Citizen Ms. Gerry Schedler, Private Citizen Mr. Craig Schedler, Private Citizen Ms. Liz Elliott, Private Citizen Mr. Gerald Allen, Private Citizen Mr. Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Mr. Bruce Hacault, Private Citizen Ms. Lois Wales, First Vice-President, Manitoba Government Employees Union Mr. Rick Farley, Workers Compensation Board Mr.

Robin Reed, Frontier Teachers' Association Mr. Peter Wohlgemut, Private Citizen Mr. Ray Perreault, Private Citizen Mr. Ron Perreault, Private Citizen Mr. Les Lilley, Private Citizen Mr. Harvey Levin, Private Citizen Ms. Karen Mozden, Private Citizen Mr. Alex Forrest, President, United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg Ms. Debbie Woodman, Private Citizen Ms. Brenda McAdam, Private Citizen Ms. Anne Savignac, Private Citizen Mr. Robert Smith, Private Citizen Mr. Shannon Martin, Director of Provincial Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business Mr. Brian Ardern, President, Manitoba Teachers' Society Ms.

Dianne Zuk, President, Pembina Trails Teachers' Association Ms. Kathy Coulombe, Private Citizen Ms. Heidi Eigenkind, Private Citizen Ms. Darlene Kernot, Private Citizen Ms. Dorothy Wigmore, Private Citizen Mr. Ronald J. Nash, Private Citizen Ms. Ruth Ann Furgala, President, Manitoba Association of School Trustees Mr. Dave Sauer, SAFE Workers of Tomorrow Mr. Bob Dolyniuk, General Manager, Manitoba Trucking Association Mr. David Markham, Executive Vice-President, Mining Association of Manitoba Inc. Mr. Patrick Campbell, Private Citizen Mr.

Stephen Copen, Employers Task Force on Safety and Compensation WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Manitoba Nurses' Union Ms. Hilda Froese, Chair, Garden Valley School Division Board of Trustees Ms. Lisa Steffler, Private Citizen Mr. John Steffler, Private Citizen St. James-Assiniboia School Division Ms. Charlene Bergen, Private Citizen Mr. Stephen Hunt, Director, District 3, United Steelworkers Ms. Linda Davies, Private Citizen

48 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 25–The Workers Compensation Amend- ment Act *** Madam Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Human Resources please come to order. This meeting has been called to consider Bill 25, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act. Our first item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Aglugub? Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Madam Chair, I nominate Harry Schellenberg, the member from Rossmere. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Schellenberg has been nominated. Are there any other nominations?

Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Schellenberg is elected Vice-Chairperson. We have a number of presenters registered to speak this evening which you will find noted on the presenters' list before you. We have also posted the lists at the entrance of the room. Before we proceed with these presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. First of all, a second meeting has been called, if necessary, to hear any presenters which may not get to speak this evening.

This second meeting will be held in this same room, Room 254, on Monday night, June 6 beginning at 6:30 p.m., if required. Second, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with 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 accompa ny your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff.

As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with another 5 minutes allowed for questions from committee members. In accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Further, if the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.

For the information of the committee, several written submissions on Bill 25 have been received and distributed to committee members. These sub- missions are from John Steffler, Lisa Steffler, the Garden Valley School Division, Manitoba Nurses' Union, and St. James-Assiniboia School Division. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have a number of out-of-town presenters in attendance marked with an asterisk on the list.

As well, David Sinclair, No. 11 on your list, is here tonight in place of his brother-in-law, Mr. Bruce Kitching, who recently passed away. It has been requested that Mr. Sinclair be allowed to speak as soon as possible, as the funeral is going to be occurring tomorrow. Is that agreed? [Agreed] With these considerations in mind then, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? It has been suggested that we hear out-of-town presentations with the exception of Mr. David Sinclair, who will be moved to No.1 on the list.

Is that agreed? [Agreed] I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment. Except by unanimous consent, a Standing Committee meeting 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 6:30 p.m. As of 6:30 p.m. this evening, there were 67 persons registered to speak to Bill 25. Therefore, according to our rules,

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 49 this committee may not sit past midnight to hear presentations without unanimous consent. Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The pro- ceedings of our meetings ar e recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I have to first say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mikes on and off. Thank you very much for your patience.

We will now proceed with public presentations. Mr. David Sinclair, would you like to come forward, please. Mr. Sinclair, you can proceed whenever you are ready. * (18:40) Mr. David Sinclair (Private Citizen): Thank you, Madam Chair, honourable members. Good evening. My name is Dave Sinclair and I am a captain in the Winnipeg Fire Department. I am also the brother-in- law of firefighter Bruce Kitching. Bruce was sche- duled to speak here tonight. This is something that he really wanted to do. Unfortunately, Bruce died on Sunday as a result of h eart injury. He was 48 years old.

Last May, just a few hours after Bruce had returned home after a busy shift, he suffered an aortic aneurism. I understand this is a very common heart injury for fi refighters. For the next year, Bruce went through many life and death surgeries, three to be exact, but on Sunday the fight was over. I am here to speak on behalf of Bruce's wife, Kathy, and his family. I am glad to see that heart injury will finally be recognized as a line of duty injury. It is especially sad that Bruce died before this bill was passed. Bruce died, and, as of today, his WCB claim has not been accepted.

I will not go into the tremendous impact that Bruce's death has had on his family, both financially and emotionally. I also understand that there are other widows of firefighters who have died of occupational disease who are here tonight, and they are much better able to explain to you how much we need these amendments. I would like to thank all of you for the work you do and the time you have given me tonight. Please pass the bill as soon as possible so that other firefighters will not die of occupational diseases without proper compensation. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Sinclair. Hon.

Nancy Allan (Min ister of Labour and Immigration): David, I would like to thank you for appearing at the committee tonight on behalf of David Bruce Kitching. I would like to thank you for your courage in being here. I know this must be a very difficult time for you, and I would like you to pass on my condolences to your sister-in-law Kathy and his family. I will be at the funeral tomorrow, but I would also like to put on record that it is in his commitment and his work in the community that he paid the ultimate sacrifice with his life. That is incredibly unfortunate.

I just want to say thank you once again for being here this evening. I know how difficult that must be. Mr. Sinclair: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. By consent of the committee, we will now move towards out-of-town presenters. Our first out- of-town presenter is Graham Starmer from the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce. Before you proceed, I just need to know, is this a presentation made by two individuals, or only one? Mr. Graham Starmer (President, Manitoba Chambers of Commerce): Yes, it is.

Madam Chairperson: Okay, before you proceed I need to have the other person announced, and I need to have consent of the committee for the other person to speak. Mr. Bill Gardner (Chair, Manitoba Employers Council): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. My name is Bill Gardner. Madam Chairperson: Okay, and is it the will of the committee to have both presentations heard simultaneously? [Agreed] Please proceed. Mr. Starmer: Honourable members, The Manitoba Chambers of Commerce, now in its 75th year, is the

50 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 umbrella organization for Manitoba's chamber movement. With a membership comprised of local chambers as well as direct corporate members, we represent in total approximately 10 000 businesses and 75 communities across Manitoba. The MCC is unique amongst the business organizations that will present to you. Our organi- zation is not confined to any specific region within Manitoba, nor do we represent only one size of business.

In fact, the MCC represents the entire spectrum of the business world from sole propri- etorships to some of the largest companies in Manitoba. Nor do we represent only one particular sector of the economy. To cite a few examples, our membership includes representatives within the transportation industry, mining, technology, services, manufacturing and agriculture. The WCB review took co nsiderable time and energy to bring forward its recommendations. It was by any standard a truly noble effort.

Business and labour, starting with differing points of perspective, engaged in detailed negotiations and ultimately forged a common, a detailed vision for the better- ment of the WCB system. Frankly, the interference with that delicate balance by cherry-picking certain aspects repudiates the efforts of good will of the authors and the communities they represent. It is a pleasure to be provided the opportunity to share our views with the standing committee con- cerning amendments to The Workers Compensation Act.

At the outset, first let me identify that the MCC is a member of the Manitoba Employers Council and Employers Task Force on Workplace Safety and Workers Compensation and supports their submis- sions to this committee which will present it later. The MCC is supportive of a safe, healthy and productive workplace. The MCC expects The Workers Compensation Act to provide the Workers Compensation Board with the tools to provide efficient and effective support and services to injured workers so as to ensure thei r early and safe return to the workplace.

Let us not forget that the WCB is an employer-funded orga nization and, according to our government's word, if not its actions, and the Meredith principles, is to act as an independent administration. Now specific concerns. The MCC is concerned that the so-called reverse onus, as described by our Premier (Mr. Doer), rem oves the authority from the Board of Directors of the WCB. Currently, it is within the Board's scope to decide who to cover and when to cover.

The WCB's authority to run its own activities and maintain its own decision-making role is crucial to its effectively, diligently and responsibly meeting its purpose. To have the Province suddenly dictate to them who should be included or removed in WCB is completely inappropriate. Not only would this open the door to interference for political ends, it may affect their financial model and viability. Governments have recent experience in legislation which causes board governance problems.

Let me reiterate those facts: The MCC is funded by employers, has an independent administration and is provided guidelines for which to operate by the government. It has the board of directors who makes decisions related to the plan and we expect that the workers compensation process to function in a fiduciary and financially prudent manner. The MCC is supportive of the WCB policies and/or legislation that provide fair compensation and needed medical support.

We also expect and support the premise of fairness and balance, and, where appropriate, an expedited process of claim manage- ment to facilitate return to work as soon as medically possible. The means to all of these noble ends must be reasonable, practical and effective. In fact, the legislation that is before us tonight brings into glaring perspective a growing fissure between Manitoba's business community and labour communities. Sadly, it is a division that is being wrought by the heavy hand of our own government.

The problem, simply put, is this: if the government is to appoint representatives of labour and business, allow them, indeed encourage them to negotiate a balanced consensus, then it cannot, it must not invalidate those efforts by cherry-picking through recommendations. * (18:50) The MCC membership passed a policy this past April, which states the Government of Manitoba continue not to include teachers and school divisions in the WCB. This resolution goes directly to the heart of concern of taxpayers that any expansion of coverage has to be rationally evaluated as to impact

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 and in consultation with the stakeholders. School divisions have already evaluated the substantial cost to the local taxpayers in their property taxes should this be implemented or dictated by government. It is also felt that there will be impacts on small business and health care. It is also noted that th e government, contrary to the review recommendations, has no problem in substantially increasing the cost which employers have to bear but has conveniently decided that the cost of enforcement of W CB shall continue to be paid by employers.

On a more positive note, the inclusion of changes in some of the governance changes to the act are welcomed and, hopefully, the upcoming report from our Auditor General has been anticipated. The WCB exists to help both employers and employees. The detailed recommendations of the review panel represented the ultimate in policy development. Not only did it truly bring together labour and business in cons ensus; its vision repre- sented a true and balanced improvement of our WCB system.

With regard to the issue of coverage of teachers, we have raised this issue a number of times in the House during second reading, and although I do not know that it is on the record, I did not hear it or have not seen it, we have certainly seen the minister indicate across the House that there is absolutely no intention, in fact she has indicated on the record that there is no intention, of expanding any of the coverage without a lot of consultation.

I might note at this point that, related to my comments related to the reverse onus, to the government's credit they have currently entered into discussions about amendments to the act which may assist in this area. I would ask that, in order to expedite this submission, the areas listed as attachments be read into the record to save going over each of the areas of recommendations from pages 4 to 6. Mr.

Starmer: We have assurances from the minister at the present time in writing that that is so, but because of the construction and the make-up of the act, that is not certain should the honourable minister change or should things change. As you know, things strategically are usually balanced a couple of years down the road, so that is our major concern. Madam Chairperson: I am sorry. Did you want to speak, too? Floor Comment: Madam Chairperson, I am just here to assist, so I do not have anything to add at this stage. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Thank you. Mr.

Starmer: If you have any hard questions, that is why he is here. Madam Chairperson: Oh, I see. Thank you. Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Thank you very much, Mr. Starmer and Mr. Gardner, for your presentation. You have put forward a number of recommendations, and I just wondered which would be the single most important recommendation that you are putting forward tonight? Is there anything you would like to see changed in this particular legislation? Mr. Starmer: We believe that one of the most important items is to leave the authority of expansion of coverage with the WCB board.

We think that that is a good governance model, and not to do so would cause nothing but disarray in the business community. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Thank you for your time and effort on this bill. Have you got assurances from the minister that coverage of teachers is not part of the plan? Mr. Loewen: Thank you. I am not sure if you are aware or not, and I apprecia te the fact that you have included the report from the Auditor General in here because it is anticipated that we will get that this fall.

Unfortunately, as a result of the government's decision to include in this bill the provisions for the firefighters which we all agree should pass, we do not really have much option in terms of legislators but to see this bill proceed through the House. Again, it is strange to me that the minister would put forward this comprehensive a bill without waiting for recommendations from the Auditor General's report because we are of the same view as you that there will be a lot of worthwhile

52 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 recommendations that should be dealt with and unfortunately they will be missed. Would you be in favour or would you think it reasonable to strip off the portions of the bill that deal with the firefighters so we can pass that immediately and hold on until the fall until we see the recommendations? Would that be something that the Employers Council would agree with in terms of the other recommendations? Mr. Starmer: Yes, it is the Manitoba Chambers; the Employers Council will be doing their stuff later.

We would be supportive of that as long as the process of dealing with the issue of the firefighters are dealt with expediently because of the situations. I would point out, of course, that the aspects of that within the proposed amendments sort of run contrary to the recommendations of the review committee. Mr. Loewen: Well, thank you. I appreciate that, and you should know that there is a private members' bill before the House that deals specifically with the firefighters issue with exactly the same wording that is in this bill and we do have an option, I guess, to pass that and hold off to this.

Just again to reiterate, I think all members of the Legislature have indicated support for the firefighters portion of the bill even though it does not exactly follow the recommendations from the report. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Starmer. Thank you very much. Oh, excuse me, Minister Allan. Ms. Allan: I would like to thank you very much Graham and Bill for being here tonight and taking time out of your busy schedules to present on Bill 25. I also want to thank you for the ongoing relationship that we have in regard to legislation and matters that matter to business and labour in our province.

You know that my door is always open, and I think we have had an excellent relationship. In regard to splitting off the bill in regard to the legislation that the Tories tabled in the House, I would just like to remind everyone in this room this evening that firefighters not only want the legislation that is in the bill that the opposition tabled in the House but they are also supportive of removal of the cap and the ability to top up. So I want you to know that it is not that simple to just say that we can split the bill off and you know everything will be ducky.

So I just wanted to thank you very much for being here this evening. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Starmer. Did you have one final quick, quick comment? Mr. Starmer: Sure, I just wanted to respond to the minister's statement about the– Madam Chairperson: If you can be 15 seconds. Mr. Starmer: Sure. True we have a really good relationship with the minister and the minister has been great in dealing with us and in discussing the contentious issues related to the cap.

We, as you will see in our submission, have concerns, particularly about the cap, primarily because we believe that the million-dollar aspects of that have been underrated and we believe it is substantially more than that. Madam Chairperson: Thank you Mr. Starmer. Mr. Starmer: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: We do have one change to our list here for the committee. We have a member who was listed as No. 1 on the Standing Committee on Human Resources who has since informed us that she is from out of town. So I would like to call Darlene Dziewit, President of Manitoba Federation of Labour.

Just before you proceed, is this a joint presentation or– Ms. Darlene Dziewit (President, Manitoba Federation of Labour): No. Madam Chairperson: Only yourself? * (19:00) Ms. Dziewit: Thank you, yes. With me tonight is Mr. Pete Walker, who is the Workers Compensation person at the Manitoba Federation of Labour. If there are any technical questions that I do not have the answer to, he would be happy to supply that. Madam Chairperson: You may proceed, Ms. Dziewit. Ms. Dziewit: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. First of all, on behalf of the 95 000 members of the

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 53 Manitoba Federation of Labour, I would like to extend to the family of our brother, Bruce Kitching, the MFL's deepest sympathies. We honour him and the work he did to include presumptive injuries into the legislation. I think he is an admirable human being and we wish his family the best. The Manitoba Federation of Labour is pleased to present the following views on Bill 25,

an act to amend The Workers Compensation Act. The amendments contained in th is bill are long overdue and are the result of the first meaningful review of the act in a generation, but before I address the provisions of Bill 25, I would like to provide a context. For example, Bill 25 extends coverage to include the nearly one in three Ma nitoba workers currently not covered by the act unless compelling reasons can be advanced to have workers and employers excluded from the system. Workers that will be covered include volunteers and those in work experience jobs.

Enforcement has been strengthened by the establishment of administrative penalties to be determined by regulation. Workers compensation is a contract between working people and their employers that is nearly a century old. It flows fro m a review of workplace conditions carried out by Justice Sir William Meredith. His findings and recommendations, in essence, frame an agreement in which employers recognize their responsibility to provide financial security and other measur es to workers who are injured in their workpla ces.

In return, injured workers and their unions gave up their right to litigation, seeking damages against their employers in the court system following a workplace injury. The agreement is clear and straightforward. Workers have lived up to their end of the bargain. Unfor- tunately, the same cannot be said about employers and the compensation system. The last two significant changes to the workers compensation benefits hit injured workers hard.

The first change reduced benefit entitlement from 75 percent of gross pay to 90 percent of net pay, which resulted in substantial reduction in the amount injured workers received from the Workers Compen- sation Board in order to live and support their dependants. The second overhaul was a package of measures that made benefits harder to qualify for and further reduced the amounts injured workers received. The rationale advanced at the time was that an unfunded liability of some $250 million existed and it had to be retired.

The measures were so aggressive that the liability was erased in only two years, not the planned five year period. The unfunded liability went away, but the draconian changes did not. That is why the Manitoba Federation of Labour is pleased to see the amendments to The Workers Compensation Act that are contained in Bill 25. They address some of the flaws in the current act in a way that will improve the workers compensation system for injured workers. Workers will no longer lose pay as a result of being injured. Employers will be required to pay employees from the first day of the injury.

The list of occupational illnesses related to firefighting has been increased, meaning that when a firefighter contracts one of those diseases, it is accepted that it has occurred as a result of workplace exposures and there is no onus on the firefighter to prove that the illness is work-related. Measures to discourage claim suppression measures by employers have been improved. Bene- fits will no longer be reduced by 20 percent after 2 years of receiving them. Age discrimination has been removed, and benefits will no longer decrease by 2 percent per year after age 45.

The cap that limits the amount of lost wages that will be compensated for by the system has been removed and the minimum amount can no longer fall below minimum wage. There is improvement in the act's provisions around an employer's obligation to re-employ and retain injured workers once they are medically fit. These are a few of the po sitive aspects of Bill 25 and the government is to be congratulated for including them, but there are gaps in the bill that we must point out and urge the government to take action on.

The principle embodied in the firefighters' provisions, the idea that certain diseases are inor- dinately high among certain occupations and should

54 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 be automatically recognized as workplace-related, is a principle that should be applied to all professions. There is no shortage of research that shows some jobs have a higher than normal occurrence in some diseases; however, current legislation requires a worker to prove that workplace exposures were the dominant cause of their illness. The vast majority of workers do not have the skills or resources to overcome this barrier. In fact, not even modern medicine is able to prov ide the evidence that The Workers Compensation Act requires.

The practice of epidemiology can and does show that people who are exposed to certain toxins under certain conditions are at higher risk of acquiring certain illnesses than the general population, but what medicine can scientifically determine by study- ing groups of workers, it is unable to do for individual workers. An individual with lung cancer is unable to scientifically prove that their condition is due primarily to the exposure of a certain toxin in their workplace even if it is known that that toxin is carcinogenic.

An individual's condition could be caused by multiple and different exposures through their lifetime. In almost every case it is simply impossible to prove that an individual's condition is primarily due to a particular exposure, but that is precisely what the Manitoba legislation demands. When the results of studies of certain occupational groups are compared with the number of occupational disease claims that are accepted from workers in those same groups, then it is obvious that many workers who are made ill by workplace exposures are not being compensated.

To illustrate how occupational diseases are under-compensated, one need only look at cancer rates and compare those with claims accepted by the WCB. Dr. Allen Kraut of the Occupational Health Centre has estimated that between 2 and 8 percent of the 3000 people in Manitoba who die from cancer each year develop their illnesses due to workplace exposures of hazardous materials.

That means there are between 60 and 240 workers who die each year in Manitoba due to occupationally induced cancer, yet the 2002 Workers Compensation Board Annual Report notes that only one cancer-related fatality claim and eight fatality claims related to asbestos exposure were accepted by the board. When there is evidence to show that certain occupations have a higher incidence of certain diseases, then the onus on workers to establish a workplace link should be removed for workers in those occupations.

To facilitate this, a panel of experts should be struck to review occupational disease and establish a list of diseases related to individual occupations that are automatically assumed to be work related when workers fall ill with them. Another omission relates to the recognition of chronic stress related to occupational illnesses. Right now, workers who become ill as a result of chronic stress levels experienced in the workplace are excluded from making a claim.

This is unfair and not in keeping with the analysis put on the record by the Supreme Court of Canada in a ruling on a case from the province of Nova Scotia, and I quote, "excluding injured workers from the normal compensation system without regard for their actual needs and circumstances and depriving them of an opportunity to establish the validity of their individual claim on a fair basis is inconsistent with the ameliorative purpose of the act." The fact is, chronic stress is a common feature in many workplaces today because of corporate "lean" staffing philosophies, work process speed-up, understaffing, and the drive to compete with sub- standard workplace condi tions elsewhere in the global economy.

Chronis stress is invisible. This means that workplaces never thought to be in any particular need of workers compensation coverage compared to manufacturing setting can actually be very much in need of access to the system, since chronic stre ss-related illnesses are rampant. We recommend that chronic stress-related illness coverage be included in the act. I am near the end of my 10 minutes, but I will touch briefly on several other issues we would like addressed.

When the shift was made from calculating benefits based on 75 percent of gross income to 90 percent of net income, net was calculated as if CPP and EI premiums had been deducted from gross income. However, these deductions are not submitted to the federal authorities. This depresses compensation benefits for a certain period of the year and reduces future entitlement to federal program benefits. We recommend that when net income is calculated by WCB, the CPP deduction not be included in this calculation. In the area of privacy, we recommend that Bill 25–

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 55 Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Dziewit. (19:10) * Point of Order Mr. Loewen: Just a point of order first. I wonder–I know the speaker is near the end of the presentation– if we could just ensure that the full presentation as written is submitted for the record so that we have it. Madam Chairperson: Agreed by the committee? [Agreed] * * * Ms. Dziewit: In the area of privacy, we recommend that Bill 25 include a provision that employees may not retain medical information or use the information for anything but an actual appeal of an award to an injured employee.

And, finally, some of the provisions of Bill 25 will undo aspects of the act that have been in place since 1992. We recommend that all current and active claims that are affected by Bill 25, regardless of when the accident occurred, receive the benefit of the amendment, retroactively. Thank you very much for your attention and I invite any questions you may have. Mr. Loewen : Thank you for your presentation. I certainly hope the minister will look closely– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Loewen, could you pull your mike a little closer. I apologize, but we cannot quite hear you. Mr. Loewen: Sorry.

I do not usually have that problem. I do hope the minister takes your recom- mendation seriously. With regard to the occupational diseases issue that you raise, I wonder if your organization has concern about the fact that there are still parts in Winnipeg–[interjection] Ouch, are you okay? An Honourable Member: I was going to do that quietly. Madam Chairperson: Keep going please, Mr. Loewen. Mr. Loewen: – parts of Manitoba that are now exempt from the smoking law, smoking by-law prohibiting smoking. Do you have concern that workers are facing extra risk in those locations? Ms.

Dziewit: We always have concern that workers are facing risks from smoking in the workplace. I think that may be something that falls under a different forum than today's discussion. I would be more than happy to talk to you about it in more detail. Mr. Loewen: Thank you. Just my last question, you know, we have been asking questions ever since we received the Auditor General's report on the Crocus Fund and; I am wondering if you, as head of the MFL, can provide us with any insight into how it could be that the fund which has been monitored by the MFL lost $61 million. Madam Chairperson: Mr.

Loewen, actually have to just hold on a moment, please. At this point, I would like to take a moment to remind committee members that questions addressed to presenters should be que stions of clarification based on information contained in the brief. The question should not be used to debate with presenters or as a vehicle to ask leading questions. Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Loewen. Mr. Loewen: Well that is it, I was just looking for further information. You know, if the individual wants to respond, that is fine. Otherwise, I will leave it at that. Madam Chairperson: That is your choice, but– Ms.

Dziewit: I am appalled that this important piece of legislation would be turned into a crass political move on someone's part. I am appalled by it, and I think we should be paying attention to this legislation. It is very important. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. [interjection] Hello, hello. I have to at this point intercede and say there cannot be any ap plauding from the gallery. So I would like to remind the members of the public who are observing the committee meeting that they are not to participate in the committee meeting by applauding or commenting from the audience. Thank you.

56 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 Mr. Cullen: In regard to your presentation here, and you discussed the chronic stress situation, I wondered if your organization has done any investigating this in terms of any coverage in other jurisdictions. If so, also what the cost may be here in Manitoba in terms of the cost to employers and also what kind of a degree we have or would encounter stress, the chronic stress levels in Manitoba. Ms. Dziewit: Well, I do not know that this legislation is cherry-picking. There are pieces of this legislation we are extremely happy about, in large part.

There are also things that are missing from the legislation and, in preparing our brief, we have complied with MFL polici es which are adopted democratically by our members. So that is why we have some agreements and some disagreements with the legislation as it is currently outlined. Ms. Dziewit: Thank you. I will defer to our resident expert. Madam Chairperson: I have to recognize Mr. Pete Walker. Mr. Pete Walker (Healt h and Safety Repre- sentative, Manitoba Federation of Labour): Thank you very much. An interesting question. Research on stress as compensable is not necessarily available.

It is the fact that a person suffers an illness as a result of chronic stress and, because Manitoba legislation forbids them from filing compensation, that data is not available. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Chair, the review that ultimately led to the legislation that we have before us had a number of recommendations that I think the worker and the employer wanted to see brought in, and I was wondering if you could just give a brief comment in terms of one of the concerns that was addressed by the previous presenter. I will just read exactly what it is that was indicated.

He had indicated, and this is from the Chamber, if you like– Madam Chairperson: If you could summarize, Mr. Lamoureux. Mr. Lamoureux: I will absolute ly. Business and labour starting with differing points of perspective engaged in detailed negotiations and ultimately forged a common view, a detailed vision for the betterment of WCB system. Would you agree about the cherry-picking? Is this the best that we could have done at this time? Madam Chairperson: Minister Allan, 10 seconds. Ms. Allan: I would just like to thank my sisters and brothers, Darlene and Pete, for being here this evening.

Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: The next presenter we have in keeping with our out-of-town list is Brenda Hudson, private citizen. Brenda Hudson has been called once. She will now be dropped to the bottom of the list in keeping with the rules I read at the beginning of the evening. The next presenter we have is Ted Hudson. Is Ted Hudson here? Good evening, Mr. Hudson, did you have something on it to distribute to the committee? Mr. Ted Hudson (Private Citizen): No, I did not, Ma'am. Sorry, my wife could not make it here tonight. Madam Chairperson: That is fine. Mr.

Hudson, you can proceed whenever you are ready. Mr. Hudson: You know it all happened in November 17 of '99 when my– Madam Chairperson: You have to speak a little louder. I apologize. Mr. Hudson: I say it all happened in November 17 of '99 when I was working for Yanke Transport. I got out of a tractor in Hurst, Ontario, and I come down on a block of ice on my left shoulder. I have been dealing with compensation on that from '99, November 17, to October 16 of 2001 when they cut me off. They said there was nothing else the matter.

They tried one MRI, and I told them I was claustrophobic and that, and they never had made the arrangements to notify St. Boniface Hospital. At that time I was living in Brandon. I come in to have it done, and they tried to put me in the machine. I do not know if it was just the ones that were working at that time or not, did not

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 57 seem to show any consideration or anything, and my forehead and the top of nose bounced off the roof of the thing, and the girl said, "Well, you do not fit in anyway," she says, "That is it." I was let out of there, and on the way out a gentleman told me he worked there. He says, "It might be some good to you to know if you went to the Health Sciences Centre, they have two different machines there that you would likely fit into." I said, "Okay.

Thank you." I phoned my worker at the compensation department then and told them about it, what I had been told, and the guy that answered the phone, he was my worker at that time, told me to mind my own damn business. I carried on and kept seeing them, seeing my own doctor in Brandon at that time. I was put on pills, from one thing to the other, and there was never another deal made for to send me for an MRI. Later on in 2001, I believe it was, or the early part, I believe it was 2000 or 2001, I am not sure, they phoned me and told me they were going to make a deal for to send me to Vancouver.

That never came through. Then it was Calgary. That never came through. Then they were going to send me to Toronto, and that never came through. Then towards the summer, more or less, they phoned me and told me that they were going to send me to Grand Forks. I said "Fine, I would have to contact my lawyer because I had had an assault charge years before that," and I did not understand if I could or could not get through the border at that time. I phoned him. He made the arrangements and everything and told me it was no problem going through.

I phoned compensation and got a hold of my worker at that time and told her, I said, "There is no problem with me going through. I just talked to my lawyer, and it is all set." "Well," she said, "We are not going to bother sending you now because" she says, "it is all in your mind." I said, "What do you mean?" She says, "I work here. Our medical staff told them that all the pain that I was getting was all in my mind.

It was not in my shoulder." Since then, I have gone and had an MRI done in Brandon on January 10, this past January, and they found there was a three-eighths tear in the muscle, the rotator cuff is torn in three places and both tendons in the top of my shoulder and one half in the back are both torn, too. * (19:20) I have been putting up with this. It has been causing me problems. I just got married in 2001, on the same day as my birthday. Now the wife has separated and left because of all the commotion that compensation has caused me.

They tell me I cannot go back to work, from the doctors that I have seen, Doctor Johnson [phonetic] and Doctor Birt, Doctor De Korompay, Doctor Engelbrecht and Doctor Chase, I have seen. They have all told me the same things. I went back to work last year, or tried to go back to work to try to save a marriage, and I had to quit because my shoulder would not take it. It has taken down now to where I have not got my wife anymore. We are trying to work it out, but it is long and hard and with only her working and me not being able to it is no good. Trying to fight with compensation about it, I give them the letters.

I went for a couple of tests, one with a Doctor Moore, I think it was, some kind of a pain deal. I went through that and he said what they were trying to figure out was a name for the pain to find out if I had it, a chronic pain, I think it was. Doctor Moore said, "Yes, as far as I am concerned, you have got it." But there were two questions on the compensation medical file. One of them was does not being able to work and having the extra income cause you a problem. Yes, it does. The other one was basically the same thing, only reversed a little bit the other way, and I answered it.

Doctor Moore told me he had never seen these questions asked. If he was asking about the pain, he would not ask them because they had nothing to do with it. Anyway, compensation kicked that back and said it was no good because I did not have the chronic pain. I had the chronic pain, but the wrong name for it to what they wanted. Lately, all they have been doing is bouncing it back from one to the other, go to the appeal board, go to the compensation, go to the appeal board, go to compensation. It has just been playing a game and it has taken me to where I am now with nothing. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr.

Hudson. Ms. Allan: Thank you, Mr. Hudson, for being here with us this evening and sharing your very difficult time that you have had. We have staff from the WCB at the back of the room, and David Scott is here, and we would like to suggest that perhaps in regard to your individual experience, if you would not mind, they would like to touch base with you about it. Mr. Hudson: Okay.

58 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions for Mr. Hudson, thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Hudson: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: For the information of the committee, the next presenter we have is Gerry Schedler. No. 12 on your list is the next out-of-town presenter but, before she comes to the mike, her son is Craig Schedler, and he is No. 63 on the list. We have been requested, due to travel requirements and other considerations, that we allow Craig Schedler to move up to be following Gerry Schedler.

Is there agreement from the committee to see same happen? [Agreed] The committee then calls Gerry Schedler, a private citizen. Ms. Schedler, do you have copies of the presentation? Ms. Gerry Schedler (Private Citizen): No, it is just a private thing. Madam Chairperson: That is fine. If you just want to make sure the mike is close enough so we can hear you that would be perfect. You can proceed whenever you are ready. Thank you. Ms. Schedler: Hello, my name is Gerry Schedler. I am here today to represent my husband, Barry Schedler, my family and all firefighters.

September 3, 1998, Barry was diagnosed with lung cancer. We could not believe this was happening to such a strong, healthy man. Barry always took care of himself and was a non-smoker. The cancer was already stage 3, and there was no cure. Our whole world was turned upside down. The next nine months would forever change our lives. We had three young children and I was a stay-at- home mom. Barry became very sick and the children did not understand that their dad was dying. May 30, 1999, Barry paid the ultimate sacrifice. Barry was 48, and I was a widow at 46. Craig was 17, Nicole was 13 and Phillip was 12.

How could we go on? We lost a husband, a father, a dedicated firefighter. Then there was the financial impact. Since Barry was a young man at the time, the pension provided him was insufficient to raise our children, and there was no workers compensation. There was CPP, the children got orphan's allowance until they were 18, but we all know they do not move out at 18. There was no paycheque coming in every two weeks, and the bills kept coming. Now there is post-secondary education. The children's choices are limited because they cannot be off work for two years and go to college and have no income.

When Barry was sick, he knew there was no compensation, so he asked me to do what I could to help. So, even in death, Barry wanted to help other people. That is who firefighters are. We did this fight in 2002 and got some of the cancers passed. Unfortunately, lung, colon and heart were not included. I would like to thank the NDP government for their suppo rt. Stress plays a big factor in these diseases. Firefighters do not hesitate to run into a burning building, so I guess my question is why is there hesitation of this many years for things to happen.

There are non-smoking by -laws everywhere, but yet these men and women work in this environment every day with no workers compensation. This will affect the decisions of young children whether they want to be a firefighter. My son, who is here tonight, had said to me when his dad was alive he thought about being a firefighter, and when he saw what happened to his dad he changed his mind. If there were workers compensation, it would mean a better post-secondary education for the children that are left behind, and there will be many more families that go through this difficult time.

In closing, I would just like to say life is a journey and we do not know what path it will take us down. Thank you very much for hearing my story. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mrs. Schedler. Seeing no questions from the committee, I thank you for your presentation. Ms. Schedler: Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: The committee calls Craig Schedler. Craig, did you have a written presentation you wanted to distribute? Mr. Craig Schedler (Private Citizen): No.

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 59 Madam Chairperson: Okay, Mr. Schedler, you can proceed whenever you are ready. Mr. Schedler: Thank you very much, committee. Good day, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Craig Schedler. My father was Barry Schedler and he was at Winnipeg Fire Department. He was diagnosed with cancer in September 1998 when I was 17. It was in my Grade 12 year of high school, a very big time for a young person in their life. Cancer is a very vicious disease. To watch my father battle it was very hard.

My brother and sister were still very young and they did not realize what was going on, but I did. He got very sick and he was in and out of the hospital a lot. It stressed everyone, especially my mother. I could see her worrying about Dad and the bills. It hurt. Then he passed on in May '99. A whole new set of worries would arrive with us. I was freshly out of high school and I was going to go to university, but I put it off and started work instead. I often worry about my brother Phillip and my sister Nicole, how this has affected them.

I also worry about the cost of running a household to my mother and post-secondary education for my brother and my sister, now. Thank you for hearing what I have had to say. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for making your presentation. If you could just stay at the mike for a moment, please. * (19:30) Ms. Allan: Craig, I would like to thank you and I would like to thank your mom Gerry for being here this evening. I want to thank you for making your presentation. I know it has probably been very difficult, but I want to thank you for your courage.

I just want to say that it is times like this when we realize as legislators that we can make a difference in people's lives, and it is your story that makes us realize that. So thank you. Mr. Schedler: Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Lamoureux: Just to make a quick comment, Craig, your father is one of the reasons why we have this legislation here, and I just give my compliments that it took for you and your mother to come here and make a passionate presentation. It is very much appreciated. Thank you. Mr. Schedler: Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Schedler.

We will now revert back to our original out-of- town presenters' list. Our next presenter is Liz Elliott, a private citizen. Ms. Elliott. Floor Comment: Hello. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Elliott, I just need to recognize you. Please proceed, Ms. Elliott. Ms. Liz Elliott (Private Citizen): Hello. I am here today to speak on behalf of injured workers in Manitoba, people who still deal with the negative impacts from a workers compensation system that was decimated by the Conservative Filmon government back in 1992.

At this time, amendments were made to the act to address the unfunded liability of the WCB, but they went much further than that, turning a relatively fair system into one filled with pitfalls for injured workers. Manitoba now has the dubious distinction of having among the lowest WCB premium rates in Canada. This has come about at the expense of injured workers who rely on a system that is meant to provide financial security while they recuperate, and other necessary benefits.

The historic compromise that was made many years ago by workers saw us give up our right to sue our employers to be made whole again after a workplace injury has occurred. If you look at the changes through those lenses, you will, hopefully, understand why we are so passionate about this opportunity to make the many injustices perpetuated on injured workers by the Tories. We believe that many of the amendments proposed in Bill 25 will fix many of the inequities that injured Manitobans now have to face.

This is a good start, but there are stil l some measures that we believe should and could still be brought forward for consideration to make this bill better for injured workers.

60 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 As workers, we have asked you, the government, to take a stand and fix a system that is broken. Throughout the public review process, workers have been letting the government know that there are problems with the current system. The message to you through the public consultation, was to fix it. Now, with the report completed and the legislation submitted to the Legislative Review Committee, you have an opportunity to follow the advice put forward by members of the public and make the changes that are necessary.

The amendmen ts in Bill 25 address many of the problems that injured workers have had to deal with and their passage into law will result in a system that is fairer. But, having said that, more is needed. I ask that you include more reforms in addition to those already outlined in Bill 25. The workers compen- sation system should provide adequate protection for workers in return for our lo ss of access to the court system for compensation. This is our last clear opportunity to beef up Bill 25, to make it more relevant to workers today, to make it more relevant in today's working environment.

Sometimes doing what is right requires an extraordinary resolve. Occupational diseases. Workers are not able to scientifically demonstrate that their illness's primary cause was based in the workplace, but that is the current requirement. We are not knowledgeable in these areas, and it is wrong to deny benefits to people sickened by their workplace when they cannot meet the impossible standard. For that reason, we urge you to include in Bill 25 a provision that establishes an occupational disease panel.

The panel make-up should include physicians who are knowledgeable in occupational illnesses and ideology issues, as well as representatives of employers and workers. The panel would review the available science and determine a

schedule of occupational diseases that would be considered presumptive with claims of exposure history and diagnosed illness. Stress. The type of stress one incurs as a result of a serious and a traumatic event can be alleviated following a short period of professional treatment and allow the affected worker to return to work, but chronic stress manifests itself into other illnesses. By excluding chronic stress from The Workers Compensation Act, all those workers who are suffering a related illness are prevented from esta- blishing a claim.

This is contrary to the principle of caring for workers injured by their workplace and must be removed. Chronic stress is a serious workplace hazard and must be recognized as the cause of the serious workplace injury that it is. We request that the act be amended to reflect this by removing the exclusion of chronic stress as the cause of compensable occupational disease. Right now, WCB benefits are paid on the basis of 90 percent of net pay. Part of the calculation to arrive at that figure is the deduction of CPP and EI premiums.

Even though those premiums cannot be forwarded to these federal agencies, two things result. The WCB benefit is unreasonably reduced, and the workers' access to full CPP and EI benefits in the future is reduced since there is now a gap in contributions. We ask that the amendments in Bill 25 include one that ends the practice of using imaginary CPP and EI premium deductions when calculating net income. Only after changes to the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Employment Insurance Act are made to allow contributions from workers receiving WCB benefits should these deductions be reinstated in our act. Privacy.

Where the employer obtains a file for an appeal process and the employer or the representative completes the appeal or does not take action within six months, they must be obligated to return the file and its contents to the WCB. The act must contain wording to prevent the employers from making copies, or using the information for any other purpose than an appeal. Retroactive benefits. We feel that a two-tier system will be created if all the amendments are not applied to all claims that are from 1992 forward and are still ongoing or active.

We recommend that all Bill 25 amendments apply to all current and active claims, regardless of accident date, on a go-forward basis from the time the amendments come into force. We also believe that there are some amendments that can be applied retroactively for all injured workers at a minimal cost to the system.

These include subsection 39.1, wage loss benefits no longer be reduced to 80 percent of net after 24 months; subsection 38.2 (a)(b), which says that permanent impairment awards be calculated on the basis of 1,030 from 1 to 30 percent, and 1,240 from 30 to 100 percent; subsection 29.3, lump sum awards granted to surviving spouses and partners not to be reduced by the value of impairment awards granted to the worker prior to his or her death; subsection 112.1,

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 61 the date of death will apply in determining benefits for dependents. Thank you very much for your attention. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Elliott. Do we have questions for Ms. Elliott from the com- mittee? Seeing no questions, I thank you very much for your presentation. Ms. Elliott: Thank you very much. * (19:40) Madam Chairperson: For the information of the committee, presenter No. 4 on your list, Charlene Bergen, is not able to stay. She has given a written submission.

Is it the agreement from the committee to have this written submission placed into Hansard? [Agreed] Also, United Steel Workers have forwarded a written submission for the committee. Is there agreement from the committee to include United Steel Workers' written presentation in the Hansard recording? [Agreed] Thank you very much. Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if we can just extend that offer for anyone else that might be present that if, in fact, they are unable to stay and they have a written presentation, they should feel free to bring it to the back and we will have it considered as being read.

Madam Chairperson: Just a moment. Is there agreement from the committee? [Agreed] Okay, I would like to inform everyone present that, if you wish to make a written submission to the committee and you do not wish to come forward to make an oral presentation, we will take your written submission and it will be forwarded to all committee members for their perusal and it will also go into our Hansard recordings. So, if anybody wishes to proceed in that fashion, please see the staff at the back of the room. I would like to call Gerald Allen, a private citizen. Good evening, Mr.

Allen, if I could just ask you to make sure that you are close enough to the mike so that we can hear you. Mr. Gerald Allen (Private Citizen): Can you hear me? How is that? Madam Chairperson: That is good. Thank you. You can proceed, Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen: Chairperson, WCB wa s passed in 1910. In 1913, wage loss was added .and WCB probably has not been properly looked at since 1959 properly. 1982, I was injured to my right ankle. 1998, I finally put a claim in for, at that time, it was a PPD and I believe now it is a PPI they call it. At the time when I got my PPD for my right ankle, things were pretty fair.

Compensation, I did fight a little bit, but it was not too bad with the help of my rep. Now, in 1999 with the injury to my ankle, walking and limping to one side for over 10 years, it wore out my right knee pretty bad. I chipped my bones and they took bone chips or spurs, I am not a doctor, and my doctor wrote that in to WCB. Since then it has been a battle. I was off for five months because the medication they gave to me did quite a damage to me. It made me come through. The stress I was under was unbearable.

The work case manager or adjudicator or whatever you want to call them now today, WCB, was verbally, to me, very much and my family. The way they calculate the impairment now is you get 1 percent to 5 percent, you get $500 for your injury; 5 percent to 10 percent, $1,000; and, of course, 10 percent on, thousand and–you pretty well got to lose a limb before you see that much money. When I went in for my impairment, Doctor Tang-Wei in Brandon had me up to about 14 percent. By the time I seen their doctor, I was down to less than between 2, I believe it was 2 percent.

The changes, it is unreal how it could come down that far. Even Doctor Tang-Wei could not believe it. Now, the calculation on the impairment and for my wages when I was off, I happened to be over 45 years of age. I lost 2 percent of my wage for every year over 45. When I got my impairment, and I am going to skip as I go along, when I got my impairment, because they waited two and a half years, sometimes for three years, I was over 45, so they are going to say now I lose 2, 4, 6, 8, whatever percent, where I should have actually lost no percentage at all on my wage. That wage thing

62 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 should completely get right out. That is discrimination being over 45. A man is hurt at work; he does not go to work and say, "I am going to get hurt today." At least, I do not think they do. Again, they have been touched on Canada Pension and EI. When I had my surgery for my third time to my knee, I already paid my Canada Pension up and I had already paid my EI that year. It was just with the overtime, it just happens to work where I am. They still take it off, probably, that is the word they use. If you look it up, it pretty well means nothing.

Could, I believe, the word is. So I figure that following year I will just be able to claim that on my income tax. No, you cannot because they do not send it in. I believe my wife and I calculated for that time I was off I was probably out a thousand dollars if not more. I mean, if you want it right down to the tee, I could get it. When you try to get a hold of your case managers, they always seem to tell you on the phone that your file is downstairs. Today, do we not have computers? Have they forgotten computers in WCB? Apparently, they have. I am not even going to bother looking at this anymore.

For injury, in my case, I needed knee surgery and, of course, you know the way the medical thing is today, you do not go in unless you damaged your knee and you have a fracture or you go in for surgery. In my case, I waited six months. That is when you seem to be having the problem with WCB. When you finally arrange it with them that you are going to go in, they say, "Give us a couple of days of notice." And sometimes your medical doctor or the nurses will phone and say you are going in for surgery on Tuesday and this happens to be Monday. You phone WCB.

You tell your work case manager that you are going in and they tell you, "Oh, everything is settled. You are going to be okay for your wage loss." Not going to happen. I have gone for surgery three times for th at knee and I have yet, once, had my cheque on time. I believe I went four or five months before I finally saw my money. They finally said, "Oh, we found your case finally." Thank you. That is all I have to say. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Allen. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation.

As we previously agreed, for the information of the committee, Linda Davies has made a written presentation and will not be appearing here for an oral presentation, No. 23 on your list for the committee members. Our next presenter is Doug Dobrowolski from the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. I need to ask leave from the committee for Mr. Dobrowolski to appear instead of Mr. Bell. Is there leave from the committee? [Agreed] Thank you very much. Mr. Dobrowolski is No. 18 on your list from the Association of Manitoba Municipalities for infor- mation of committee members. You may proceed, Mr. Dobrowolski. Mr.

Doug Dobrowolski (A ssociation of Manitoba Municipalities): Thank you. Good evening, on behalf of the Association of Manitoba Munici- palities, I am pleased to appear before this committee today to present our association's view on Bill 25, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act. For a number of years, Manitoba municipalities have been urging the provincial government to review how volunteer firefigh ters are treated under The Workers Compensation Act.

We have had opportunity to express these concerns to the provincial government on numerous occasions, and we are pleased to have the opportunity to express our views to The Workers Compensation Act Legislative Review Committee that held meetings across the province last year. * (19:50) Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair The primary concern for municipalities is the equal treatment of part-time, volunteer firefighters when it comes to diseases caused by providing firefighting services. The Province of Manitoba has been a leader in providing compensation for occupational diseases for full-time firefighters.

However, part-time, volunteer firefighters were not covered under this legislation. In many communities, it is the part-time firefighters who provide the firefighting service and they are the ones facing the hazardous situations. In cer tain instances, part-time firefighters are present at as many fires as their full- time counterparts in other areas. For this reason, we have been urging the provincial government to add

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 63 part-time firefighters to the coverage currently offered to full-time firefighters. We were pleased to see the research being done over the last few years on this issue and we are happy to see coverage extended to part-time fire- fighters under this bill. We have begun discussions with the provincial department to look at costs associated with extending this coverage and the best way to balance the coverage for municipalities. It is imperative that the rates do not increase too dramatically as municipal budgets are already at the point of exhaustion.

A second issue our association is pleased to see in Bill 25 is the allowance for private top-ups of WCB benefits for part -time firefighters. Many municipalities simply canno t afford full-time fire departments and in many other communities it is not cost-effective to maintain full-time fire departments. In these cases, communities rely on volunteers to provide any local firefigh ting services. Volunteers are an essential component of the community and they are often the ones who organize local projects and events.

Our association has always believed that preventing private top-ups for volunteer firefighters is a disincentive for those looking to volunteer. The maximum insurable earnings clause in the cur- rent legislation is a further disincentive to attracting volunteers and we are pleased to see that it is removed in Bill 25. The AMM is pleased to see that Bill 25 will allow for private top-ups and remove the maximum earnings clause as this will help attract volunteers and guarantee that those who make a commitment to the community will not be penalized financially should an accident occur.

The AMM is pleased to see Bill 25 address the two primary concerns and look forward to working closely with the department in the development of the regulations. Volunteers are the life-blood of many communities and it is paramount that every possible measure be put in place to ensure that they are compensated to the fullest should an accident occur. The AMM is pleased to see measures in place that extend compensation for occupational diseases to part-time volunteer firefighters and that allow for private top-ups above WCB coverage for volunteer firefighters and is supportive of this bill. Thank you. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Dobrowolski. Any questions? Mr. Cullen: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your presentation. Certainly, we recognize the important role that volunteer and part-time fire- fighters play throughout Manitoba. I think we have in the area of 3600 across the province, so, obviously, they play a very important role. In terms of the regulations that could be brought forward under this legislation, would you concur that the regulations would be the same for the volunteer and part-time as they are for the full-time firefighters? Mr. Dobrowolski: Yes. Ms.

Allan: I would like to thank you very much for your presentation. It is very nicely put together as your presentation was the other night when we were in committee. I just wanted to thank you very much for outlining some of the benefits in this legislation that go beyond the presumptive cancers and the heart injury that is in the legisl ation. I referenced it earlier this evening, but it is nice to hear it from the presenters. I just want to say that we have really enjoyed the opportunity to work with the AMM and will continue to work with you as we develop the regulations and as this legislation is implemented.

Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Dobrowolski. Next on the agenda is Bruce Hacault. You have no handout? Mr. Bruce Hacault (Private Citizen): No, I just got a verbal. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Please proceed. The floor is yours. Mr. Hacault: Okay, I suffered an injury in 1999 at Maple Leaf. I cut an ulnar nerve, three and a half tendons. I was on comp fo r five years, and the impairment award they gave me was only $13,000 then. It has been quite a few years and I went back to comp for another impairment award because the hand is getting worse. These two fingers now have

64 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 collapsed. I got a nerve in the elbow here that is acting up. Their doctors, I went and saw them, and their doctor says to me, "Well, there is no change in your hand." He says, "There is nothing." There are no measurements, like I have to do pinching, gripping. They gave me restrictions, I cannot lift more than 10 pounds. I cannot go near cold or hot so it is hard for me to find a good job that I used to have at Maple Leaf because I took the buyout. After the injury, they forced me out basically so I left.

But to find a good job now with this injury, it is impossible. The adjudicator I had a long time ago, he was a good adjudicator. I will not mention his name, but he has moved up. He was a good, honest adjudicator. He helped me out the best. Now they gave me these other ones that do not; they just push you around. He told me, he said, Bruce whatever you do, he says, whatever job you try to get, do not tell your employer you have a permanent injury because they will not hire you, and which is true. I had Doctor Turner who did two surgeries. He says, "Bruce, you could come back for years.

We cannot fix it." There are like millions of little wires in there. He says, "You cut right into it." Right there is just where I had it, and I got to suffer with this for the rest of my life. You know, I am only 37 years old and I got two little beautiful girls. I cannot do shit with them because of this arm, and it is not fair. Okay. So I work at this job and I run pretty hot machines and it is pretty dangerous, but I got to work because I got a wife and kids to feed.

But with the compensation, like these awards to people like us with permanent injuries, severe ones like in an alner nerve where the hand is deteriorating and all, every couple of years it shrinks. It gets worse, arthritis, it cramps, it aches. It is pain that I would not wish on nobody, but when I go in for another lump sum after six, seven years and their doctors tell me there is nothing wrong with my hand. I went to Lorette Park [phonetic] here at the Health Sciences Centre, and she is an arm specialist. She has already told me that I cannot work anymore.

She says if this nerve bothers you or gets worse, your whole arm could collapse and go out. It is in here in the elbow. It is some kind of nerve. So I say, well, I got to pay bills and I said, I got kids to feed. So, on these impairment awards like when I got hurt at Maple Leaf, I know the payout on the principal to comp was over a couple hundred grand for this injury, and all I got was a lousy $13,000. Now that is not fair. You know, if they would of gave me a half of that money, I would not be standing here today.

You know, you try and live with a hand like this and work and raise kids, I got restrictions, I cannot lift no more than 10 pounds. Well, come on, what can you do. That is their restrictions they put on me. So, if I go where I work, if I grab something that is heavy, and some stuff is heavy, and I pull all the nerves or the muscles out of this hand, how am I going to tell my boss, "Well, I got to go on comp." Meanwhile, they tell me not to tell them that I have a permanent injury because they will not hire you, right? Ms.

Lois Wales (First Vice-President, Manitoba Government Employees Union): My name is Lois Wales, the first vice-president of the Manitoba Government and General Employees Union, and this is Rick Farley, our WCB expert, if you have questions to ask of Rick. So something has got to be done. This is just for us guys with permanent injuries– [interjection] Yes, because what happens if the whole hand shuts down on me and the arm. Who is going to cover me? Who is going to take care of me? This is a serious injury. This is not a little toy injury. You cut that ulnar nerve; it is like a chunk of liver.

You slice it all, there are millions of wires in there. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Any questions? Okay, there are no questions, I thank you for the presentation. Oh, excuse me–[interjection] Mr. Loewen: Just so you are aware, the minister has indicated that there are Workers Compensation Board staff at the back. Perhaps you could talk to them. Floor Comment: I got to go through a repeal of this thing with the hand, but that is okay. * (20:00) Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Next on the agenda is Lois Wales from the Manitoba Government Employees Union. Do you have an y written copy for distri- bution? Thank you. Please proceed.

The Manitoba Government and General Employees Union applauds the Government of

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 65 Manitoba on its initiative in Bill 25 to amend The Workers Compensation Act. Representing over 32 000 workers in Manitoba, we believe that these am endments are long overdue and a welcome change to the current act. This is the first review of the act since the major changes were made in 1992. Before 1992, the act reflected Justice Sir William Meredith's principles of historic compromise where employers recognized their responsibility to provide financial security and rela- ted supports.

Injured workers gave up their right to sue their employer in exchange for a guarantee that they would receive a fair and just compensation. The employer agreed to provide financial security along with other measures to workers who were injured in the workplace. Changes to the act in 1992 were designed to greatly reduce the compensation benefits paid to injured workers and their dependents with a goal to reducing the reported, unfunded liability of $250 million. Those changes were so aggressive that the unfunded liability was reduced in two years on the backs of the injured workers.

Injured workers' wage loss benefits were reduced from 75 percent of gross earnings to 90 percent of net earnings. This change provided for a profound negative change in the compensation to injured workers and their families. Impairment awards for injured workers were dras- tically reduced to an insulting amount. At the same time, as injured workers' benefits were being reduced, employers' assessment costs were going down, even though workpl ace injuries were going up. The MGEU is pleased that the proposed changes will remove some of the draconian changes addressed by the previous government.

These proposed changes address some of the flaws in the current act in a way that will improve the workers compensation system for injured workers and their families. For example, Bill 25 proposes to extend coverage to workers who currently are not covered by the act unless compelling reasons can be made to exclude employers from the system. Benefits will no longer be reduced from 90 percent of net to 80 percent of net after 25 months of benefits. We are pleased that the age discrimination has been removed and benefits will no longer be decreased by 2 percent per year after age 45.

Positive provisions have been added to the act to obligate employers to re-employ and retain injured workers once they are medically fit. Bill 25 removes the punitive yearly maximum and minimum earnings from the act. Administrative penalties have been strengthened to discourage claim repression by some employers. We are very pleased to note that the negotiation of top-ups to 100 percent of net income will no longer be considered a collateral benefit. Changes to the act allowing injured workers to be paid from the day of their injury remove one of the financial barriers to injured workers when making a claim.

These are positive aspects of Bill 25 that the Manitoba Government and General Employees Union thank the government for initiating. However, we would be remiss if we did not bring to attention areas of The Workers Compensation Act that Bill 25 does not address. We urge the government to act on these issues as well and will point these out in my following remarks. We are disappointed that the proposed legislation does not recommend the removal of the practice of board sheltering of an injured worker's non-taxable benefit from their probable income tax refund.

This practice further reduces an injured worker's wage loss benefits creating a greater finan- cial burden. Workers receive 10 percent less of their actual loss of earnings. This sheltering causes their wage loss to be reduced even lower. The current practice of the board is to use a three-month period for calculating sheltering, even though they know that 82 percent of all time-loss claims are for three weeks or less. The result serves in favour of the employer, lowering their assessment costs at the cost of the injured worker.

We believe that an injured worker should never receive less than 100 percent of their net income. The current legislation ensures that injured workers receive less than 90 percent of their net income. The principles embodied in the firefighter provisions under Bill 25 should be applied to all professions. Judge Meredith only envisioned a two-part test for workers to have their claims accepted. The test to have their claim accepted was that an injury would have arisen out of and in the course of their employment.

The current legislation states that in order to prove that an occupational disease arose out of and in the course of the employment there must be, in the

66 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 opinion of the board, a demonstration of dominant cause, peculiar to or characteristic of, a particular trade or occupation, or peculiar to the particular employment. The medical community cannot research or do epidemiological studies of workplaces or chemicals that workers are exposed to. The current legislation places the bar far too high for workers or for their physicians to reach. Occupational disease claims are grossly undercompensated in our province. It is our view that se ctions (

a) and (

b) of the occupational disease definition should be removed from the act, and an occupational disease panel should be established to research and establish a

schedule of occupational diseases. The work of the panel should be ongoing to ensure the

schedule is complete, both from the point of viewing of existing substances and processes, but also to assess new material and processes as they emerge. This

schedule would be the basis for accepting compensation claims without the need for re-adjudication. A further omission relates to the issue of chronic stress in the workplace. The current legislation has placed stress claims in the definition of occupational disease and clearly states that the only type of stress that is compensable is stress due to a traumatic event. This removes the ability of injured workers from claiming non-trauma-related chronic stress caused by the workplace environment. As we have stated earlier in our presentation, this could hardly have been seen as Meredith's vision of compensation.

His vision was of inclusion social compensation system, not one that is exclusive. In today's changing world there is a great uncertainty with threats of jobs being sent offshore, with workers being asked to do more with less. Stress has become recognized in the workplace as a legitimate illness. It seems strange that many disability programs through private insurance companies provide coverage for chronic stress, but the public social insurance system of compensation does not. We recommend that

section 1(1.1), Restriction on definition of "accident", in The Workers Compen- sation Act be repealed. Further, we recommend that item (

d) be removed from the definition of "occupational disease" and be placed in the defi- nition of "accident" as item (c), and that the current item (

c) then become item (d). These changes would recognize the reality of chronic stress as an accident under the act and provide fair and just compensation for workers afflicted with this illness. Another omission relates to how WCB calculates an injured worker's net income. Currently, the WCB uses CPP and EI. These deductions are made, but there is no legislative ability to remit them to the federal authorities. This serves to lower the employer's assessment cost but results in lowering the injured workers calculation of net income by the board.

These workers are not even eligible for these benefits of these deductions. We recommend that when calculating net income, the CPP deductions not be included in the calculation. Further, we recommend that EI deductions not be included in the calculations after an injured worker has been on benefits for greater than 104 weeks. After 104 weeks workers are not eligible for these benefits. In closing, I would like to touch on one other issue, that is, of survivor's benefits. There is a huge omission– Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Excuse me, 30 seconds. * (20:10) Ms.

Wales: –in the current legislation dealing with surviving parents of children killed on the job. The proposed legislation of the amount paid to cover burial costs does not allow the WCB to provide for other benefits. The loss of a child never can be compensated for, but supporting a family through their loss through counselling should be. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Well, thank you for your presentations. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter?– Ms.

Allan: I would just like to take this opportunity to thank you very much for your very well done presentation this evening on behalf of your organi- zation. Thank you. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Thank you. As a former nurse, I am intrigued by some of the discussions here around occupational disease, and I wonder if you could just explain to me I guess around how one would go about determining, related to cardiovascular disease, for instance, how would

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 67 one take an issue like that and determine that it has been caused due to work versus you are not just genetically predisposed to it. I guess, as a former nurse, my thinking is that it would be very difficult to sort of separate where that might have been caused from, and if one is looking at trying to include it as– [interjection] Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Excuse me. Your name? Floor Comment: Rick Farley. Mr. Rick Farley (Workers Compensation Board): As we said in our brief, that is what the medical community has problems doing.

Just as the medical community has difficulty providing medical evi- dence in supporting an inju red worker's claim, how do you do it? As we said in our brief, the bar is set too high. Bear in mind that the compensation system does compensate and allows for compensation of pre-existing conditions, but because of the way the occupational disease definition and the wording that is presently in the act, it is almost impossible, if not totally impossible, if you consider the MFL's brief in terms of Doctor Kraut's medical opinion, to have these claims accepted.

I would encourage the members of the committee to look at the Workers Compensation Board's annual report on in juries. You will find that the lowest injury compensated in our province is for occupational disease. It does not make sense at all. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you. Any further? Before we continue, we did not recognize Mr. Rick Farley. Is there leave here to recognize him retroactively? Some Members: Leave. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you very much. I will now call on Robin Reed, Frontier Teachers' Association.

Do you have any written copies for distribution to this committee? Mr. Robin Reed (Frontier Teachers' Association): No, mine is an oral report. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Okay, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Reed: Thank you, Chair and committee members. I bring greetings from the far North. In looking at The Workers Compensation Act, we know that teachers are not covered under that, and I think that the board needs to start looking at things in terms of equity issues. If the compensation board is not covering all workers, it becomes an equity issue.

I must mention, in Leaf Rapids where I am from, I am the deputy fire chief. If I am injured at a fire call, I have compensation,

whereas as a teacher, under the Workers Compensation Board, I am not covered. It becomes an equity issue for me. I think, also, that we have had several speakers, and I know that this applies largely to teachers and that is the question of stress and stress-related injuries. To that end, I have three brief stories of encounters I have had with teachers who have suffered from stress-related occurrences. The first one was the first year that I was principal in our school. I had a young teacher come from Alberta. She had a 4-5 grade split.

There were a couple of special needs kids in there, and the classroom size was 28. I knew that she was in some difficulty by Christmastime, and I tried to go to her classroom to help her out with the situation. We did not have enough money for an aide to be in that room at the whole time. She came back after Christmas and her situation had not improved. On a Sunday in the middle of January, I got a phone call from her in the afternoon, and she informed me at that time that she was quitting, and not only quitting teaching in Leaf Rapids, she was quitting teaching.

To me, a lot of people look at that in terms of that must be a character flaw. Why can they not handle these young kids, the parents who have demands, and, of course, the administration too? We have to take some blame in that too. But stress is a major problem in our schools. The other incident happened quite a few years ago to a good friend of mine. He taught shop in Leaf Rapids when we were full blown and had lots of students and lots of teachers. My friend Dennis started giving back things that were given to him at strange hours.

I remember that in a garage in a back yard several of us teachers going, "What is going on with Dennis?" We intervened. I remember having this conversation. I was not the principal. I was the president of the Leaf Rapids school teachers and it

68 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 became my problem. They told me that I was the one who had to approach his wife who was also a teacher, and to approach the RCMP. We managed to get Dennis flown out the next morning. We think that he was suicidal. The last person I want to talk about is myself. Two years ago, our neighbouring community of Granville Lake had some problems with their water and their students. Their population moved to our diminished-sized school in terms of numbers, and with it came a lot of the problems that come with displaced people.

We have suffered in Leaf Rapids with being evacuated for fo rest fires. These people were coming because of their water systems. We were out for a couple of weeks. These people had been with us, before they went back, for a year and a half . They brought a lot of social problems coming to a larger community. We did not have the teachers on staff that could handle the numbers. They looked to the principal, me at the time, to address some of the issues that they had. We were working with two school committees as opposed to one. I knew that something was wrong. This was before Christmas.

I went to visit a doctor, and I told him that I was having some chest pains. So immediately we think that there is something there. He sent me out to a cardiologist here in Winnipeg and I went through the tests and there is no problem with my heart. He suggested that it was stress. Going back to school in January, after the March break, I felt pretty good about everything and I started out, though, very quickly to go down a slippery slope. We cannot define stress as a single incident. I mean, you can, if you take into catas- trophic incidences as a school burning down as we had in Frontier, the Moose Lake school.

This is a slippery slope, and it is debilitating in terms of how you feel personally. My janitor, who has children in our school, came to me after school to complain about something the kids had done in one of the washrooms. I guess it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I asked her to leave my offi ce. I was unable to even listen to her problem. I went to the clinic. We did not have a permanent doctor. We had a locum in, a nice lady.

She gave me some pills and sent me home with a note that I was not to go back to school for two weeks. * (20:20) Well, pills are wonderful things, but without counselling and those resources available, they do not do much to help you. Through the MTS, I was able to go to counselling. I stayed off work from the beginning of February until the end of March break, and then returned to finish off that school year. I resigned as principal. The work, the stress was too much, and I returned to the classroom.

If we are talking about workmen's compensation, teachers and other people that are not covered by it, it is an equity issue. Stress happens in all workplaces. You do not have to be a teacher to be under stress. An office worker, their chances of physical injury are like teachers, low, but they do have stress-related injuries that are not physical but can turn into physical. I thank you for your time. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do the members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Okay, I thank you very much. I will now call on Jan Forest, private citizen. Jan Forest.

Jan Forest has been called once. The next one will be Kim Knox-Powers, private citizen. Called once. I will go on to No. 37, Peter Wohlgemut, Border Land Teachers' Association. Madam Chairperson in the Chair Madam Chairperson: Mr. Wohlgemut, you can proceed. Mr. Peter Wohlgemut (Private Citizen): Committee members, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Peter Wohlgemut. I teach Grade 5 at West Park School in Altona in Border Land School Division. I am here this evening to explain to you why the inclusion of stress-related injuries in the workers compensation program is important to me as a teacher.

Teachers rarely sustain serious physical injuries on the job. In fact, in 13 years of teaching, I can

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 69 recollect being physically injured only once when I slipped on some ice in the schoolyard and had to go to the hospital to get my hand stitched up. In my experience, physical injuries sustained by teachers at school have been few and usually require relatively short periods of convalescence. In my case, I was back at school within a few hours. Stress-related injuries on the other hand can take considerable time to recover from, if, in fact, there is sufficient recovery to allo w a return to teaching at all.

In the relatively small division that I teach in, I have known several colleagues who have left the profession, either short-term or permanently, due to stress-related illness and problems. It is something that is very difficult to talk about because the usual response is that they could not handle the classroom or they could not hack it as a teacher. It is assumed that the disability results from a character flaw or incompetence rather than factors in the workplace.

This, despite the fact that in many cases, these same individuals have been very effec- tive veteran teachers until a combination of factors drove them into the ground. In all honestly, it is somewhat understandable. With a physical injury there are often easily visible signs of injury and it is usually fairly simple to identify the cause of the injury as well as why and when it occurred. Stress-related injuries are usually the result of a combination of stressors, and they result from their cumulative effects.

Where they result mainly from one particular stressor, it can be equally difficult to deal with because of the stigma attached to injuries resulting from stress. I know of parents and students who have deliberately and publicly worked to get teachers removed from a school, making their life a living hell until they were so physically worn out and emotionally injured that they could not continue in the classroom without a period of convalescence. But who wants to give into such bullying by leaving? Many teachers do not until their bodies literally force them to.

Teachers tend to be perfectionists who care deeply about the students they teach, and this can result in considerable self-induced stress. For most of this year, I have worked with a class of 28 students with a variety of needs. It is not uncommon for me to be up until the wee hours of the morning, planning, marking or thinking about school issues, and I am not unique in that regard. It takes a very deliberate effort to avoid sleep deprivation and to ensure that my family gets the time that they need from me as well as getting some personal time.

I have deliber- ately taken up hobbies and other responsibilities to ensure that my time and focus are not always centred in my classroom. Driving oneself to meet the varied needs of a large class is very stressful. We also tend to try to avoid being away from the classroom even when we should. Preparing for a substitute means letting go of the classroom. I will never forget the colleague that we quite literally had to make a doctor's appointment for and send home and take care of the classes of because she was so reluctant to leave her students despite being visibly and obviously ill.

Other times, teachers go to work because they know a substitute cannot be found, and if they do not go, then their colleagues will have to cover their classes that day, adding to their colleagues' stress. When teachers miss a day, they still have to plan that entire day which requires much more work than if they just taught it themselves, not to mention the follow-up, regardless of how good their substitute is. Thank goodness we have moved away from awarding teachers who never miss a day of work.

In addition to the st ress resulting from a burning desire to reach and teach every single child in our care, there are the external stressors that exacerbate the situation. The introduction of new curriculums has slowed down, but every time a teacher's assignment changes, there are new curriculums to become familiar with. I went from a multi-grade, middle-years situation three years ago, to a Grade 3, single grade last year to a Grad e 5, single grade this year.

In addition to new curriculums each time, each was in a different school with different practices, traditions and ne w routines and expecta- tions to learn. The burgeoning field of brain research and the resultant information about how we learn has inundated schools in recent years. Teachers are expected to become familiar with a plethora of new ideas about how to teach, not a few of which conflict with one another.

While there are some wonderful ideas flowing from this research, they add yet another stressor to the workplace with some employers and parents expecting traditional prac- tices, others demanding the latest innovations and

70 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 teachers wanting to utilize whatever they can to help their children learn. The people you work with, as we all know, can also be a source of stress. I have had the opportunity to work in a number of school settings ranging from very supportive, collegial settings, to tense, walking- on-eggshells-type settings. While the former can help alleviate other stressors, the latter just adds to them. Parents can be the teacher's biggest ally or their bitterest enemy.

Which way it is going to be often cannot be forecast until th at first contact over a problem with their child. I have heard the teacher's first call home compared to playing Russian roulette. If a positive relationship has already been esta- blished, it can help, but you never know. I have had calls that I expected to go poorly, go very well, and I have been blindsided by unexpected attacks. And you have the students themselves. I have taught many students who took very little effort to teach or work with. A little guidance, some help and they were on their way, many of them, unknowingly, lightening my day.

Others, for a variety of reasons, have taken enormous amounts of energy to work with. Sometimes it is behavioural issues, other times emotional or academic. Issues from outside the school do not get left at the classroom door creating even more complex dynamics. Put several of these students together in a class or have a large number of energy-intensive students in a grade and the stress on the teachers multiplies. I have experienced both ends of the spectrum. I had groups that I could do really neat things with because they actually energized me.

On the other hand, I also had groups where a good portion of my time was spent ensuring that no one got hurt and property did not get damaged. Combining any of these stressors, along with other stressors that we all experience in our lives, can drive any teacher into severe illness. Many of us manage to stave it off until a holiday period. It is not uncommon for the first part of the summer holiday or the winter break, spring break or weekends, to have teachers out sick. We push ourselves until that first chance for our body to relax, and then the accumulated stress knocks us down.

If the stress is more severe, so is the resultant illness. I do have friends that have been out for days, weeks, even months directly as a result of illness which struck them down because of stress. * (20:30) In the case of my experience teaching junior high, which I alluded to earlier, you can quite easily tell which year was the harder one by the number of sick days that I had to take to make it through the year. Ongoing stress has a cumulative effect on the body. Your resistance gets low and illnesses that you could normally fend off take their toll.

You reach the point where exhaustion, either physical, emotional or both, simply means you cannot function. Your body is injured to the point where it is not possible to work. I have heard concerns expressed about the cost to divisions if they have to pay for workers compensation for teachers. The fact is they pay now through sick days. For teachers who do not have enough sick days to cover the period of their disability, there is the MTS Disability Plan, which we pay for ourselves largely because we see the need and no one else has been willing to meet it.

Continuing to refuse to recognize stress-related injuries will not make them go away in teaching or any other profession or occupation. It will simply mean that teachers will be forced to continue to pay for their own work-related injuries whenever the resulting disability is serious enough that they use up all their sick days. In addition, it perpetuates the illusion that these disabilities are the result of a character flaw or incompetence rather than recog- nizing that they are the result of ongoing work- related stress.

My understanding is that workers compensation is designed to assist individuals injured at work. Whether that injury is the result of a single physical event or the result of cumulative effects such as stress should not matter. If the disability is the result of one's work, it should be covered by workers compensation. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much Mr. Wohlgemut. Does the committee have any ques- tions? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Wohlgemut: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: The next presenter, which is presenter No. 14, is David Zirk, private citizen.

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 71 An Honourable Member: No. 44 on the list. Madam Chairperson: No. 44 on the list. Once again, I would like to call David Zirk. Seeing that Mr. Zirk is not here, his name will be dropped to the bottom of the list where he will be called again. Steve Hunt cancelled. He has given a written presentation. Is Kevin Connolly here? Not seeing Kevin Connolly, I call Ray Perreault. Is Ray Perreault here? Ray Perreault, private citizen. You may proceed Mr. Perreault. Mr. Ray Perreault (Private Citizen): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

First, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to state my case as to why there is a drastic need for changes in how the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba presently operates. Furthermore, having reviewed Bill 25, I would like to commend the Legislature for taking a positive step in trying to make these changes. It is suggested these amendments do not go far enough in correcting what is wrong with the present system. The events that I am about to present to you today are of my personal experiences with WCB and will hopefully give a clear picture as to why I believe this is so.

With that in mind, I am sure everyone here today has either had dealings with Workers Compensation Board that did not go very well or has heard horror stories from or about someone who has had the unfortunate fate. Today, you can add my story to that list. Unfortunately, in the fall of 1997 I suffered work-related injuries which forced me to file a claim, and, by all accounts, my dealings with WCB started with no apparent problems. However, 61 days later all that changed drastically.

While I was still seeking medical attention for my injuries, WCB terminated my injury claim forcing me to return to work with my still untreated injuries. Soon I discovered that my employer was interfering with my injury claim, going as far as to make false statements of claim against me in order to have my benefits terminated. This is well documented in my WCB file. For the next year and a half I continued to seek medical attention for my injuries and, with medication, continued to work at a moderate-to-light duty capa- city.

During this period, I sustained other injuries, but did not file a report due to pressures by my employer to have them looked after without using WCB as not to interfere with the safety program initiative put in place to award bonuses for days accumulated without compensable injuries. However, in the fall of 1999, my condition had seriously worsened and after seeking emergency care, I was advised by the doctor to take time off to seek proper medical treatment. At this time, the employer advised me that I could go on the com- pany's short-term disability, again circumventing WCB.

My doctor would later send a report to WCB indicating that my present condition was related to the original injuries back in '97. However, WCB refused to accept this diagnosis, and having used up short-term company insurance, I was forced to go on EI medical. Now this is where it starts to get seriously wrong. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I can provide physical evidence to substantiate everything I am about to say here and more. During the course of the following year, the employer filed further false statements against me to WCB.

He also altered insurance forms submitted with other documents intended to prevent my claim for benefits. He also outright terminated my employment with the company. I was also subjected to an interview by a WCB field rep who refused a copy of my statement and altered it on the computer manipulating what I had actually stated and knowingly submitted this to my file. On top of this, case management at WCB was holding my file in review and was preventing pertinent medical information from reaching my file.

When I finally intervened and personally sent this information to them, I discovered upon receipt of a copy of my file, that the reports in question had been altered and certain portions had been omitted. Further to this, a medical advisor at WCB, weeks prior to giving me a physical examination, states on file that I am fit to retu rn to work. When I finally attend his appointment, he refuses to do the exam and the head of the medical unit attends in his place. This doctor indicates that I am suffering from conditions related to my compensable injuries which

72 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 he gives a definitive diagnosis for. He also refers me to a specialist for treatment and will be sending me in for an MRI which, I might add, was denied and the documentation in my file suggests that case management interfered. Nonetheless, even after this, case management still refused to reinstate my claim and continued to hold it in review.

It was not until I intervened again on my own behalf going directly to sector manage- ment at WCB to find out why this was occurring, only to discover the case manager on my file was now using all the defaming information submitted by my employer in an obvious further attempt to keep my file from reinstatement. The sector manager indicated the case manager had six new questions that needed to be answered before any decision could be made on my claim. One of the questions asked why my doctor states on the company disability insurance that my illness is not work-related.

Well, this relates back to the insurance document my employer falsified and submitted to WCB which was used to indicate that my doctor stated that my condition was not work-related. Another question was why were benefits for com- pany insurance cut off, which is something the employer advised WCB about and was again a false statement due to the fact that the insurance was only for 13 weeks and had simply run out.

All the other questions raised followed a similar pattern, and having thankfully kept a record of all documents, I was able to put together all the information that would be needed to answer all these questions. At this point, I made arrangements with sector manager to fax this information along with a formal complaint against the case manager and employer. Would you believe that within 24 hours, my claim was reinstated. I also made inquiries with the Crown Attorney's office who directed me to the RCMP Special Investigation Unit and was advised that the unit is no longer mandated to investigate matters of WCB.

I was told to contact the Ombudsman's office who finally agreed that there was evidence to warrant an investigation and, by all accounts, did so. However, I have been waiting for over a year for the final report, but I do not expect that any actions were taken or would be taken against WCB or the employer for that matter. Why? Simply because it is what needs to be changed in the system. Now you would think that everything would be okay after all of that, but even after a new case manager was put on my file, further attempts to disrupt my benefits were attempted by tampering with new documents.

After correcting this attempt, it was concluded medically that I could no longer perform any labour-related employment and would have to start living a sedentary lifestyle due to my injuries. With this, WCB offered vocational retraining which to me sounded like a way to turn this around in a positive way. After completing the program, however, I was given little or no assistance in trying to secure employment in this field.

Furthermore, and with yet another new case manager, as recently as these past few months, certain information pertinent to my present condition was reinterpreted to obtain a decision deeming me and giving me permanent restrictions and disabilities. This decision has virtu- ally eliminated my employability and is a decision that I will now have to look at appealing. So what is wrong with this picture? Is there agreement here that what has transpired in my file is against even the legislation and policies that exist today?

I would like to point out that I filed complaints with Fair Practices, the special investi- gations unit at WCB, the Minister responsible for the WCB and so on. To have this addressed was either ignored or dropped after a short period of time. * (20:40) All this legislation and policy is fine, but what actually happens when they are not adhered to? In my case, nothing, except for the fact that had these individuals not colluded against me, I may not have the disabilities I have to live with today.

What needs to be drastically changed is the fact that everyone at WCB and the employer, for that matter, cannot be held accountable for their actions. It states so in legislation, and after what my family and I have been put through, this is definitely wrong. If the shoe had been on the other foot and I would have falsified documents or made false statements to the board, you can be sure as hell that I would have been charged publicly and flogged, for that matter, as a warning to others. It appears to me that the system is set up in such a way that those at WCB know that they will not face any serious

June 2, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 73 consequences for their actions as long as the interests of the board and the employer are maintained. Clearly, I have the proof that these individuals violated legislation and went beyond their juris- diction, yet they are above the law, as there is no one who has any power to administer any justice in such cases. This can no longer be acceptable. An institution such as WCB should not be above the law and should not be allowed to investigate itself.

Another aspect of the le gislation that needs even more amendments is concerning the input which an employer has regarding the entitlement and administration of an individual's claim. Employers should not be allowed to submit any information outside the context of the events of the workplace accident. Any unsubstantiated and unrelated infor- mation should be deemed an attempt to interfere with the injured worker's right to claim. The length of time of an injured worker should be determined by medical and should not be influenced by pressures invoked by the employer.

Furthermore, an individual's claim for benefits should be based solely on the opinions of the medical doctors actually administering the care to the injured worker, not on assumptions of medical advisers who have not physically examined the patient or is not thoroughly familiar with the accident history of the patient. Additionally, case management at WCB should not be allowed to manipulate any medical information when they seek a medical opinion from said medical advisers in attempt to sway a decision on a claimant's file.

It is clearly obvious that this is a common practice at the present time at WCB and has been for much longer, and this is definitely an issue that needs to be looked into. In conclusion, I would like to point out that what I presented here today with regard to my dealings with WCB is only an overview of everything that transpired. You might suggest that mine is an isolated case, but I refute that with the fact that it is common knowledge that WCB and other insurance- like agencies continually manipulate information in order that they get a decision they want.

Irregardless, I believe it truly shows what can and does happen to a great number of claimants, and it should not be allowed to happen any longer. So how can this be fixed? I believe it can if you the committee members take a much harder stance on where the system needs to be properly amended. Like everyone here, I never asked for a free handout but rather only hoped to be fairly treated and allowed to get proper medical treatment for my injuries. With the system set up as it is today, that does not happen. Besides, is it not called the Workers Compensation Board?

Then explain to me how employers and those at WCB empowered to administer this compensation have a greater voice in how a claimant should be treated than the actual medical practitioners. This is where the system needs the greatest change. The evidence does not lie. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Perreault. Do the committee members have any questions? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Perreault, a private citizen, Mr. Ron Perreault. Mr. Perreault, you can proceed. Mr. Ron Perreault (Private Citizen): Thank you. My name is Ron Perreault.

On December 28, 2000, I suffered a workplace injury. For a year and a half, I continued working. I sustained three other injuries during that time. In April 2002, my employer told me to leave my place of work to have my injuries looked after. I contacted WCB and was told by them that they would cover 90 percent of my wages and they would look after my injuries. I phoned my employer after talking with WCB and agreed to take time off to have my injuries looked after. I did not agree to a layoff due to shortage of work. My employer gave me a record of employment for this reasoning on the following pay period.

I was informed by a supervisor that this was normal procedure. WCB paid wage losses up until September 11, 2002, when they felt I wa s capable of returning to work with no workplace restrictions. However, they would not give me a letter stating I had a clean bill of health which my employer wanted before he would take me back to work. WCB did not give me any assistance back into the workplace. I have gone through all the appeal processes with WCB and have been denied any assistance. I am still left with my workplace injuries, no income, and told there are no further avenues I can pursue this matter.

I could say more, but I think that is enough for me tonight. I thank you.

74 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2005 Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Perreault. Does the committee have any questions for Mr. Perreault? Thank you very much for your pre- sentation, Mr. Perreault. Les Lilley, a private citizen. Mr. Les Lilley (Private Citizen): Hello. Madam Chairperson: Hello, Mr. Lilley. You can proceed. Mr. Lilley: Hello, my name is Les Lilley. I worked with the board in my capacity as a union rep for many years, more years than I would like to admit to. I would certainly like to take the opportunity to speak to you about the Workers Compensation Board and the potential changes.

First of all, let me say that the WCB works. Claims are paid in a timely manner. People who are injured fill out forms and are paid within a satisfactory amount of time. In some cases people are paid before the forms arrive , but in saying that, there are many areas that need attention. I would like to focus on several of these issues within the board structure. First, return to heal th and work. To return workers back to work in a timely fashion is something that is good not only for the worker but for the workplace and ev entually the community.

Morale improves and the general well-being of the worker and the workplace improves. An important part of this structure is the occupational therapist, or in the present case, the l ack of an occupational therapist. These profession als are needed, especially when the board is trying to get someone back to work. The OT will examine the workplace, duties, and any other issues that need to be addressed. Right now the wait for an OT of the board, there is a several-month delay, which in my case means we must use the employer's OT.

Although I know these people are professional, it still is the employer watching the employer. Secondly, stress in the workplace and its short- term and long-term effects. Workplaces are now a very different thing than th ey were just a few short years ago. Workers' productivity, quality, and all other aspects of what they do in the workplace can be monitored minute by minute from many miles away. The introduction of cameras so a worker is monitored for his entire shift, whether management can view these tapes at their discretion or the threat of this can cause an immense amount of stress on the worker.

This stress, as everyone is aware, can manifest itself in many ways, industrial diseases such as heart dise

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-3-hr2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 3rd hansardpdf hr2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ae0e1b74e648daead61b4a01840950b1658f7f78

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