LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 30 June, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speak er. MADAM SPEAKER, Ho n. M. Ph ill ips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directed me to report the same and asked leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented an d ca rried.

MADAM SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports_ . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... ORAL QUESTIONS Cormack Report - tabling 4f MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsible for the Workers Com pensation Board. The Minister has consistently refused to make public the report of the Long-Term Claims Disability Committee that was prepared for the Workers Compens ation Board.

Last evening, I read into the record a number of the very negative comments and criticisms that are contained in that Cormack Report, and we can see why the Minister is refusing to make it public because it has such a da mning comdemna tion of his government's efforts and the policies of the Workers Compensation Board. I wonder now if the Minister, finally, will have the courage to table that report in its entirety. MADAM SPEAK ER: The Honourable Minister responsible for Workers Compensation. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I have made it very clear that was an internal report that was asked for by the Board of Commissioners, and it was meant for the purpose of improving the system within Workers Compensation. This is one of several reports that are dealing with the Workers Compensation, trying to make it a more humane, efficient Workers Compensation system. We feel we are working in that direction, and that report will be used as one of the building blocks.

We're dealing with revamping the Workers Compensation Board and it will be used, along with the review committee's report as well, which addresses many of the same issues that are addressed in the long-term committee's report as well. We will be using all of these, along with some other suggestions that we are getting from other jurisdictions. There are Workers Compensation Boards right across Canada and there are some aspects which can be used.

We will be gleaning some parts of those systems, combining them and we will be coming up with a recommendation as to how we will be proceeding in making the Workers Compensation more humane, in how the injured workers, their widows and children will be handled in their treatment. Workers Compensation Board - disability awards - action re criticism MR. G. J=ILMON: You can't have a fair and humane system of Workers Compensation when millions of dollars are being squandered by mismanagement . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does 1the honourable member have a question? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G.

FILMON: . . . being squand ered by mismanagement under his direction. Madam Speaker, the report of the Long-Term Claims Disability Committee said that awards are being made which cannot reasonably be attributed to the compensable incident. What action has this Minister taken to deal with this serious criticism? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Very clearly, Madam Speaker, if there is money being squandered, it is not being squandered; it is being spent on injured workers and their families. We ve�y clearly had to move into an area of rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation was not being delivered, whatsoever, when the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the government. Was he concerned about injured workers at that time? SOME HONOU RABLE MEMBERS: Nol SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Yes! HON. H. HARAPIAK: No. The only concern he had was the "bottom line" and the bottom line is still his only concern at this time. A MEMBER: That's right. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, three times in the Schreyer years the rates of Workers Compensation were reduced, so if that's his condemnation . . . 3513

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: ... then it's a condemnation of the Schreyer administration. Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister, he has been told that claims are being settled for injuries which cannot be reasonably attributed to the compensable incident. What action is the Minister going to take to correct that serious, serious criticism of the Board? HON .. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opp osition refers to the three years in the Schreyer administration when there was also a reduction of rates of assessments, and those were the years when there was accumulation of dollars so there wasn't any need to increase them. But in the years that the Lyon was in, there was a trend that's changed very clearly. The assessments were rising right across Canada. Saskatchewan's rate was $2.40 at the time that ours was 88 cent and reducing. That is the main reason that we are in trouble nowadays.

We have to admit that we also, in the first year we formed government in 1981 - it was the end of the year, in November, and we didn't have the time to be doing an assessment of what should be done in the area of assessment because the industry did need to know what rate the assessment would be set at for that year. So that is why we, as well, made the mistake of reducing the assessment when it should have been increasing. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, it is incredible that the Minister is not willing to take any action on a serious criticism of awards being made for which there is no compensable incident.

Workers Compensation Board - estimate of unwarranted costs MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Yes. My further question is that the Cormack Report also states that the board practices, "inflate permanent partial disability awards." What efforts have been made to estimate the unwarranted costs that employers have borne as a result of that particular inappropriate action of the board? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, Mr. Cormack was asked to do a report on the workings of the Workers Compensation. He has put forward one opinion of what is going on.

Many of those statements he has made and the recommendations have not been substantiated. The review committee which was made up of people who have had many years of experience in handling the Workers Compensation, Brian King, the chairperson of the review committee, was an injured worker. He was also the chairperson of the Saskatchewan Workers Co mpensation sys tem. Mr. Tom Farr ell was a representative of the indus try. He brought that perspective to the review committee.

He is the person in charge of International Nickel, one of the biggest industries in Manitoba, of their Workers Compensation system, and Lisa Donner who is the labour rep. Their combined years of experience showed that they did not agree. They had a diametrical opposed view to what the Cormack Report is. So the Leader of the Opp osition should be concentrating on the review committees, as well, and placing a little bit of em phasis on what their recommendations are, rather than trying to place all the history that he wants to be playing with in the hands of Mr. Craig Cormack. Cormack Report - tabling of MR. G.

F!LMON: Madam Speaker, the Minister could clear that all up by making the report public. The Cormack Report further states that the board's medical officers are reluctant to declare a worker fit to return to work despite the lack of objective findings. The Minister has had this report for quite some time. The board has had this report since April. What is going to be done about that? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I have said, on many occasions in the past, the Cormack Report was an internal report. I have read a copy of the draft report that was put forward.

They have 11ot come back with the final report and we'll be dealing with it when the final report is brought forward. Workers Compensation Board - awarding of lump sum to set up business MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Minister can indicate whether or nqt the policy of the Workers Compensation Board allows the board to award a lump sum payment to an injured worker on rehabilitation for the purpose of setting up a business enterprise. HON. H. HARAPIAK: It is my understanding that ability is there for the Board of Comm issioners to make a decision to award such an award.

Workers Compensation Board - number of awards to start up businesses MR. G. FILMON: How often has this been done, where the board has made a lump sum award to an injured worker to allow them to start up a business and go into business? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. Workers Compensation Board - is award to start up business within the act MR. G. FILMON : Madam Speaker , that policy of awarding lump sum payments to injured workers to finance a business enterprise, establish a business enterprise, is that within the act? Is that allowable within the act? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, yes, it is within the act. 3514

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, when the decision is made by the board to award the lump sum payment for the purposes of establishment of a business, does the board require a business plan in order to make that decision so that they have some idea of whether or not the applicant has any prospect of succeeding in that business enterprise? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes, there would be a fine brought forward and they would continue working with the person who was in charge of the case and they would continue monitoring. Workers Compensation Board - assessment of business opportunity MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Spea ker, my question for the Minister is: Who assesses the business opportunity to see whether or not it has a reasonable chance of success. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I hear some comments been thrown across about the Evergreen Lodge, which is a business created recently in The Pas because of an injured worker, and I was not a part of that decision-making to approve it. MR. G. FILMON: I would like the Minister to address the question of who makes the assessment of whether or not the business has a reasonable prospect of succeeding. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: They would be consulting with the people who are involved in the business community, and there would be consultation carried on with any of the existing businesses that go on now. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, is the Minister saying it's just an ad hoe basis, that they go around and ask a few people in the business to see whether or not it looks good? Do they not make an assessment of the individual's capability to successfully run that business? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition realizes that we are in Estimates this afternoon.

We will have staff there and, if he wants some of those detailed answers, he will have an opportunity to answer those questions this afternoon. Workers Compensation Board - public inquiry MR. G. FILMON: Madam Spea ker, my question is to the Premier. We have a Minister who consistently, for the last two Sessions in Estimates, has been unable to answer questions on the Workers Compe nsation and can't or won't answer questions today on the Workers Compensation Board on major areas of concern.

We have a board whose incompetence has been detailed in the Wiebe Report, in the King Report, in the Cormack Report and, Madam Speak er, we have a board that is out of control in terms of a $18 4 million deficit. 3515 Will the Premier call a full public inquiry now so that we can get to the bottom of all the problems at the Workers Compensation Board and correct them? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the last report that I had was that the Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation was handling the questions and the providing of information extremely well right now during a public inquiry, namely, the Estimates process of the Province of Manitoba. Madam Speaker, I know that honourable members SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Future health reform measures MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health.

In the Budget Address, the Minister of Finance stated: "Services for people must be protected." He further stated, "his government is committed to quality health care for all." Given that this government, this NDP Government, is forcing hospitals to take drastic measures, such as closing beds, reducing staff and reducing services to Manitobans before alternative services are in place in the commun ity, what other well-thought-out health reform measures does this Minister propose for the future? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Minister of Health. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I might say that, yes, we are very proud of our health care here in Manitoba. We feel that we probably have one of the best, if not the best, in Canada and in the world. The point is that we want to keep it and we want to be practical and, therefore, there is only one way, is not wait until we're in trouble and we've lost everything. We must anticipate, we must make some changes. And we are convinced that these changes can be made, and this is something that is done in every single province in the Dominion. This is something that the Federal Minister of Health app roves and agrees with.

The situation is that we can probably improve the health of our people by changing the system a bit, the delivery of the system, not having every consumer think that the best thing to do is go to the hospital immediately. We are doing that, and we are doing that to the best of our ability. We haven't cut down. Things we are spending now, the budget is approximately $1. 2 billion. And if we do nothing more than we're doing now, well then it would be $2 billion and, if we do half of 1 percent, or what my honourable friend wants us to do, it probably would be $3 billion next year, and we can't afford that.

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 We hear from the critic on Finance that we have to be very careful on deficit, and we are saying to the hospitals - is there anybody there strong enough or brave enough to stand up and say, no, you should have a deficit in the hospitals, I'd like to hear that. Is that what you want, a deficit in the hospitals? St. Boniface Hospital cutback in services - Minister's approval of MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker, given that the news release from the St. Boniface Hospital today says: "Some services will be reduced," and given that today St.

Boniface has proposed to close permanently 38 beds and cut 66 staff, when will the Minister be announcing his approval for these cutbacks in services? HON. L. DESJARDINS: My honourable friend, Madam Speaker, is so anxious to have something to squawk about she can hardly wait. She wants us to approve a program that we haven't looked at yet. This is something that has been submitted by a hospital who has worked hard to try to bring changes, and there will be changes. You have a choice. Either help to retain the health care that we have in Manitoba or be as irresponsible as you are now, all of you.

Be irresponsible and then you're going to lose the whole thing. This has not been app roved by the commission, they received that today. I know you're anxious and I would love nothing better to be able to tell you how many beds -(Interjection)- I'll need a mirror here, I can't look at her at the same time. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Perhaps it might help if the Honourable Minister addressed his remarks through the Chair. The Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, the Minister says he's maintaining and St.

Boniface Hospital says some services will be reduced, so I wonder who's giving us the full and factual information. Closure of beds - proposals for permanent cutbacks MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health is: What other proposals are currently before this Minister for permanent hospital bed cutbacks? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, there is no doub t in the world that some services will be discontinued, but you forget to add all the new services.

Nobody's talking about CAT scans, nobody's talking about this new equipment that you have and, if we are exactly - I thank you for helping me make the point, that we cannot keep all the old and bring in all kinds of new systems. We cannot afford it with a million people here in Manitoba, and that's exactly what we've got to do. Like all these people that say they would so terrific at running businesses, that's what you would do where you would go bankrupt so damn fast. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East with a final supplement ary. MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker, with a final supplementary to the Minister of Health. Is this Minister holding back these decisions until the Session is over in an attempt to hide cutbacks in hospital beds and reduced services to Manitobans? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That question imputes motives. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I ruled the honourable member's question out of order. Would you care to rephrase your question please? Closure of beds - when to be announced MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Will the decisions on these hospital bed cutbacks be annou nced after the Session is over so that the people of Manitoba will know what hospital beds will be cut back, what decreases in services there will be to Manitobans? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, you're bound to get it right if you keep saying, will it be announced after, before and during. It'll be during one of those. Madam Speaker, these are the great managers. MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . laughing about cutbacks. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, laughing at you, the great managers who tell us they could run a business, that we're all dummies on this side.

The commission received a proposal today and we're supposed to announce it now. That would be very responsible, that would be something you would do, wouldn't it? We will announce it when we're ready. If it's during the Session, so much the better; if it's after the Session, it'll be announced loud and clear. In fact, I'll phone you first to make sure that you find out first of all. I know you're anxious. Bill 61 - committee to review MADAM SPEA KER: The Honourable Memb er for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the First Minister.

In view of the fact that Bill 61 being ramrodded through by the Minister of Labour has driven a rather serious wedge in the labour movement and in labour relations in this province; and given that that wedge extends all the way to the ND P caucus and the NOP party; and given the fact that reports have been made that a committee has been set up to review Bill 61, would the First Minister tell us about that committee, who's on it, what kind of a committee it is, when it will report? MADAM SPEAKER: Would the honourable member please clarify whether he's talking about a government committee? 3516

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, the reports have been that it's a caucus committee of three - a Cabinet committee, I'm sorry, a Cabinet committee of three. MADAM SPEAK ER: The Honour able Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, the honourable member asked a like question before committee and I will provide the same answer. In our caucus, members of all our caucus deal with legislation, and Bill 61 is dealt with by all our caucus. MR. J. McCRAE: So in other words, Madam Speaker, the Winnipeg Free Press has got it wrong again.

Bill 61 - review of bill re usefulness MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member with a question. MR. J. McCRAE: In view of the fact, Madam Speaker, that there are serious divisions in the NOP caucus on Bill 61, would the First Minister reconsider the matter and perhaps set up some kind of mechanism to review the usefulness of proceeding with Bill 61? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, as usual, the assumption that the honourable member makes in his question is wrong. This government and this caucus work with care and concern for the people of Manitoba.

We advance legislation which we believe is in the best interests of the people of Manitoba. We believe that the people of Manitoba want to see a government that is prepared to innovate, to find reasonable ways in which labour relations matters can be settled without strike or strife. Despite the pessimism of the honourable member, we will proceed with that legislation. MR. J.

McCRAE: Will the First Minister meet with the Minister of Finance and others in the NOP caucus who have genuine concerns about Bill 61 and include others in the NO P caucus who are upset about Bill 61 to see that this major intrusion on free collective bargaining in this province is removed? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the Member for Brandon lives in his usual fantasyland. The Minister of Finance is neither upset nor concerned. MR. J. McCRAE: Let's hear from him. HON. H.

PAWLEY: If the honourable members wants to imagine and create fiction, he's certainly entitled to do so, but we give that about as much credibility as it's worth. Community hospitals - adequate staffing of wards MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. 3517 MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. There have been some concerns expr essed by community hospitals regarding the ability to retain emergency ward and house staff physicians, and a lot of this seems to have to do with the remuneration these people receive.

I'm wondering if the Minister is giving consideration to this and if any action can be taken to ensure that the wards in the hospitals are staffed properly. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I seem to anticipate my friend's questions. I would like to say, Madam Speaker, that the Cabinet has approved a revised salary range for hospital emergency and house coverage physicians this morning, and the revised remuneration rate will provide an orderly equivalency to the same salary negotiated with the medical officer presently employed by the Provincial Government.

At this time, the Manitoba Health Services Commission was discussing the implementation at the various community hospitals. My friends are talking about cutbacks. I say that this will be an addition of over .5 million to the Treasury of this province. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. If honou rable members want to have a private conversation, they can do so elsewhere. MHSC - budget adjustments to reflect increases MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: A supplementa ry, Madam Speaker.

Since the Min ister has already announced that hospital deficits will not be funded, I'm wondering will MH SC be ensuring the hospitals that budgets will be adjusted to reflect these increases. Cancer Foundation - tabling of audit report HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, Madam Speaker, and while I'm on my feet I'd like to answer a question from the Honourable Member for Gladstone yesterday, who asked ab out an aud ited report with the Cancer Foundation.

It wasn't an audited report, it was a review that was brought ab out by the appeal which is repeatedly done and, no, this is an internal document and we don't intend to start releasing those. Chmn of Municipal Board - within mandate to speak at NOP meetings MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 An Order-in-Council of June 10 appointed one Andr ue An stett as Chairman of the Municipal Board, at a salary of over $59,000, I might add. On June 15 that same Andy Anstett, was the guest speaker at the founding meeting of the Lisgar-Marquette NOP Association, as reported in the Car berry Ne ws Exp ress and the Glenboro Gazette. Can the Minister tell us if it is within the mandate of the Chairman of the Municipal Board to attend and speak at NOP meetings? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was not aware of that specific speaking engagement, but I was aware that Mr. Anstett had taken one or two engagements prior to his appointment and he fulfilled it. There is no reason why Mr. Anstett, as a citizen of Manitoba, can't speak in a time when he's not officially working for the Province of Manitoba.- (I nterjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please.

Chmn of Municipal Board - refuse participation in political gatherings MADAM SPEAK ER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Speaker, to the same Minister. Will the Minister request that this newly appointed chairman, Mr. Andy Ansett, not take

part in any more political gatherings? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I do not believe that is within my jurisdiction to dictate to Mr. Ansett what he can or cannot do after normal working hours. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have one question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

In view of the fact of the history of this province, the Chairman of the Municipal Board has been a non­ pol itical person, Madam Sp eaker - no n-politi cal decisions are made on behalf of the people of Manitoba - will this Minister instruct the Chairman of the Municipal Board not to be involved in any further political activity and, if he does, ask for his resignation? MADAM SPEAKER: That question is the same or substantially the same as the previous question. Awasis Agency - request independent investigation re child abuse MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Community Services. With respect to the alleged abuse of a 10-month old Native girl who suffered brain damage after being placed in a foster home by the Awasis Agency, would the Minister request an independent examination and investigation by the Chief Medical Examiner of the province as to what occurred and the role of the Awasis Agency in that matter? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Commun ity Services. HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, the moment the child was brought down to Winnipeg, the Child Protection Centre in fact did contact the Chief Medical Examiner and, in line with our agreed-on reporting principles, he immediately called us. We called Awasis to double-check both on the past situation and to see whether there was any immediate action that should be taken. We did find there were other foster children in the home, and Awasis satisfied us by immediately removing those children.

As I understand it, according to the process that we have all agreed on, the investigation of the situation there will be conducted by the police and we will be doing a review of the role of Awasis in the situation, and the Chief Medical Examiner will be giving us an in-depth analysis of the child's condition. Although thankfully the child has not died, it does look as though the child will have sustained permanent damage. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Madam Speaker, the Minister and her department have chosen to take over the Northwest Child and Family Services as a result of concerns over the operation of that agency.

In view of the serious concerns over a recent incident involving the Awasis Agency and a 14-year old girl known as Amy in the report tabled yesterday, and this incident and questions that have been raised about its activities for some time, is the Minister prepared to assume direction and control of the Awasis Agency until its activities are thoroughly investigated and she is satisfied that they are acting in the best interests of the children under their care? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speak er, our initial investigation in this instance has not revealed any record of abuse by the foster family.

There was no evident way of predicting difficulty in that family unit. That's our preliminary information. We have, in fact, a mee ting with Awasis. We have been having meetings with them where we are asking for their plans to remedy this situation. We are in contact, and we have been repeatedly, with the federal parties to the tripart arrangement because, in our opinion and that of Awasis, that particular agency has been seriously underresourced for over a year and , without some attention being paid to the resourcing, the ability of Awasis to deal with some of these problems is circumscribed.

But we will be very much on top of the situation, Madam Speaker. 3518

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 Child abuse, 14-year-old girl - report re investigation of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, some months ago I had asked the Minister questions concerning the fourteen-year-old girl about allegations that the agency was not reporting child abuse cases. I see no mention of that in the report she tabled in the House yesterday. Could she advise the House whether that matter was investigated or is still under investigation or will be investigated in the future? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, we have a format for reporting.

They are in fact reporting cases. We have not had any report from anyone else that they are failing to report particular cases. If the honourable member is referring to the particular situation with regard to the girl, as he well knows, the police are investigating that situation, and the fact that they are investigating does not mean that we have not had the situation reported.

But again, we are taking the issue very seriously and will be keeping on top of Awasis' handling of the abuse cases, as indeed we will continue to work with all of the agencies in Manitoba to see that reporting and fair, appr opriate treatment in child abuse cases is taken. Awasis Agency and Northwest Child and Family Service Agency - difference re treatment MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. A question to the Minister of Community Services.

The Minister of Community Services just a few moments ago complained about the fact that the Awasis Agency was under resourced and saw no reason therefore for her to take over control of that particular agency. Yet the Northwest Child and Family Service Agency has been underresourced for over a year and, in December, asked for an additional 25 staff. Can the Minister explain the difference between these two agencies and why they get different treatment from this Minister? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, the question of resources is one that is going to be with us for a long time to come because no agency has the full resources that they feel they could make good use of. However, the degree of resourcing by the two agencies is really quite - already Northwest is well ahead in the standard of resourcing relative to Awasis. We have acknowledged that the resource issue is one of the potential difficulties. We have been increasing resources disproportionately favouring Northwest, but what we haven't had are the precise measures to know by how much they require additional resources.

But we are working closely with them, indeed with the association of all the agencies to come closer to that determination. But in this case, the level of resourcing for Awasis is considerably below that of Northwest. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A supplementa ry question to the same Minister. Can the Minister tell the House if the reason why one agency is treated differently is because the executive director of Northwest Child and Family went public and complained about the lack of resources and Awasis has been relatively silent? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. A question should not suggest its own answer.

Would the honourable member care to rephrase? The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the Minister explain, if you complain to her department about staffing levels at your agency, you in fact feel the weight of her department, but you don't if you don't complain. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, two clarifications: the Awasis Agency is under a tripart arrangement and is funded by the Federal Government.

With regard to Northwest, as I said to them the other night and as I've said to all groups who are out there providing services to people, I expect them to advocate and advocate pu blicly for the needs of their clients, and I would never take that particular action or opinion on their part as any grounds for taking actions. In fact our concerns were centered around the delivery of service and the management of the agency. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could have an opportunity to deal with a matter of House Business? Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader indicated that it was all right. MADAM SPEAKER: Is that agreed? (Agreed) HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader some time ago indicated that he would like the information or would like the names of minutes - or minutes that would be available for Commun ities Economic Development Fund.

I've written him a letter which I'm providing him with today of information needed, so we could carry on with the Commun ities Economic Development Fund Estimates to complete them. I also have some other copies for the media and for the House. HANSARD CORRECTION MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. 3519

Tuesday , 30 June, 1987 MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to make a Hansard correction on page 3387, in the third parag raph, where it says: "D ivision of Unemployment Insurance," it should say "Division of Employment Services.'' ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker . It's my understanding there will be Private Members' Hour today.

In the meanwhile, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented an d carried and the Ho use resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to He r Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Civil Service and Northern Affairs; and the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet in the Chair for the Department of Government Services.

CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - GOVERNMENT SERVICES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: Comm ittee please come to order. The Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Has the government or the King Report - I didn't see it in there - any kind of num bers of the extra number of people who would come before the Workers Comp ensation because of the recommendations, the increased num bers of applications? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, we do not have any figures on how many additional people will be coming forward for claims because of recommendations through the review committee's report.

I have said that we don't have the figures for the financial implications either. We will be doing an analysis on it and, when we have comp leted it, we will be act ing on all the recommendations at one time. MR. E. CONNERY: You know, the Minister has told us on numerous occasions that it's cost-negative. I say again, if you're going to make a statement along that line, there needs to be some back-up material to allow you to make that sort of statement. It's unfortunate when we see Ministers making statements when they don't have the background information to back up that statement. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I have never made the statement that it would be cost-negative. I said it would be cost- neutral, based on the years of experience of the chairman of the review committee and the years of experience, the industry representative, Mr. Farrell, had and Lisa Donner. Based on that collective 42 years of experience, they said it would be cost-neutral. They did not do a financial analysis on it themselves, but that was their best guess they could make that it would be cost-neutral.

But once we've had an opportunity to do an assessment of the entire report, then we will have our own opinion if it was cost-neutral or if there is going to be some cost instituted in the report. MR. E. CONNERY: The Minister's right, and I erred in saying negative. Neutral was the figure, but neutral means no cost either way, so I still have some concerns. In one of the reports put out by the Manitoba Employer's Task Force on Workers Compensation, there's one

section and I'll quote it, it says: "In addition, two-thirds of the Workplace Safety and Health Division budget is paid out of employers' assessments through the WCB, as well as 100 percent funding to the Worker Advisor Program." Can the Minister tell us what amount of money is paid to Workplace Safety and Health? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The cost for 19 86 for The Workplace Safety and Health Act is $1 ,793, 18 9 and, for the worker advisors, it's $377,969.00. MR. E. CONNERY: How many worker advisors are there? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That does not come under our responsibility.

It comes under the responsibility of the Workplace Safety and Health Minister. MR. E. CONNERY: I must say I've had the opportunity to work with a worker advisor, and I found the person very, very good in their job but also very frustrated with what was happening at the board. As I said to the Minister the other day, this one particular case that's going on two years and hasn't got to the - or if it has got to the first review, that would be about it. So like I have some experience with what is happening at Workers Compensation, and I'm not pleased.

If we have an advisor group, they should be able to work more effectively with the WCB. I have a feeling that the same problems that the King Report people had in obtaining information from Workers Comp, that this same particular group is having difficulty with Workers Comp. Of course, the King Report said there was conflict between groups at Workers Comp. So I've never read anything that's quite so damning to a government, a group that's so poorly run, the internal problems that they've got. So something needs to be changed there and something very drastic needs to happen at the Workers Compensation Board. HON.

H. HARAPIAK: It's unfortunate that the Member for Portage la Prairie doesn't look at all of the comments of the review committee. They also acknowledge that there has been a great amount of improvement made in the Workers Compensation system since 19 81. And yes, there is going to be, within any organization, some friction, and I would hope that they can work more to the development of a team. 3520

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 We feel that there is a team concept there. Maybe there needs to be some improvement, but I don't think we should be cond emning the whole Workers Compensation system and saying that no part of it is working at all. We feel that there has been a great improvement, and we recognize that some additional improvement needs to be done in some areas. That is being addressed by the review committee report, and we will be looking at the entire report and seeing Plus, that's one of the building blocks, but there are other processes going on.

The Cormack Report, for one, is a report that was asked for by the Board of Commissioners, hoping that they could come up with some recommendation on how the system can be improv ed. They will be coming up with recommendations from that report, as well as the University of Manitoba report. There are several reports that the Board of Commissioners has asked for to make improvements within our system. We will be using all of those as building blocks when we are looking at further reform of the entire Workers Compensation system. MR. E. CONNE RY: Will the Cormack Report be made available to the employers' group?

HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Cormack Report was asked for by the Board of Commissioners. It is an internal report and the Board of Commissioners will do with it what they want MR. E. CONNERY: Mr. Chairman, I have some extreme difficulties with this whole program. The Workers Compensation Board is paid for out of an assesment to employers, based on the various categories they're in.

Since the employers are paying the total amount, although we know that in many cases that is passed on to the consumer and to employees in the province and so some of the mismanagement is passed on to the people in Manitoba, but you're just really doing the program for the workers and for the employers. I think both groups, both workers and employers, should be able to see what the program is for, because the employers are funding it and there's a good reason for that. But also, we're concerned about what the workers get, because that's what the program is all about.

Why wouldn't both sides be privy to that information that's within the various studies that you've done so that they can make objective recommendations to the government? Is the government so ashamed of what they're doing that they don't want to make some of these reports public? And if you're not ashamed, then you should be able to make them public to the workers and the employers, and then be able to sit down with them and develop a program for them both. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I have had the opportunity of meeting with both workers' representatives and industry representatives, and they have shared that they would like a greater input, more openness about the system so they have greater participation in what is going on. I think that's a reasonable request. I believe that was carried out in Saskatchewan under the previous New 3521 Democratic Government. They opened up the books and they let industry see exactly what was in store for them, and what was needed in order to make Workers Compensation a viable operation.

They, at that time, recognized that the rates needed to be increased and they did increase them at a time when Manitoba was decreasing their rates. Because of tha t wisdom they exercised at that time, Saskatchewan is now in the position where they've got one of the few Workers Compensation systems that doesn't have an unfunded liability. They may have a small unfunded liability but, in previous years, they were on fairly solid footing.

So I think that it was because of the contribution made by industry, and they have a review which is carried out every four years where there is representation by industry and labour, and they make suggestions with an impartial chair. Then they meet and make suggestions as to how there can be improvements made in the Workers Compensation. I think that's something that I would like to see implemented in Manitoba, where they would have a review every four years. We wouldn't have to wait another 30 years before the next review is carried out. MR. E.

CONNERY: The review should be, what I would call, tripartite between government, workers, and employers so that everybody would have an input. The employers and the workers are affected more so than government. The Minister says that any part of the deficit will not be picked up by the government. It's going to be paid for by the employers and then eventually the people of Manitoba. So the waste and the mismanagement of money is really the responsibility of the employers and the people of Manitoba.

That raises some deep concerns that I have, you know, that the employers and the workers aren't given access to that vital information. HON. H. HARAPIAK: You obviously weren't listening to what I answered. I said that I met with the employers' group and they wanted a greater input. I said to you that the concept that's followed in Saskatchewan where they have an independent chair and representation from industry and labour, and they have a review of the Workers Compensation system, which is done every four years, is an idea that I'd like to see followed in Manitoba. MR. E.

CONNERY: Has the Minister read the report of the Emplo yers' Task Force on Workers Compensation? Have you reviewed that report? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes, I read that when I first became Minister of the Workers Compensation system. MR. E. CONNERY: Do you see an awful lot of that report in the King Report with recommendations that would be somewhat similar to what the employers have requested? HON. H. HARAPIAK: As in every other presentation that was made to the review commi ttee, some suggestions had merit Some suggestions need to have further study before they could be implemented. But

Tuesday , 30 June, 1987 I think that some of the recommendations made by the employers' task force were included in this review committee report. Very clearly, you had a very strong representative from the employers' groups representing industry, Mr. Tom Farrell, who would have made sure that some of the needs or interests of industry would have been included in that report. MR. E. CONNERY: Of course, they had to be in the form of minority reports, and the Minister said yesterday there were only four minority reports.

In fact, there are 15 recommendations that are of a minority nature, and the bulk of them being from Mr. Farrell. So, obviously, the input from the workers' task force was not accepted by Ms. Donner and King. We see the majority of the minority report coming from Mr. Farrell who is representing industry. Obviously, already within that report, there is a little bit of bias maybe against the employers' position. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I am not sure where the Member for Portage gets his information from, but I guess you can glean out whatever you can from a report. Mr. Farrell was present the day we tabled that report.

Mr. Farrell and Lisa Donner and Brian King, the chairperson, told me there were 178 recommendations and there was agreement on 17 4 of them. There were minority positions on four of the recommendations. MR. E. CONNERY: In the King Report - and, of course, we're not discussing the recom mendations, we're discussing some of the actual things that are happening at the board now - it says that rehabilitation may be provided. Is that a change the Minister would look at making so that it would be "shall," that rehabilitation would be a benefit that workers are entitled to? HON. H.

HA RAPIAK: That's an intere sting recommendation that will have to be studied before we know how much it'll impact on the entire workings of the Workers Compensation. Once we've had an opportunity to study it, then we will be acting on the entire report. We will not be taking one recommendation and implementing it in isolation from others. MR. E. CONNERY: In the King Report, it recommends a seven-man board, and unless I'm mistaken, there used to be a seven-man board prior to, I think,'82, if I'm not mistaken. The King Report recommends a seven-man board. What is the Minister's feeling on this? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Again, there are many different structures that are in existence across Canada, and that's a recommendation that the review committee felt it would work to have strong labour representation, strong business representa tion. It's one of the recommenda tions, among many , that we will be considering when we are looking at the structure of the board. MR. E. CONNERY: I'd like to discuss the review and the delay in the review. First of all, how many people are in the review? How is that review board structured if you go to the first review? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Are you talking about the second level of appeal?

MR. E. CONNERY: Yes, the second level. It's the first review. There has been an adjudicator to start with and, if it's being reviewed, it goes to review. HON. H. HARAPIAK: There are three members on that board, and they are made up of adjudicators with about 25 years of experience. MR. E. CONNERY: How often does the review panel meet? HON. H. HARAPIAK: They are meeting every day. The review panel is meeting on a daily basis. MR. E. CONNERY: How many cases will they then proceed through in a day? Do they meet the whole day or part of the day, and how many do they do in a week? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: In a year, they will be - like during '86, it's 596 cases. In 1985, there were 56 1 cases. MR. E. CONNERY: On the basis of how many working days in a year, somewhere over 200. They are not handling much more than three cases a day, and when we see the backlog and, as I mentioned yesterday, this one individual who was 111 th would have a three-month waiting period and had already been waiting for some time. Can the Minister explain why they're not covering more cases in a day? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess there are several factors that come into play here.

I guess the first thing the member should be aware of is that, although we realize this is one of the areas where we would like to see improvements made, you should be aware that in B.C. it takes much longer to hear a case. It is up to four years in some cases now before a case is heard. You're talking here about not handling that many cases. We should realize that they're all senior people, and then their holidays are worked into there. So you have to eliminate that from it. Rather than saying there are only three a day, when you take that into consideration, then it improves that figure to a degree as well. MR.

E. CONNERY: Do people who are waiting to go to review, do they get any payments? HON. H. HARAPIAK: It depends on the type of appeal it is. If it's an appeal based on termination, then there's no pay, but if it's an appeal based on the calculation of what level of appeal, then the current level of payment would be continued until the appeal is completed. MR. E. CONNERY: Mr. Chairman, if this Minister and this government is so caring - and I don't care what happens in B.C., I don't care what has happened prior in the 4'on and the Schreyer days.

We're talking about today, and things change and we try to improve as we go. If a person does get approved, I would imagine they would get back pay for that period of time. But there are a lot of people, and I guess most people in 3522

Tuesday , 30 June, 1987 this country who operate really week by week or month by month and don't have the resources to go through a long waiting period before they go to review. I don't think that it's fair, personally, that this sort of time frame should elapse in the interest of the workers. So I think that this Minister should seriously look at improving the numbers. Can the Minister tell us how long this backlog has been? Has this backlog been there for 5 years, 10 years? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Member for Portage said he didn't want to go back but I guess we have to go back.

You're asking what's happening in previous years. We should go back to the years of the Tory administration when the claims were not being settled and the people were put on welfare and they were put on unemployment insurance at every possibility there was. They were rejected and claims were taking a heck of a lot longer to settle than the present period. So there has been some improvement. But we recognize that there has always been a backlog and we are trying to make improvements there.

There is some reco mmenda tions in the review com mittee's report on how there can be furthe r improvements to the system to cut down that backlog further. MR. E. CONNERY: I don't recall. Yesterday we asked a question as to how long, what's the average time and what is the longest time it takes to go to the review board once they've been turned down initially. What is the longest it can take?

And I know the King review said up to 21 months, which to me is - well, it has to go through the three processes, but this one individual who I'm speaking of, it's about two years now and he hasn't got or maybe just has gotten to the first review sector. What I asked previously, all together, each year, how many cases have you had like this and behind? How long is it over the last four, five, six - if you want to go into the Lyon and Schreyer years, that's fine - but has that backlog always been there? Has there always been a long waiting period? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Presently, there is approxim ately a four-month waiting period from the point of the appeal, from the time it's received until the review committee makes a decision on it. It depends on when the appeal is launched. It is a first come, first serve. There is no way of getting around this. Whenever the appeal is put in, then those that are in previously have to be dealt with first. MR. E. CONNERY: I can appreciate that. If they don't appeal, you can't do anything about it. It's not your prerogative, but obviously that backlog has been there for a long time.

I would suggest that the sensitivity to people has not been there for some time. So my suggestion to the Minister, was let's get a little more sensitive to those who are waiting in review of all levels and cut down that time frame. There will be the odd one but I know, in dealing with one particular case where the doctor hadn't sent in a particularly good enough report, the Workers Compensation Board didn't follow up to say to the advisor that no, the doctor's report isn't good enough. Not until I got involved did some of these things start to happen. They were waiting and waiting.

So the Workers Compensation people did not go back to the advisor and say look, we don't have an adequate report from the doctor, we can't proceed on this basis; we need a more up-to-date and thorough report from the doctor. Why this delay? The worker who was injured is waiting. I think it's the responsibility of the board to go back and say look, we have some things that are missing, we can't proceed; go to the doctor and say we need this. I think that's one of the concerns that the King report identified is that some of the doctors aren't replying adequately , they aren't replying thoroughly.

I think we need to have some adjudication there to make sure that doctors do reply thoroughly and quickly. I know one of the complaints is that these doctors will take up to two or three weeks or longer to send in their report. I think there needs to be some agreement with the physicians and surgeons to make sure that these reports are in in a reasonable period of time. HON. H. HARAPIAK: From my experience with the worker advisors, they don't need to be encouraged by anyone that they require more information for a case. They have had enough experience now.

The worker advisors I've worked with, they always know when the case is heard that there is a lack of information, so they go after that very aggressively. I don't think that the worker advisors need any advice from the Board of Commissioners telling them you'd better go and get some more information from the doctors. I think that they are very well equipped.

Also, it depends on the complexity of the cases and that some additional investigation has to be done, and it also requires some help from doctors who are outside of the responsibility of the Workers Compensation, that the patients' own doctors quite often are the ones who do not have sufficient information. So I'm not sure how you would go about a complex issue of that sort by telling the medical profession, look, you'd better give us a little more information when you're dealing with Workers Compensation cases.

I think that anyone who has had any amount of dealing with the Workers Compensation knows what is required of the forms. The forms are quite explicit. So the doctor, just in applying some common sense, would notice how much information is required. MR. E. CONNERY: Okay. We can argue that one for a long time. Mr. Chairman, in 1985, the former Minister in charge of Workers Compensation said that it would break even in 1992. This Minister says it will break even in 1989.

Can he tell me what different figures the previous Minister used and what his rationale was, compared to what you're using now to break even in '89? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I am not sure where the Member for Portage gets his information, but the previous Minister said that they would break even by 19 89, and that's the same information that I'm using. I said we 3523

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 would still break even in 1989 in our operating budget, but we would break even on our unfunded liability as well by 1999. MR. E. CONNERY: If somebody would look - and I think it was in 1985 Hansard, page 2026 - we could then see what that Minister said. I don't think I'm in error. I wrote it down that this - I was wondering, there must be some different projections, or was that Minister, as usual, picking something out of the air that sounded good and didn't have anything factual to back up that statement? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: That Minister, to the best of my knowledge, always used the information that was submitted to him by staff. It's the same staff that I've got here with me today. They tell me that he used the figure of 1989, and that's the figure that I'm using as well. MR. E. CONNERY: I want to see just for a minute if I do have the'85 Hansard. If I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, I'll apologize. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I can't find the appropriate one, but I will look it up and I'll make sure that one way or the other. Ok ay, I'll apologize in case I'm wrong. But if I'm right, I'll look for the reverse from the Minister.

I'm sorry I can't find it to prove it, but I know that I wouldn't have written that down if I didn't have that figure. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I think I'd like to make one point that's important, that the Member for Portage pay - tha t those project ions are based on computer projections, and they are right as long as the actual results are equal to the assum ption used. These are upda ted annually so there may have been some updating of the figures that were used at that time. But to my knowledge, the previous Minister used the same figure of the break-even of operating, of operating budget as 1989. MR. E.

CONNERY: Yesterday, the Minister gave us the name s of three Cabine t Min isters who would be reviewing the King Report. There was Cowan, himself. Who was the third person? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Parasiuk. MR. E. CONNERY: Parasiuk. HON. H. HARAPIAK: We're a committee of Cabinet that is charged with the responsibility of it. A MEMBER: That's right. MR. E.

CONNERY: It's a committee of Cabinet and the Minister said then that they would - I asked them about the expertise of these three people to do an in­ depth review of the King Report, to understand it and to make logical reasons, and he said that, if I am correct - I don't have Hansard in front of me, unfortunately , to be sure exactly what the Minister said. It's unfortunate that Hansard, that we have this time delay, Mr. Minister, because we're both trying to think of what we maybe said and obviously we can't be totally accurate.

But if I can recall what the Minister said was that they'd be using some expert advice, other people, to help them make that decision. Is that correct? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That's correct. MR. E. CONNERY: Well then, why would you hire experts to give you a report and then turn around and you have to hire another group of experts to analyze that report? Were the experts that you hired originally in the King Report not competent to be sure of what they're recommending is right, or you now hire a second group to second guess what this King Report brought in? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I think that when the review committee had moved their report or tabled their report, they said that, with regret, they did not have the capacity to do a financial analysis of what their recommendations would mean. So that's why we're going to be needing the assistance of some actuaries or financial expertise to give us that informa tion and what the recommendations will be in costing or else the revenue items. So that's the expertise that we require. MR. E.

CONNERY: So the review committee that the Minister tells us of is going to be looking at the financial implications of the 17 8 recommendations of the King Report, or are they going to be helping with some of the philosophical and political decisions of the King Report because they are both in there. HON. H. HARAPIAK: The review committee report is one of the many building blocks that we will be using in order to come up with our package of reform.

There are ongoing reports that are going on at the Workers Compensation level, the Cormack Report which your leader has alluded to on many occasions, the University of Manitoba Report. There are other reports that are going on at the Workers Compensation level, and there are reports tha t are available to us from other jurisdictions which give us some information on some systems that are working well. I think we will be looking at gleaning out some of the information from these reports and we will be using whatever information is pertinent to our system, so that will be part of the whole review that is going on.

The work of the review committee's report will be a part of it, one of the building blocks. MR. E. CONNE RY: Well, would n't the review committee, in coming up with recommendations, have reviewed naturally what has taken place at the Workers Compensation Board now? Would they not have also reviewed - I look at the King Report, they allude to a lot of different provinces and things, so they have reviewed what is taking place in other provinces, in other jurisdictions, so why would we want to do another study on other jurisdictions as they relate to the King Report when it's already been done? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I'm not sure how I'm missing the point here. I'm telling you that there was no financial analysis done on the report, and that is required before 3524

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 we move on the recommendations, and there are some additional reports as I've mentioned. Sure, the review committee mentions that they've a copy of the Cormack Report and they disputed the recommendations, they were opposed to the views of the Cormack Report. But we will be looking at that and seeing, if we do implement some parts of the Cormack Report, what costs there will be to the Workers Compensation system. We will look at the whole area of rehabilitation.

We have several reports that show it's cost effective, but there will be some changes required in the way the delivery is made to the programs. So as we move on the recommendations that are put forward, we need to have some idea of what the costs will be, so that's why we will be doing the analysis. MR. E. CO NNE RY: Ha ve the suppor t staff or professional people, whatever, who are going to help the three Ministers, are they in place today? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Partially. MR. E. CONNERY: Are some of those people members of the Workers Compensation Board or who work at the Workers Compensation? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Not at this moment. MR. E. CONNERY: Will there be? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is being considered. MR. E. CONNERY: You know, I guess our previous leader, Sterling Lyon, when he referred to different things happening with the th ree Cabinet Ministers and the two of them who are involved with Workers Compensation, the one having been the first one when they took office and really I guess the one to start the Workers Compensation onto its disastrous course, he said it's like leaving the mice in charge of the cheese factory.

How are we going to know that there's going to be something really that's in the best interest of the Workers Compensation, in the best interests of the employers and in the best interest of the workers of this province, when we've had an in-depth study by people appointed with confidence by this government? Now they're saying that they're not sure of what they've done, so they're going to hire a whole bunch more people to study this report and to study the reports of the King Report study. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I think that if you go out and talk to any injured worker in Manitoba - and many of the people who have received services where they previously had been neglected services - they would have a different opinion than you have on what was accomplished by the First Minister when we formed government in 1981. I think he can be proud of the accomplishments that he did bring about with the reform that he did carry out.

If you go out and talk to the people who were previously on the welfare roll, on unemplo yment insurance and any other social assistance program, because they were denied Workers Comp ensation 3525 claims, claims that were, in many cases, very clearly suffered on the workplace and, because of the change in direction of the Workers Compensation from the Lyon years to when we formed government in 19 81, I think they would have a differing viewpoint than what you have on what has been accomplished through Workers Compensation under the leadership of Mr. Cowan. MR. E.

CONNERY: The Minister acknowledged in question period that they are providing money for businesses to injured workers. There was a lot of noise going on in the House and I don't know if I caught everything. How many businesses have you started? How many injured workers have you helped with businesses? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That's a question that I took as notice and it seemed to infuriate the members of the Opposition to a great degree that I would take a question as notice, but I am pleased to say that I already have the information and, yes, there was one case in 1985, none in 19 86 and none in 1987. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is just the last three years. Was there anything prior to that? HON. H. HARAPIAK: To the best of the staff's recollection, there have been three cases where there has been assistance to date. MR. G. FILMON: Without identifying the people involved, could the Minister indicate the circumstances, the amount of moneys, there was one case in 1985, none in 1986 and none in 1987. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is just the last three years. Was there anything prior to that? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: To the best of the staf f's recollection, there have been three cases where there has been assistance to date. MR. G. FILMON: Without identifying the people involved, could the Minister indicate the circumstances, the amount of moneys, there was one case in 1985, none in 19 86 and none in 1987. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is just the last three years. Was there anything prior to that? HON. H. HARAPIAK: To the best of the staff 's recollection, there have been three cases where there has been assistance to date. MR. G.

FILMON: Without identif ying the people involved, could the Minister indicate the circumstances, the amount of money invested and the results of the investment?

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 HON. H. HARAPIAK: From staff's recollection, they haven't heard back from them, so they presumed that they are operating because they have not heard the circumstances. But I should point out to the Leader of the Opposition that this money comes out of their pension fund. So it's money that, as they quite often refer to, it's their money that's being given to them in a lump sum, rather than spread out over many years. I think we're helping people become self-sustaining, sufficient.

They have created sufficient funds to look after themselves and I think that's the goal we should have, is to try to make everybody get out and work at whatever they are capable of doing. MR. G. FILMON: The Minister referred to a case earlier today in question period, Evergreen Lodge, which I gather is in The Pas constituency. I wonder if he could tell us about that situation, whether or not the lodge is successfully being operated. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I don't think it's appropriate that we should be discussing specific cases.

The Leader of the Opposition can recall just a week ago he was chastised for using a person's name in public without having the authority from that person to use his name. I don't think that I should be conned into any case where I'm obviously discussing specifics. I'll just tell you that was settled before I became Minister responsible for it and I do not have any shares in the lodge, and no relatives of mine are involved in it either. I have never seen the place. Oh, from a distance, I've seen it. MR. G. FILMON: Did the Minister have any involvement in that claim being awarded? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: None whatsoever. MR. G. FILMON: When did the Minister become familiar with it? HON. H. HARAPIAK: After I became Minister, there was a rumour going around that I had a share in a lodge that was purchased by an employee, by a person who was - because of a Workers Compensation claim. That's when I made an inquiry, because I wasn't even aware of who had bought it. That's when I made an inquiry. I wasn't getting my dividend. MR. G. FILMON: I certainly wasn't spreading the rumour, I'll tell the Member for lnkster. I just picked it up today in question period when the Minister happened to mention that one.

So I'm now trying to find out a little more information about it. The Minister indicates familiarity with it. Is the lodge still operating? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes, it is. MR. G. FILMON: Under the ownership of the individual who made the investment from his Workers Compensation funds? HON. H. HARAPIAK: As far as we know, it is operating. It's supposed to be reviewed after a year, but up till now it's still operating as far as we know. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether or not the rehab department had recommended that investment? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Rehabilitation was handling the case, and then the case did come to the Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Commissioners made a decision on the recommendation that rehabilitation had been involved in it. MR. G. FILMON: Did the rehabilitation department recommend that investment be made in the lodge? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I think that this would require bringing out the file, and looking at it in greater detail. I don't think that this would be the appropriate way to do it. But I should just mention that there was no lump sum. All there was, was a wage loss, a topping up of his wages.

That's all that the person was given, an augmentation of his wages. While he was on rehabilitation, he was making less money than he would have been when he was on his regular job. So all that we're doing is topping up his wages to meet whatever he would have been making in his previous occupation. That's all the board gave him was that additional money. MR. G. FILMON: He was getting his normal Workers Compensation. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes. MR. G. FILMON: And he was getting an additional amount as a result of a decision of the board? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I guess we're getting into a lot of detail without having the file and I don't think we should be bringing the file out. But what they were doing is, he was getting his regular pay as an injured worker. Then he went to work, he paid himself a salary in operating the lodge and whatever that amounted to which was less than his regular Workers Compensation. Then he would be paid a difference between what he was making at the lodge and what his Workers Compensation claim was. MR. G. FILMON: Is the same arrangement being made with respect to claim number 776267 1? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I have no idea what you're talking about and I don't think - we would have to pull that file and look at it. I don't think we have the authority to be doing that, unless that injured worker would say to us, yes, you have authority to look at my file. Then you would have the same privileges that he would allow us to have. MR. G. FILMON: This was in relationship to a board decision that was made in January of this year, a number of board decisions actually, but the last one in January of this year.

I guess I can just indicate to the Minister that I'm troubled by the fact that the board seems to make these decisions on an ad hoe basis, that we're not certain as to whether or not the rehabilitation department has recommended them. I believe, from one of the files that I have seen that, in fact, the board 3526

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 made the decision contrary to the recommendation of the rehabilitation department and that this whole process of investment in business doesn't seem to be accom panied by a firm and fixed proced ure of investigating the viability of the business and investigating the likelihood of somebody making a success of a business venture and utilizing funds out of rehabilitation to do this.

I'm very concerned, like so many of the criticisms that were laid before the board in the Wiebe Report, in the Cormack Report, in the King Report, there aren't proper guidelines, firm procedures and a lot is left to the discretion of the board. It's where all of this disretion occurs that we have problems, and many of these criticisms have to be laid at the fact that they don't have proper procedures, guidelines and policies on these matters, but it's ad hoe decision-making by the board.

Unless the Minister can enlighten me as to what the policies, procedures and guidelines are for these kinds of decisions, I have to say that they're being made on an ad hoe basis and, when they, are that's trouble. HON. H. HARAPIAK: In December of 1984, there was a motion passed by the board and I will just read that motion to the Leader of the Opposition. It says: "In permanent partial disability claims where the clinical rating is 10 percent or less, a lump sum settlement can be provided to a claimant as allowed under

section 23(2) of The Workers Compensation Act, upon proper consent from the claimant, provided that the permanent partial disability pension is not being augmented and that in permanent partial disability claims where the clinical rating exceeds 10 perce nt, a lump -sum settlement can be made upon request from the claimant where the impairment of earning capacity is 10 percent or less, as provided for in

section 32(3) of The Workers Compe nsation Act, and that earning capacity should be determined by the following factors:" The claimant's employment status is stable - that is the claimant's ability to perform the pre-accident occupation or the alternative rehabilitation occupation; and that the claimant's compensable medical condition is stable with no forseeable deterioration which would conceivably alter or affect the claimant's employment status or earning capacity; and that the criteria as outlined in both those previously read be determined by the rehab ilitation department; and that the authorization for lump-sum settlement under

section 32(3) be made by the rehabilitation department; and that prior to authorization of a lump-sum settlement un der 23(2) and 23(3), the claimant should be informed in writing that any recurrence of trouble necessitating payment of time-lost benefits would be reduced by the percentage of the permanent impairment and that any potential increase is provided for under

section 31 of the Workers Compensation. The Leader of the Opposition says that there are no studies done. I have made further inquiries from staff as to how the viability is looked at. They tell me that any business start-up is investigated by an outside agency such as the Federal Development Bank, and Business Development also looks into the viability of those cases before there is any decision made. MR. G. FILMON: Does the board ever go against the recommendations of the FBDB or the rehabilitation department? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: There have only been three cases come before the Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Commissioners said they have not gone against the recommendations that were put forward to them. MR. G. FILMON: They've never gone against them? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is correct. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, will the Minister table the procedure that is foll owed when the Workers Compensation Board considers making a lump-sum investment in a business? HON. H. HARAPIAK: We can get the procedure that is followed by the board of directors after the decision is made. We can get a copy of that procedure. MR. G.

FILMON: We are talking about the whole procedure from the time that a claimant applies to have a lump-sum payment made to allow him to go into business all the way through the investigation, the recommendation, the approvals - so we know how it happens. HON. H. HARAPIAK: What they would have is the procedures or the policies that I just read out to you. The policy is followed and each case is different. There has to be - if we were to go strictly by the act, then there wouldn't be any need for the Workers Compensation Board or the Board of Commissioners to be holding hearings.

Each case has different circumstances, so there would be a different assessment of each case that's come along. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister doesn't understand. The policy says it is allowed under the act. It doesn 't say what ste ps you have to take to dem onst rate the viability of the business or the prospective operator of the business, whether or not there's an opportunity to ensure there is a good chance of success, who you have to get the assessment from, and all those things. That, surely, there's a policy on. If there isn't, then we're making the point. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: We'll get that information for you. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister familiar with the Ontario decision, Berger versus Willowdale, AMC et al? HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, I am not. MR. G. FILMON: That decision, as I understand it, resulted from a court challenge in Ontario in 1983 and at that time, I am told, Ontario's legislation was similiar to ours regarding employer liability. The legislation guaranteed that a worker or his representative could not take action against the employer.

However, because of the wording, the chief executive officer of a particular company was found liable by the Ontario courts. As I understand it, there might be a potential for a similar claim in Manitoba because our act contains 3527

Tuesday, 30 June, 1981 similar wording. I wonder, in light of that, whether the Minister is contemplating an amendment to the act, as I understand Ontario has made an amendment to the act, to ensure that a senior executive officer would not be liable but in fact would be protected under The Workers Compensation Act. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I am informed that Ontario has a different legislation than Manitoba. They have a

Schedule 1 employer who is entitled to sue, and they also have

Schedule 2 employers who are not entitled to sue. In our act, our employers are not entitled to sue. MR. G. FILMON: Is the chairperson saying that they have had their legal counsel investigate the decision of Berger versus Willowdale to ensure that such a court challenge could not happen under Manitoba's act? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Board of Commissioners did not feel it was necessary because we have a different act. Under our act, that option is not there for the employees.

whereas in Ontario the

Schedule 1 are entitled to sue. MR. G. FILMON: Is the chairperson saying that she has reviewed that Ontario decision with the lawyers for the board, and that there's no possibility that such a challenge could occur? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Board of Commissioners felt that there was a difference in the Ma nitoba act compared to the Ontario act and we were adequately protected.

If the Leader of the Opposition feels it would be a good suggestion, then we could have our legal counsel review that particular case and see if, while we are reviewing our legislation, we could be having a look at this to see if it is necessary to review this portion as well because it wasn't touched on in review committee as far as I know. I may have missed it but, as far as I know, that part wasn't touched. So, maybe it's a good idea to have our counsel review it with the intent of maybe strengthening it. MR. G. FILMON: But it has not been reviewed to your knowledge? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That's correct. MR. G.

FILMON: Or to the kn owledge of the chairperson of the board? HON. H. HARAPIAK: We are a member of the Workers Compensation Association of Canad a. Information relating to the Ontario situation can be received from Ken Harding, the Executive Director of the Workers Compensations of Canada. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, did we establish that the allegations contained in the Wiebe Report of the violations in the act are in fact still taking place, that is that the act says that injured workers are to be paid 75 percent of the wage when injured,

whereas the board continues to allow for increases in the payments . . . HON. H. HARAPIAK: I'm having difficulty hearing you, the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder if you could move that mike a little closer? MR. G. FILMON: Have we established whether or not the board is still in contravention of the act in a number of its policies, one being that the act says that workers are to be paid 75 percent of the wage when injured, and in fact board policy is to allow increases? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I'm wondering if we could have that sound turned up a bit, because we're still having difficulty hearing the Leader of the Opposition. I know you've got a gentle, soothing . . . MR. G. FILMON: Well I know that the Minister's had a difficult time, so I'm trying to be very soothing with him. HON. H. HARAPIAK: It's having that effect, but I would hope that we can hear your voice when you ask the questions. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. Scott: He wants to stay awake to answer the questions too. A MEMBER: Have you thought about an ear specialist? MR. G. FILMON: Eye, ear, nose and throat.

I don't want the Minister to have to have a claim for damage to his eardrum. Mr. Chairman, has the Minister established whether or not the board is indeed in contravention of the act by having established a policy that allows increases to be paid to workers while they remain injured, off the job? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Once again, we're taking the same direction with this particular report, and that wasn't even the report that was asked for by the Board of Commissioners.

That was a report that was submitted by the Director of Finance to the Chief Executive Officer, and I don't think that this is the appropriate place to be addressing that. MR. G. FILMON: What is the appropriate place to be addressing that? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The review committee has made an analy sis of the workings of the Workers Compensation and they are looking at that. The actuaries and the auditors have looked at our annual report, and they have accepted the annual report that we pu t forwa rd. So they have quite a lot more experience than what Mr. Wiebe had.

To their understanding, the auditors accepted the report that we brought forward in 19 86. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, this is getting ridiculous. The auditors are not even aware of all the internal policies of the board. They wouldn't be aware. Only a staff member who is familiar with all of the policies and procedures and intimately familiar with the act would know about that. The auditors surely are not the ones who should be challenging individual policies 3528

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 of the board. It ought to be the senior staff, and it ought to be the board that is made to answer for these allegations. Look, the Minister should be aware of Wiebe from the time that he became the Minister. These are reports that were done. Mr. Wiebe tried, as I understand it, to do a service to the board by pointing out all of the many concerns he had about its operations. The Minister is telling me this isn't the place to ask questions about it. In question period, he tells me today that the only place to ask questions is in committee. I'm asking questions.

This is the only place and the only forum that members of the Legislature can ask this Minister a question. When he doesn't have answers, he tells us not to ask the questions. This is getting ridiculous. HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Leader of the Opposition raised a question from the Wiebe Report, which he refers to, that did give the board some direction and we appreciate the Director of Finance having some concerns in the working of the Workers Compensation. The staff has looked at the Wiebe Report that we've got, and there is no reference to the item that the Leader of the Opposition raised.

So I wonder if you could refer to what page and what part of it he makes that reference and we can check it out. Maybe he gave you a different report than we have. MR. G. FILMON: At this point in time, I have to admit that I've seen so many reports that ... HON. H. HARAPIAK: I know exactly how you feel. MR. G. FILMON: The only difference is that I admit to having seen th ose reports, Mr. Chairman, and this Minister up until yesterday was suggesting he hadn't seen a lot of these reports. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I think I should correct that. I said that I had not seen the final copy of it. MR. G. FILMON: Oh no, no. HON.

H. HARAPIAK: The Cormack final copy . MR. G. FILMON: You said you hadn't seen the Cormack Report. HON. H. HARAPIAK: The final copy of the Cormack Report still is not available. MR. G. FILMON: I just caution this Minister that he is getting on the slippery slope and he's going to be sub ject to a motion of privilege for deli berately misleading this committee. It's in the Cormack Report, the last page of the summar y, which says that the average earnings' policy is being rendered ineffective based on its present application.

As I understand it, the act calls for an injured worker to be paid at 75 percent of the average wage when injured,

whereas the board policy has increases being routinely passed along. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I have told the Leader of the Opposition that is one report that was asked for by the Board of Com missioners. The Board of Commissioners has not received all the information that they require on that report at this time and we do not have an analysis of it. When the Board of Commissioners chooses to table that report or table it with me, then we will be dealing with that report. MR. G.

FILMON: I find it unbelievable that this Minister, when given an indication that the board is paying out payments that it should not be paying out, paying out larger payments than it should be, refuses to ask, how can we put a stop to this. Why are we doing it? Why is the policy exceeding the requirements of the act? Jus t as he's told us earl ier that un der some circums tances they don't att empt to colle ct overpayments, just as it was indicated earlier - and this I believe was in Wiebe - that the board isn't collecting premiums that it's entitled to in many cases.

I want to know how this can happen and why the Minister isn't attempting to do something to correct it. All of these things mean the board is either paying more than it's required to or not collecting what it's entitled to, all of which means money being squandered that should be going to injured workers. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I would like to share with the Leader of the Opposition once again that I received a draft copy of the report and, when I read it, I had many of the same concerns that the Leader of the Opposition has. MR. G. FILMON: Oh, you didn't say that. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I met with the Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Commissioners are in the process of getting the information. They feel that many of his recommendations or comments are not board policy. They have not been practised. He has one

interpretation of what's going on and the Board of Commissioners has another

interpretation of what's happening, so it's a difference of opinion so we will have to deal with that later on. MR. G. FILMON: Have you got a copy of the board's response to Cormack and Wiebe? HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, that's still being developed. MR. G. FILMON: Well then how do you know what their response is if it's still being developed? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The chairperson is sitting right beside me ... MR. G. FILMON: I didn't hear the chairperson giving the Minister any advice on this matter. HON. H. HARAPIAK: We have had previous discussions on it. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, and again the Minister will have to take that it's either in the Wiebe or the Cormack Report - as I indicated, I've been reading so many of these things lately - that awards are being made by the board where there is isn't a ratable 3529

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 impairment. What steps is the Minister going to take to correct that? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Once again, I couldn't hear the Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: What? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess I'm starting to suffer from an old injury. I used to work as a drift miner and then I worked as a locomotive engineer, which both these occupations are known for their injuries to the person's ears, so I must have the same problem as the Leader of the Opposition. I'm having difficulty hearing. MR. G. FILMON: Are you sure it isn't his concentration that's been damaged, Mr. Chairman. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Maybe a bit of that too. MR. G. FILMON: One of these reports, either Wiebe or Cormack, says that awards are being made where there isn't a ratable impairment. What is the Minister going to do about that? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I'd be suspicious if I was the only who couldn't hear, but my staff can't hear either, unless we all worked in some occupation which has destroyed our hearing. I think it would be better if the Leader of the Opposition spoke up a bit.

I am advised that this is not a general practice, but the Board of Commissioners is still doing an assessment on that particular item which has been raised. They are checking into the long-term disabilities claims as to how they arrived at their statements or recommendations or conclusions. We have to know to how many out of the 1, 000 cases each of the findings apply to know the scope of the problems that have been identified by the committee. They didn't identify if there was one out of 1, 000, or two out of 1, 000 or how many cases it applied to, to make a statement of that sort.

So the Board of Commissioners is in a process of gathering that information from the Long-Term Disability Committee. MR. G. FILMON: I'll help the Minister because there is a board directive, Board Order No. 15 9/84, approved October 31, 1984 with respect to functional disabilities, in which the board is setting a policy concerning functional disability, and claims for functional disability in which the following list of factors be considered when assessing a functional permanent partial disability. No. 2 is, the Medical Department has addressed restrictions and determined there is no ratable impairment. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: The board is aware of the fact that there will be certain circumstances where the established method for awarding a rating of disabilities cannot be utilized. The board is of the view that there should be pr eventions by which the individual circumstances of those injured workers who fall in that category could be dealt with. That policy has been in effect since April of 1980. MR. G. FILMON: Since when? HON. H. HARAPIAK: April of 1980. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition had some input when that policy was being developed. MR. G.

FILMON: My understanding is that this is a policy that was aproved on October 31, 19 84 to replace the policy dated April 16, 1980. HON. H. HARAPIAK: It's the same principle in the policy. It's the same policy that was in effect in 1980. MR. G. FILMON: Including the aspect of no ratable impairment? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I'll read you the 1980 policy.

It says: "Where a worker has established his occupation or trade over a period of years, and develops a condition which is manifested by exposure to certain factors in his employment, or is initiated, aggravated or enhanced by his emplo yment, and it is considered as a preventative measure that he could avoid further exposure in his occupation or trade, and as a result he will suffer a loss of earnings, it shall be presumed that he has a minimum permanent disability of 5 percent, the cost of which is to be charged to the Second Injury Fund." MR. G.

FILMON: That's a little different from what I see in the 1984 policy. In fact, it's vastly different. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I think that it's not vastly different, only it's a little clearer spelt out. MR. G. FILMON: There's nothing about the 5 percent assumption in the'84 report,'84 policy? HON. H. HARAPIAK: It says here that any such award that is provided will be the equivalent of one-quarter of 1 percent of the permanent partial disability rating, which is actually lower than what the previous policy was. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, I don't think we established what the role of the Minister's liaison officer was. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I think I made it quite clear that he acted as a liaison person between the Workers Compensation and the Minister. MR. G. FILMON: What does that mean? HON. H. HARAPIAK: He's involved in drafting of letters that come to the Workers Compensation, to the Minister, and if there are any meetings that may be required between the Minister and the Board of Commissioners, then he would take

part in those meetings and provide information that is required by the Minister of the Workers Compensation. MR. G. FILMON: He drafts the letters from the Workers Compensation Board to the Minister? HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, he is involved with letters that I receive from the public. 3530

Tuesday , 30 June, 1987 MR. G. FILMON: What was the Minister's reference to drafting letters? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Pardon me? MR. G. FILMON: The Minister referred to him drafting letters from the Workers Compensation Board to the Minister. What is he talking about? HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, I am referring to letters that I have received from the public, making enquiries into the workings of the Workers Compensation. They may be letters that are coming from industry, people in the business community or injured workers.

There are several requests that we get from injured workers, and also we get requests from mem bers of the Opposition to make some enquiries into specific claims. The liaison officer is involved with follow-up work that is required with the Workers Compensation Board. MR. G. FILMON: Why couldn't that be turned over directly to the Workers Compensation Board, rather than have the liaison officer be a go-between? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That's one of the suggestions that has been made and it is suggested that it's being looked at.

As we're looking at changing the board's structure, that suggestion has also been taken under consideration. MR. G. FILMON: What salary is paid to the liaison officer? HON. H. HARAPIAK: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the people who have been involved as the liaison officer - I guess the first one was Craig Cormack and the next one was Nan Bennett, and now it's Ken Carrol. They are seconded from the Workers Compensation Board, and they retain the same salaries if they would have stayed at Workers Compensation. MR. G. FILMON: And what is it? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: It's whatever level he would be at as a review officer, and we don't have that information here at this time. We can get you that information. MR. G. FILMON: All right. Why does a liaison officer, if he is a liaison officer, not spend his time either at the Minister's Office or at the same offices as the board is at, rather than at a separate office? HON. H. HARAPIAK: There's difficulty with the Minister's Office, that there's a lack of room in the Legislative Building.

Members of the Opposition are quite often asking for more space in the Legislative Building and I'd like to have my Deputy Minister in the Legislative Building, but un fortunately there's not enough room in the building. There are limitations, so we can't have all the resource people that we'd like to have in the building here. Because of that, we don't have the room to locate them here. MR. G. FILMON: Well, having the largest Cabinet in the history of the province probably has something to do with the lack of space here, Mr. Chairman. 3531 HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I think the Leader of the Opposition should also know that his members are making many requests for some additional space and there's been a large improvement in the space the members of the Opposition have, in comparison to what the New Democrats had when we were in Opposition during the last government. So I think if you would look at how much more space is taken up by members of the Opposition, I don't think that you could make that argument. MR. G. FILMON: Wouldn't Mr. Carroll be more effective if he was at the head offices of the Workers Compensation Board? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I am told that he has a good rapport there with a person who is his contact person, and I'm told that relationship is working out very well. MR. G. FILMON: Who is his contact person? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Carla Loewen, Jeff Curtis and George Davis. MR. G. FILMON: And those are all workers' advisors? HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, they're staff of the Workers Compensation Board. MR. G. FILMON: How many workers' advisors are there? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Workers' Advisors Program comes un der the responsibili tiy of the Minister responsible for Workplace Safety and Health, and I do not have that information. MR. G.

FILMON: Where do their salaries come from? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Their salaries are presently paid for by the Workers Compe nsation Board. MR. G. FILMON: Well then I would think that the Minister could answer questions on them. HON. H. HARAPIAK: They are paid for by the Civil Service Commission, but the Workers Compensation Board reimburses their salaries. MR. G. FILMON: Okay, given that, can the Minister tell me how many workers' advisors there are? HON. H. HARAPIAK: We don't have that information. MR. G. FILMON: Do they have offices at the Workers Compensation Board offices? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: They do not have any permanent offices in the Workers Compensation Board. They have one small office where they come to review files on claims that they are working on. MR. G. FILMON: Where are their permanent offices? HON. H. HARAPIAK: On Balmoral Street.

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 MR. G. FILMON: What's on Balmoral Street? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That's where the Workers' Advisors Office is located. MR. G. FILMON: What does it cost the Workers Compensation Board? HON. H. HARAPIAK: We told the Member for Portage la Prairie, we gave him that information, but I will look it up again for the Leader of the Opposition. The charges un der The Workers' Safety and Health Act are $1 ,793, 189, and the expenses of the workers' advisors is $377,969.00. MR. G. FILMON: And the Minister has no idea how many there are and his chairperson has no idea how many there are? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: No. I have no more idea of how many there are on the workers' advisors, than I have under knowing how many the Minister of Urban Affairs has in his office. We're not responsible for that area, so we don't know. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, these are people whose role it is to advise claimants on their rights. They used to be under the same jurisdiction of the same Minister of Workers Compensation.

They initially were set up, and the only reason that the money transfer went back and forth was to make it look more like an arm's length basis but, without question, they're part and parcel of the overall Workers Compensation services in the province, so surely the Minister can't play dumb and say he knows nothing about these people. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess my first temptation is to retaliate to a comment of that sort, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that I am not playing dumb. I think it's a dumb question. You sat through the Estimates of the Minister responsible for Workplace Safety and Health.

Why didn't you ask that question at that time? MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, because their role is directly related to the Workers Compensation system of this province. They were set up to assist workers in their claims; they were set up to ensure that workers got the full benefit and protection of The Workers Compensation Act and system and they are part and parcel of the process. I find it incredible that the Minister doesn't know anything about anything with respect to worker advisors. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Pass? Minister's Salary­ pass? No? MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, what involvement do the worker advisors have with the board? Do they ever appear before the boards? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes, they sit at the second level of appeal and they help the claimants prepare their cases when they come before the Board of Commissioners. MR. G. FILMON: This is part of the so-called adversarial process where they're trying to make the case on behalf of the worker, sometimes being opposed by the expert opinion of staff members. Is that the case? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I guess if that's the way the Leader of the Opposition chooses to put it, it is a process that the claim has been rejected at one level and then there's an appeal process which all claimants are entitled to. The worker advisors assists these claimants in making submissions to the next level of appeal. If he feels that's an adversarial process, I guess that's his opinion. MR. G. FILMON: It's also King's opinion because King referred to the adversarial process versus the investigative process. HON. H. HARAPIAK: It's King's opinion too? MR. G. FILMON: That's right.

Does the Minister disagree with King's opinion on this? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The review committee has many interesting recommendations and many interesting observations, and some I agree on and some I disagree with. MR. G. FILMON: The Minister has no opinion on anything that King has done? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes, I have opinions, but I am not going to be sharing them with the Leader of the Opposition at this time. MR. G. FILMON: Why not?

What other opportunity do we have to question this Minister about all of these reports that he talked about and said, when we talk about Wiebe and we talk about Cormack, he says we should be talking about the King Report because that's the more comprehensive, the all-inclusive one. Now we talk about the King Report and he says he has no opinion and, if he does, he won't share it with us. That's a ridiculous position. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I think the Leader of the Opposition is trying to fabricate a story which will create some sensation and get him some headlines.

He's obviousl y lagging in his role as a Leader of the Opposition and he's getting some heat, so he's going to try and generate a story here. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I don't need to try and generate a story. All I need to do is let this Minister babble away and the story is printed. He makes a story every time he opens his mouth. All my job is simply to ask him questions, but it's obvious that all I need to do is point out that the Minister won't respond to any questions on this matter, won't respond to questions on King.

What was the good of having a King Report if the Minister won't respond to questions on it? HON. H. HARAPIAK: We'll be responsible to the entire report. The entire report has 17 8 recommendations. 3532

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 Many of them are excellent recommendations and we haven't had the oppor tunit y to cost out the recommendations that have been put forward. So until such time as we have had an opportunity to analyze them and cost them out, we will not be acting on any of them. MR. G. FILMON: Is the suggestion that we return to an investigative system rather than adversarial system of dealing with claims one of those excellent recommendations that he referred to? HON. H. HARAPIAK: It's a suggestion that has a lot of merit. MR. G. FILMON: It's a suggestion that has a lot of merit. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Right.

MR. G. FILMON: So now we're going back to what was there before. Does that mean that the worker advisors will no longer be required? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I think the worker advisors are fulfilling a very useful role in the whole area of Workers Comp ensation. Clearly, they are fulfilling a useful role and they will continue to provide that role. MR. G. FILMON: The Minister earlier referred to the fact that the worker advisors became involved in appealing a claim that had been turned down. Do they not become involved prior to that? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The worker advisors have a backlog at this time.

But if a worker became injured and req uired some assistanc e to put together a presentation, then they would assist them, as time would permit, to put together a claim. MR. G. FILMON: Can the Minister indicate whether or not the worker advisors still include a number of people from the MFL who were seconded and trained to become worker advisors? HON. H. HARAPIAK: As I told the Leader of the Opposition, they do not report to me, they never have reported to me and I do not know if they still have staff through the MFL who were seconded to those positions. MR. G.

FILMON: I wonder if I could return to a question that I had earlier asked. Could the Minister indicate whether or not his liaison officer ever attends a meeting of the board of the Workers Compensation Board, either on a direct basis or as a resource person? HON. H. HARAPIAK: You're referring to board meetings when the claims are being dealt with? MR. G. FILMON: I'm referring to board meetings. HON. H. HARAPIAK: The liaison officer does not attend board meetings. 3533 MR. G. FILMON: Does he attend board meetings where claims are being discussed? HON. H. HARAPIAK: No. MR. G.

FILMON: Well then why did you need me to clarify that? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Well, he could attend a meeting when the board is meeting with the Minister. So if the board happens to be having an informational meeting with the Minister, then a liaison officer could attend those meetings. MR. G. FILMON: But he has never attended, either this liaison officer nor previous liaison officers, has never attended board meetings of the Workers Compensation Board? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The liaison officers have never attended a meeting.

Whoever is in attendance is reflected in the minutes of the meeting and they have not attended meetings. MR. G. FILMON: In the Workers Compensation Board submission to the Legislative Review Committee, Mr. King, part of their submission said: "As a statutory tribunal, the Workers Compensation Board must show that any action it takes is within the authority provided by the enabling legislation. If actions taken are not within the commission's jurisdiction, then the actions are ultra vires or beyond the board's jurisdiction.

While via statute the Workers Comp ensation Board of Manitoba has exclusive jurisdiction to decide all matters arising under the act, it must be emphasized that legal remedies could still be possible if the doctrine of ultra vires became applicable. Therefore, while

Section 51(1) of the Manitoba Workers Compensation Act provides for no review by the courts, the superior courts do retain the power to consider the legality of actions taken by the Workers Compensation Board. "This is to say that judicial review may occur, not with respect to considering the specifics of the case, but rather whether the Workers Compensation Board has acted within the powers provided under legislation. "As a result, judicial review would focus on the board's

interpretation and appl ication of its jurisdiction as contained in its enabling legislation, in light of the doctrine of ultra vires. Aside from the matters of jurisdiction, judicial review may also address procedural errors, principle of natural justice. "Procedural errors of law can be viewed as deviation from duty to be fair, which then removes the commission or board from its jurisdiction. This could also result in judicial review.

Therefore, it is apparent that the privative clause contained in legislation, including The Workers Compensation Act, does not absolutely preclude judicial review if there has been an excessive jurisdiction or a fundamental procedural error." There has been indication of the board operating outside of its jurisdiction or contrary to the requirements of the act in the report of the Legislative Review Comm ittee, and in the Wiebe and Cormack reports. Does this not leave the board open to a potential court challenge on some of these areas that have been identified as being contrary to its jurisdiction?

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes, there are areas where they could be challenged under the jurisdiction question but, so far, the ruling has been in favour of the board. MR. G. FILMON: Ok ay. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that the board gets its operations within the act so that it isn't subject to challenge? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The board has access to legal counsel, and they consult legal counsel continuously. But I guess, as in most questions of law, it's subject to the

interpretation of different courts or emp loyers and I guess different legal advice that the emp loyers may be getting. So in this particular case, obviously the lawyer felt there was a case but the courts have ruled in favour of the board up to this point. MR. G. FILMON: The Minister indicates many times that there were many major problems with respect to Workers Compensation in 19 81. I'll quote from a letter that was sent to the then Minister responsible actually in the midst of the 1981 election campaign. It's from the Manitoba Federation of Labour , Dick Ma rtin, President. "Dear Mr.

McMaster: It has become very evident to the Manitoba Federation of Labour that there are very serious internal administrative problems at the Workers Compensation Board. These problems, in our opinion, culminated with the firing/suspension without pay of Mr. Ken Carrol who was the Assistant Claims Director of the Workers Compe nsation Board.

"At a recent executive council meeting of the MFL, it was unanimously appr oved that we request the Pr ovincial Go vernment to conduc t a compl ete independent, internal investigation of the day-to-day operations of the board , establishment of board policies, the relationship of the board members to the senior administration, and the general administration of the Workers Compensation Board. "We, in addition, are requesting that Mr.

Ken Carrol be immediately reinstated with full pay until at least the outcome of the independent investigative report is published, which would either vindicate him or convict him of alleged wrongdoings as an employee of the board. "This report should be made public since the Workers Compensation Board is also a public institution. This independent investigation should also be charged with investigating the Criminals Injury Compensation Board's administration activities or to fully air problems there.

"We believe that these requests can be easily instituted by calling the Lampe Commission back in order to conduct this internal investigation. This group of individuals are kn owledgeabl e ab out The Compensation Act, the procedures and, above all, have the confidence of management, labour and the public." You'll recall that at that time, I believe Judge Nitikman was appointed by - perhaps it was the Attorney-General at the time, or was it Mr. McMaster; I can't recall - to conduct such an open and judicial inquiry and allow for all these things to be investigated.

That was cancelled, that judicial inquiry, and in fact replaced by a closed inquiry by Inspector Clive Cooper of the RCMP. The government then used that as the impetus to fashion the Workers Compensation Board in the image that it had decided, wiping out the senior long-term civil servants and replacin g them with political appointments. The Minister responsible, Mr.

Cowan, in presenting his recommendations, documented, "that it should be emp hasized that at no time was there any evidence presented that would indicate that these difficulties were other than mana gement and communic ations problems." Those were the big problems that were uncovered by an RC MP inspector's investigation into Workers Compensation. He used that as a springboard to totally change the board. He totally changed the board from having been operated by long-term public servants, apolitical people, to appointments made by the government, three people to operate totally the board.

Since then, the allegations that were made by Mr. Carrol: claims' decisions overruled because of outside pressure rather than on the merits of each case; Claims Department staff shifted the documentational onus onto the worker; permanent partial disability awards rated by the board's doctors were appealed to review panels and higher amounts were awarded in most cases; employers pressured to find suitable work for injured workers - if they couldn't, the worker was given a cash settlement; management by intimidation; and appeal procedures not clearly explained - those were his major allegations.

Those pale by comparison to the findings of these three reports. These three reports - King, Wiebe and Cormack - detail an operation of the board that is absolutely and totally to be criticized in so many different ways: total incompetence in management; policies that contradict the mandate under the act; contradictory and unevenly decided award s; all sorts of discretion un der rehabilitation; 17 8 recommendations that make this kind of analysis and allegation pale by comparison.

Yet this Minister has the gall to sit there and say that everything's under control and this is so much better than it was in 19 81, when in iact at that time his predecessor said that the major areas of concern were commun ication and administration. Now we're being told that this board is operating it so much better. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if this Minister does not take thorough and complete action on this matter - and in fact he doesn't appear to be able to take that or committed to take it, because he is suggesting that he won't even answer questions on the King Report.

He won't even give an opinion on the King Report, but he knows nothing about Wiebe and Cormack because they're internal reports. He's read them but he has no opinions on them. He is being told by board members that these senior staff people - Cormack, who was a former liaison officer to -(Interjection)-will the Member for Ellice, who wishes to engage in invectives and slander, keep his tongue to himself? His contributions are no more appreciated here than they are in his caucus. Mr. Chairman . . . HON. H. HARAPIAK: That's not fair. His contributions are appreciated in caucus.

He has many worthwhile contributions, so I want to put that on the record. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister indicates that he is not prepared to say anything or do anything 3534

Tuesday, 30 June, 1987 about any of these reports, and they create a trail and a picture of absolute, abject, total mismanagement and incompetence between the policies that were developed and changed over the years at the behest and the encouragement of this NOP administration. The political inter ference, the political decision-making, the inconsistency in awards, the open opportunity for utilization of all sorts of discretion on the part of the board, all of this absolutely damning evidence says that this board is totally and completely out of control. Yet we have a Minister who refuses to deal with reality.

In fact, we have a Minister who obviously was set up as a puppet so that we couldn't get at one of the real culprits, his predecessor, the Member for Radisson, who has driven this board into a state where it is now $184 million in deficit after this government, this NO P administration, having taken it over with a $36 million surplus, where it had operated, as I said, consistently under Conservative admin istra tions, und er NOP admini strat ions, again un der Conservative administrations, as an apolitical body where it was able to reduce three times un der the Schreyer administration. reduce its rates, where it was able to have its rates reduced as well un der the Lyon administration, and where it still continued to do the mandate that it was entitled to.

This government, under his predecessor, brought in new policies without having any idea of what they might cost, and where they continued to operate on an ad hoe basis with influence, political, with influence from labour, with influence from outside sources that far exceed what was suggested by Ken Carrol when he was criticizing the board. Yet, this Minister is saying he won't answer questions, he won't make criticisms, he won't make judgments, he won't do anything that is needed to be done because he doesn 't want to talk about it. There are 17 8 recommendations.

Even the Ma nitoba Federation of Labour has attempted to stiffen the backbone of this administration by asking for the resignation, by demanding the resignation of the chairperson. Why hasn't the government jump ed to the attention of the Manitoba Federation of Labour as it always does? Is he waiting until his Estimates are through to make a decision of that nature? Is that what the Minister is waiting for? He doesn't want to have to answer questions. He doesn't want to have to answer in debate in this committee as to why he's doing these things and what his intentions are.

The whole process of this committee is to get this Minister through unscathed - well, it's not unscathed, he's already totally scarred and bruised and battered on this exercise - but to get him through this at a time when he doesn't have to answer to committee and to the Ho use for his actions. The last inquiry was based on allegations which were never substantiated in any firm degree, even according to Mr. Cowan when he was Minister responsible. Now, we have allegation after allegation after allegation substantiated in Wiebe, in Cormack, in King, leading to 17 8 recommenda tions.

This Minister's only conclusion is, I'm not going to talk about it, I'm not going to answer it, I'm going to deal with it as a package and I don't want to have to talk about it because it's all too painful and I really don't know about it because I'm new here. Well, I want to say that this strategy of the government of political damage control, appointing the four-member 3535 committee of Cabinet, appointing the P.R. group to try and get them through this, is obviously intended with one effect only and that is to have somebody in place who knows so little and can plead ignorance with a great deal of credibility.

Obviously, this Minister can do that with a great deal of credibility. Now, we are being asked to accept that is all we can get out of these hearings, all we can get out of these comm ittee reviews of Workers Compensa tion, is this Minister's total committed assurance that he is ignorant. We've got to have more that, Mr. Chairman. We've got to have answers and we're not going to get them from this Minister. We're not going to get them as long as he