Mrs. Smith for Mrs. Dacquay

Mr. Struthers for Mr. Ashton at 8:10 p.m.

Mr. Schellenberg for Mr. Jennissen

Mr. Pete Walker, Private Citizen

Mr. Jim Carr, Business Council of Manitoba

Mr. Marcel Hacault, Manitoba Pork Council

Mr. Jim Carr, Business Council of Manitoba

Mr. Chairperson: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Will the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations please come to order?

The first order of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations for the position of Vice-Chairperson?

Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education): Mr. Chair, I would like to nominate Ms. Korzeniowski.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Korzeniowski has been nominated. Are there any further nominations?

Ms. Korzeniowski has been elected Vice-Chairperson.

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): With leave of the committee, I would like to make the following membership substitution, effective immediately, for the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations: Mrs. Smith (Fort Garry) for Mrs. Dacquay (Seine River).

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee to substitute the honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith) for the honourable Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay)? [Agreed]

***

This afternoon, the committee will be considering Bill 27, The Safer Workplaces Act (Workplace Safety and Health Act Amended). This bill was previously referred to the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs this morning, but has been transferred to this committee for its consideration.

At this morning's meeting, the following items were agreed to. It was agreed to set the time limits of 15 minutes for presentations and 5 minutes for questions and answers. It was agreed to hear from out-of-town presenters first. Out-of-town presenters are noted with an asterisk on the list of presenters. It was agreed that names would be dropped to the bottom of the list after being called once. Names would then be dropped from the list entirely after having been called a second time.

Before we get started with presentations, I would note for the committee that there are four presenters registered to speak to both Bill 27 and Bill 39. Bill 39 is being considered in Room 255 just down the hall from this committee room. Ms. Shelly Wiseman is No. 2 on our list, Mr. Dave Angus No. 7 on our new list, Mr. George Fraser No. 11 on our new list, and Mr. Jim Baker No. 13 on our new list. The Clerks of our committee will be in contact with each other during the meetings and, if the committee is agreeable, I may interrupt proceedings to notify one of these presenters that they are being called to present in the other room.

As a courtesy to persons waiting to give a presentation, did the committee wish to indicate how late it is willing to sit this afternoon?

Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I believe, due to the fact that we have several committees going at once, that we will be able to deal with the matters before us until 6:30. Then if the committee has not completed its work, we will resume at 7:30 p.m.

* (15:10)

Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee agreeable with that? [Agreed] We will continue with public presentations, then. The first presenter I would like to call is Mr. Pete Walker. Mr. Walker, if you would please come forward. Do you have a prepared text, Mr. Walker?

Mr. Pete Walker (Private Citizen): Yes, I do, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. You may proceed whenever you are ready.

Mr. Walker: It is with pleasure that I am able to provide an insider's perspective on the prevention of injuries in the workplace and to this committee's deliberations on Bill 27. It has been my pleasure to be active in the Manitoba health and safety movement for over 20 years.

Prior to becoming a full-time representative of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, I worked as a steel fabricator at CN Rail's Transcona shops at the Symington yards. During that time, I have been active as a joint committee member and as a health and safety educator for the Canadian Auto Workers.

Information on the state of injuries, illnesses and deaths has been and will be presented by others during these committee hearings. I will echo the need for positive action and provide comments on improvements that will allow for effective health and safety where there is little or no co-operative activity.

In 1999, the MFL conducted a study on the effectiveness of joint workplace health and safety committees, what makes them effective, and can those elements be applied to other workplaces. We were able to identify 19 elements that fall into three categories: proactivity, legislative compliance, and positive environment, which create an effective joint committee. We also identified that these elements could be used in other workplaces that were willing to embrace good health and safety practice.

One positive finding was that the majority of surveyed unionized workplaces that have joint committees are doing good work. The activities they are involved in contribute to the workers' safety and health. A substantial number of joint committees are working very hard, but do not seem to be able to find solutions to all their problems. Of the remainder, most are in workplaces that have little or no management support, no compliance with basic legislative requirements, and no training to do their job properly.

Even though we had information about what makes a committee effective, we were still experiencing high injury rates in Manitoba. It was easy to identify where those injuries were happening, but it was difficult to force those employers who did not support committees or compliance to requirements to begin to reduce their accidents and injuries. It became clear to us that in order to develop a workplace safety culture, legislative change with a more efficient method for dealing with non-compliance issues would be required.

In 2001, four young workers, a 19-year old, a 17-year old and two 16-year olds were among those who lost their lives as a result of workplace accidents. This provided the catalyst for Manitobans to come forward and provide their opinions on what will make workplaces safer. I had the pleasure of being on the review committee on improving workplace safety and health that heard overwhelmingly positive input for improving the conditions in workplaces and supportive of prevention efforts. There was a definite response that the problems, even though serious, could be fixed and people were willing to try.

There is a genuine desire for a culture shift. The cornerstone recommendation in the report of the review committee acknowledges that. I am pleased to see the bill before you today reflects that commitment to safer and healthier communities within the workplaces intended by our report.

Bill 27 makes many provisions to develop a culture of safety where all workers, regardless of age and abilities, status or position, will be provided with a safe place in which to work. The bill stipulates that workers will be given training and skills before they begin working or prior to operating new machinery or processes. The bill requires that workers be supervised against unknown and unrecognized hazards. The bill obligates workers to work within the framework of a formal health and safety program where their individual roles and responsibilities are understood and defined. Most importantly, workers will be allowed to participate in making workplaces safer without loss of pay whenever they exercise their right to refuse to be injured or prevent injuries to others.

The bill makes improvements in the effectiveness of joint committees in the workplace. Duties and responsibilities are being clarified and expanded to include active participation on inspections, investigations and dangerous occurrences. The bill requires joint committees to make recommendations and have those recommendations acted upon. Joint committees, even in multisite or complex workplaces, will be able to rectify and resolve hazardous situations that individual workers have identified.

The bill establishes clarification of many sections of the act that will greatly improve the abilities of committees to understand and apply regulations and establish formal programs to deal with all the issues they will be confronted with. The bill addresses issues such as violence, harassment and protection of pregnant or nursing mothers. The bill also provides clarity to the responsibilities of contractors, suppliers and owners when issues of health and safety are in question.

Finally, those who refuse to provide protection for their workers will be held accountable for disobeying the laws. The bill provides for a more efficient system to deal with employers whose contempt for the law has led to the high rates of injury to workers, and, in particular, young and new workers.

Administrative penalties for non-compliance of improvement orders will increase the effectiveness of safety and health officers and is a positive move to restore balance to the judicial system. While the bill addresses many significant improvements, there are two issues that will require an additional amendment. They deal with training and effective fines. From my experiences in the education of workers, we have found there needs to be a validation of understanding as well as proficiency. While many believe the provision of training will solve many problems, if that training is not understood, it will do little more than give a false security.

There currently exists no definition of "training" and what qualifies as "being trained." We expect that a person is able to confirm comprehension and proficiency. Comprehension means being able to show they understand what has been explained to them. Proficiency means a worker can demonstrate a sustained ability to perform a set of actions and understands why they need to be performed.

As the bill is silent on a specific time for training prior to commencement of work, this must be addressed with an amendment to define "training" and "being trained." It is encouraging to see the bill adopt the most logical method of dealing with non-compliance of improvement orders, the administrative penalty system. Moving to an administrative penalty system can achieve the balance of enforcement and promotion.

Fines need to be set within parameters that discourage lengthy and costly appeals, but still encourage the employer to establish sound health and safety principles and practices and must be complementary to those established in the health and safety act.

Fines need to be of a range broad enough to be reflective of the seriousness of the violation and to recognize when a violator is reluctant to obey an improvement order. The suggested ceiling of $5,000 does not adequately deal with the variety and severity of violations. If employers are reluctant to implement an improvement order, low fines do not provide the needed incentive.

Increasing the range of administrative penalties from $5,000 to $50,000 will provide greater encouragement for compliance, act as an alternative for the current onerous prosecution process and avoid the burden of a formal court process and appearance. This will also ease the workload of the safety and health officers, prosecutors and courts to go after more serious violations and workplace fatalities.

I would like to conclude by saying that pieces of a puzzle are usually incomprehensible when viewed individually. We must view Bill 27 as a whole to understand the safety culture that will be possible with these positive changes. Workplaces that are in the majority, good workplaces with caring employers, will notice no change to what they do and how they do it with Bill 27.

Let me restate the fact that many workplaces already have a good safety culture. They actively support the work of the committee from the very top executive position to the new person on their first day of work.

Let me tell you in particular of one such workplace in Winnipeg, Sonoco Flexible Packaging. They print plastic labels in a variety of colours to go on food containers, and they also print and make these cookie bags that you see in stores. On January 2 of this year, after their Christmas break, they had a day-long safety day with no production taking place. They brought in all their staff from three shifts onto the day shift and had them rotate through a series of six workshops on a variety of 10 different safety topics. The workers were all paid as if it was a normal workday for them and even had their lunch provided. Sonoco wants to have no injuries, and for that to happen, they recognize the need for everyone to participate.

Their commitment to meeting the goal was to have a safety theme day called "First Day Back." The joint committee selected the topics presented and the management looked after the support work and co-ordination activities. It was truly a positive experience for all involved, including ourselves. The presentation I did was received quite well, but what really impressed me the most was when the plant manager came into the session, listened attentively and supported what the message was.

This is not an isolated event, as I believe there are more employers who genuinely care about their workers and have the right attitudes to take positive steps to prevent injury. Indeed, I was also at the City of Winnipeg Safety Day doing much the same thing, even though they have a lot more than 200 workers to get the message to.

This is all part of the safety culture, and we just need to move into the workplaces that do not take their responsibility seriously. The changes in Bill 27 will provide that opportunity to reduce injuries and prevent fatalities, especially to workers and young workers in particular.

* (15:20)

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Walker, for your presentation. Are there any questions from members of the committee?

Ms. Barrett: No questions. Just thank you very much for your very well-thought-up presentation, particularly the example of a good workplace with a very positive safety culture. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Walker, for coming out this afternoon to make your presentation.

Mr. Walker: Could I respond to the minister?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes, you may.

Mr. Walker: Thank you. It is great to be here and be able to present on this bill that was introduced some time ago. It is also a good thing because it is summer. I am on vacation and that is why I am wearing the tie, you see. When I work, I do not wear the tie, but for this, I figure, well, I am on vacation, I will wear the tie. Normally, you would not see me in a tie.

Nonetheless, it is a very serious issue. It is a very important issue. I thank the minister for getting it to this point.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Walker.

The next presenter is Ms. Shelly Wiseman. Ms. Wiseman, good afternoon. Do you have a text for your presentation?

Ms. Shelly Wiseman (Canadian Federation of Independent Business): I do, but I promise I will not read the whole thing. I would request that it all be published.

Mr. Chairperson: It will be circulated, yes. You may proceed whenever you are ready.

Ms. Wiseman: Thanks. I certainly thank you–

Mr. Chairperson: Hold on one second please.

Mr. Schuler: Just for clarification, I think Shelly was asking that the entire thing be added into Hansard.

Ms. Wiseman: Yes.

Mr. Chairperson: If that is the will of the committee to include the entire text of the presentation? [Agreed] Yes, it will be included.

You may proceed.

Ms. Wiseman: Thanks. I believe I know most of you. My name is Shelly Wiseman. I represent the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We have 102 000 members across Canada and 4700 in Manitoba. Having said that, I would also like to state for the record that the CFIB is a part of the Manitoba Employers Council. I do believe they will be presenting today. We fully support the recommendations they will be putting forward. I will simply speak to some additional ones right now.

The CFIB supports many of the concepts brought forward in the proposed amendments, but is cautious of others. The Federation notes that our members' concerns are not limited to what has been proposed in the amendments, but what has been left to interpretation. The following comments will highlight areas of support and opposition.

To begin, the CFIB is extremely disappointed the Government has strayed away from the consensus recommendations of the review committee report. The Government has gone beyond the scope of the recommendations and has broken its own promise to build a safety culture in Manitoba. Such a departure sends the message that government is not interested in the views of employers.

In our original presentation, CFIB emphasized the importance of making the legislation workable and understandable to both workers and employers. Unfortunately, many of the amendments create greater confusion and uncertainty. Complex and difficult legislation only serves to frustrate employers. I will provide some examples later on.

The CFIB is extremely concerned with the lack of accountability placed on workers. The act fails to provide any meaningful repercussions in the event a worker knowingly and willingly fails to follow safety procedures. Given the importance of safety and penalties imposed on employers, it is incumbent on government to ensure workers face a proportionate burden should they choose not to follow the act, to violate the act.

I will move on to employers' duties. The CFIB cautions this section fails to recognize the risks involved in completing various forms of employment and differing levels of supervision that may be required. Of particular concern is the proposed amendment referring to the employers' duties, which states: Without limiting the generality of an employer's duty under subsection (1), every employer shall ensure that all of the employer's workers are supervised by a person who is familiar with this act and the regulations that apply to the work performed at the workplace.

The legislation must recognize employers performing entry-level duties, such as, an accounting firm, and those in a labour-intensive factory require different levels of supervision. Therefore, the CFIB recommends the Government include a provision on risk assessment in this section.

On wages and benefits during training, the current legislation regarding wages and benefits falls under the jurisdiction of employment standards legislation. Amendments requiring employers to pay full wages and benefits during training may be confusing to employers. Amendments governing pay and benefits during any form of training are best suited in one piece of legislation. Furthermore, there is some confusion over what exactly the training wage would be. We recommend that be specified as reduced training wages, as is a common practice in many jurisdictions.

With the Workplace Safety and Health program, the CFIB is concerned with the amendment requiring that all workplaces where 20 or more workers of that employer are regularly employed, to prepare a written health and safety plan. Such a plan, at a minimum, would include a hazard assessment plan, an emergency preparedness plan. It would also require formal Workplace Safety and Health committee hazard elimination control measures, require worksite inspections, qualifications and training for workers and incident investigations.

The CFIB is concerned that the proposed amendments may not serve to encourage employers to make their workplaces safer and may actually weaken the Manitoba employers' commitment to promoting safety in the workplace, for the following reasons:

First, it may be viewed as yet another government-imposed paper exercise with which the employer must comply. This is particularly the case in small business where some of these may not apply when you only have three or four employees. Developing this type of formal plan would not best suit that type of workplace.

Second of all, it does not consider the level of risk involved where there are 20 or more employees.

Thirdly, the explanatory notes identify a sense of reasonableness in the legislation, but this reasonableness is not prescribed in the actual writing of the legislation.

So CFIB urges the committee to take the concerns of small business into consideration when reviewing the proposed amendments. We are all striving for the same goal and would like consideration to be given to small business and those with low risk when the health and safety programs committee is considered.

With respect to improvement orders, the federation supports the changes which strike out "on the third day prior" and substitutes "within seven days after." On improvement orders, this makes good sense. But we do raise concern with the proposed amendments involving stop-work orders and payments of employees. The proposed legislation states that while a work order is in effect, any worker who is directly affected by the order is entitled to the same wages he or she would have received had the worker continued to work. However, the legislation fails to provide for instances when the employee has caused the stop order to be issued. CFIB urges government to provide a remedy for this potential situation by providing an exception in the event a stop-work order is in place due to an employee's failure to follow safety procedures. We do not want government to implement a system that would create the potential for paid vacations by misusing safety legislation.

In addition, CFIB cautions that the legislation fails to consider the economic impact of long-term or permanent closures of work sites due to stop-work orders. As some improvement orders may take longer periods to rectify, it could cause the business to shut down for a lengthy period of time, or permanently. So this should be considered in that piece of legislation.

With respect to appeals, CFIB supports the time extension to appeal a decision of a safety and health officer for improvement orders, stop-work orders, discriminatory actions or right to refuse dangerous work, in addition to streamlining the process.

With respect to decisions of appeals, CFIB questions the impact of the Labour Board's authority to utilize The Labour Relations Act to remedy unfair labour practices. The Federation is extremely uncomfortable linking Workplace Safety and Health violations with this piece of legislation.

* (15:30)

With respect to workplace safety and health committees and representatives, the existing act provides for an exception: The Governor-in-Council may designate an individual business office or retail store or classes of business or retail stores or similar workplaces where a safety and health committee is not required to be established until the number of workers exceeds 50. Again, this is provided for, discussed in the explanatory notes that this will carry on in the new legislation. But we fail to see that and would like to see that exemption be provided as well.

Discriminatory Action. CFIB opposes the proposed changes which would grant Workplace Safety and Health officers the authority to deal with incidents in which an employee alleges that an employer or union has discriminated against that worker for exercising a right or duty under the act. CFIB fears that officers may spend more time dealing with labour related issues and less time on safety. So the issue is still important; it is just a matter of who should be dealing with it. Safety officers are designated to deal with safety, not these types of issues.

Lastly, we urge the Government to impose consequences for employees who file false complaints with the Labour Board or Workplace Safety and Health officers. The proposed legislation reads: If a safety and health officer decides that no discriminatory action was taken against a worker for a reason described in section 42, the officer shall inform the worker in writing for these reasons. While employees should have every right to file legitimate complaints, provisions need to be in place for workers who would choose to abuse the process.

With respect to right to refuse work, CFIB recommends government include a provision that exempts certain workers from the right to refuse work if it is a normal condition of employment. Examples, of course, would be firefighters or police officers. What we recommend is these types of workers have appropriate training to assist them when they deal with particularly dangerous work situations.

Power of director to obtain information. CFIB is concerned with the wording of the following: The director may, by order, require an employer to do the following at the employer's expense: (a) have tests conducted by a technically qualified person specified by the director; (b) give the director a report or assessment prepared by that person, and to do so in the manner and within the time frame specified by the order. CFIB fears that the wording in part (a) may be subject to misinterpretation or abuse. The statement "specified by the director" needs to be clarified. It is unclear whether the director will set the criteria and the standards or designate the person. We believe that they should set a criteria, a set of qualification standards that the employer could choose from.

Administrative penalties have certainly been something that CFIB has been outspoken on. CFIB challenges government to provide information that the use of administrative penalties reduces the number of workplace accidents. In addition, we request government provide documentation outlining the type of improvement orders that have not been fulfilled and their link to accidents. We also note that administrative penalties were not recommended in the consensus review committee.

In addition, CFIB fears the use of administrative penalties may become a core revenue source for Workplace Safety and Health. The federation fears officers may be pressured to meet quotas or may receive incentives for writing fines. The use of administrative penalties may be abused by officers, which will come at extreme cost to employers. Also, CFIB feels funding education programs through the use of administrative penalties sends a poor message to all Manitobans, as the funding would decrease if compliance improves.

Lastly, CFIB notes that few jurisdictions in Canada utilize administrative penalties. British Columbia is currently reviewing their utility and Ontario limits the use of administrative penalties. It is important to note that Saskatchewan has resisted the use of administrative penalties, despite attempts by unions to have them introduced.

Lastly, offences and penalties. CFIB opposes the use of additional penalties to fund public education. The proposed legislation reads: When a person is convicted of an offence under the act, the court may, having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, order the offender to pay the minister, in accordance with the regulations, an amount for the purpose of educating the public in the safe conduct of the activity in relation to which the offence was committed. Such a penalty may be required in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed under this Act.

CFIB notes the review committee did not recommend additional penalties be imposed to fund public education, but a portion of the existing penalty be used for this purpose. CFIB supports the review committee's recommendation and urges Government to remove the additional penalty. Again, linking education funding to workplace safety and health offences sends a negative message to Manitobans.

In conclusion, CFIB has been pleased to present our members' views on this important issue. As stated previously, CFIB's safety is a top priority for our membership and for our organization. However, it is our position that the proposed amendments go beyond the scope of the review committee's recommendations. In addition, we fear that Workplace Safety and Health officers have been granted far too much discretion in interpreting this legislation. It is also the Federation's position that the legislation does not provide consequences for workers who abuse it, and given that safety is everyone's responsibility, CFIB feels government should ensure all parties understand the legislation and are accountable if they misuse it.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Wiseman, for your presentation. Questions for the presenter?

Ms. Barrett: Just, again, thank you very much. It has been enjoyable to talk with CFIB about this and other issues, and I look forward to continuing to do that.

Mr. Chairperson: Did you wish to respond, Ms. Wiseman?

Ms. Wiseman: Thank you. I appreciate being a part of the process.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you.

Mr. Schuler: Shelly, on page 1, you talk about CFIB as extremely disappointed the Government strayed away from the consensus recommendations of the review committee report, and you go on to say: "Such a departure sends the message that government is not interested in the views of employers and is fulfilling a pre-arranged agenda." I understand that education was a big part of that consensus report. Do you feel that that is seriously lacking in the bill as it stands currently?

Ms. Wiseman: Certainly, there is a lack of the education component. There is some discussion in terms of penalties being used towards that, fines; but in terms of providing any type of education for employers, for employees, the Government has not initiated anything in this bill, whatsoever, on that.

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thank you very much for the presentation. It is exhaustive in its scope and so there has obviously been a lot of thought go into it. Knowing that you were part of the MEC organization that was making recommendations to the Government, would you say that the current legislation, 27 as it stands, and knowing that Manitoba is a place where there is a lot of small business that has expressed concerns, I think, surveys in the past about whether they want to remain in this province. Would you say that Bill 27 is something that will promote small business in Manitoba, as it sits?

Ms. Wiseman: I guess I could say a few things on that. First of all, I do not believe that this legislation looks or addresses the needs of small business in terms of safety. I cannot see how this bill will improve safety in a small work environment.

What we need to do is deal with the small employers, help educate them and provide them with additional information. What this does is pass a number of regulations in a very prescriptive type legislation that will serve to frustrate small business employers, telling them they have to know this bill inside and outside when most of it will not apply to them. It becomes a paper exercise, too, which frustrates them and adds to the list of reasons that they may consider leaving the province or expand outside of the province. There is no evidence that anything in the bill–well, there are some good things in the bill that will benefit–but the majority of it does not serve the small business community.

* (15:40)

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Wiseman, for your presentation this afternoon.

For the information of the committee members, a submission has been received on Bill 27 from the Manitoba Pork Council. Is it the will of the committee to include the text in the Hansard? [Agreed]

The next presenter on our list is Ms. Iris Taylor. Is Ms. Taylor in the audience today? No. The name will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

The next presenter is Mr. Harry Mesman. Mr. Mesman, will you please come forward.

Good afternoon, sir. Do you have a presentation to the committee?

Mr. Harry Mesman (Local 832, United Food and Commercial Workers): I do not have a written presentation, I am making a verbal one, but I do have a copy of our presentation to the public hearings on workplace injury prevention that I will be referencing and will distribute for that reason.

Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed, sir.

Mr. Mesman: I am here representing United Food and Commercial Workers Local 832. It is a local that there is probably not a town of any size in this province that does not have UFCW members in it. We are arguably the most diverse local in North America and have workers in just about any sector you can think of, and, as a result, have seen a whole variety of injuries, from physical to mental and all those in between.

I personally over the years, as a worker at Canada Packers for many years back in the seventies, as a union representative, as a worker advisor for the province, as a member of the Workers Compensation Appeal Commission and a member of the board of directors of the Workers Compensation Board and the health and safety representative of the Federation of Labour for some years, have seen the devastating effects that workplace injury and illness have on workers and on their families and the ripple effects it has on the economy, for that matter, but, obviously, it is the human impact that most affects me.

I am sure if there is one–maybe I should not assume. A wise mentor told me never to do that. I suspect the one commonality on this committee is the desire for brevity on the part of presenters after the session you have been through. I will try to do that. Brevity is not–oh, that is a pun–my long suit. I have already been far too long telling you I am going to try to be brief. I am incurable.

It is, as I say, a verbal presentation, but largely taken from the handed-out presentation that you have got that we have made.

We obviously support the changes to the act. We are in concurrence with the presentation of the Manitoba Federation of Labour and the recommendations they make therein. We are very much supportive of all the new health and safety initiatives, particularly those aimed at young workers. I talked about seeing the impact and seeing people's lives turned upside down as a result of going to work and trying to earn a living. Of course, it is the most compelling when it happens to young individuals, particularly the fatalities that we see and have seen very, very recently. It is chilling. It makes us all realize that something needs to be done. We may not fully agree on what that something is, but we know that we are not doing enough when these statistics keep coming at us. Manitoba is among the worst, unfortunately, federally, in that statistical picture.

The problem is that I expect limited impact, frankly, from these changes. Yes, as I say, we approve of them. We do think that the Government has not gone far enough and are hopeful in future sessions they will go beyond the changes here. Part of the reason I do not think they are going to have great impact is the limitations of the internal responsibility system, which is what drives the legislation to begin with. I will excerpt from that presentation I handed out on page 1 why we think this system is limited.

It is clear from the public discussion paper that the Government put out at that time that the Government understands that we are far short of reaching the goal of a safe and healthy workplace for Manitobans. Certainly, that is the case for far too many of the workplaces where our members are employed. The primary reason for this shortcoming is that the theory underpinning all of our health and safety legislation, namely, that those who manage or work directly with hazards are in the best position to develop solutions to control them, can only be practically effected when there is real commitment from senior management. This is something that, I think, is inarguable no matter how good of a system we put in, although I would suggest that if some of the changes I am going to recommend were implemented, it would make a significant difference.

No matter what we do, if there is not that real commitment from upper management, we see it in the companies, health and safety program is not going to work nearly as well as it should. When that commitment is lacking, the whole system falls apart. That is why the role of the Government is so important in enacting sound legislation and providing meaningful enforcement of that legislation. That is always going to remain a vital cog in injury prevention.

After participating in province-wide hearings on enforcement in 1996, I put it this way. I am quoting myself here: Many studies have noted that a successful health and safety program requires commitment from upper management. This is true only because the IRS, the internal responsibility system, confirms the traditional power relationship in the workplace. It does so while, at the same time, pretending that this relationship, particularly in the health and safety arena, is non-confrontational. I have heard it over and over again from employers that at health and safety committee meetings, you can take off your union hats and we take off our management hats; it is a level playing field. Frankly, that is hogwash, as far as I am concerned.

Conventional wisdom recognizes that for efforts to be truly joint, a level playing field must exist between the parties. When it comes to joint health and safety committees, this equality is assumed to lie in the common interest of having a safe and healthy workplace, but we think this is, on the whole, a false assumption of the primary reason why the whole system only succeeds when the employer wants it to or is forced to.

The case has been made many times, and tragically proven in just as many, that the investment that workers make in their jobs, mainly their health and their very lives, is not equal to the financial investment of the employer. To equate the surrendering of human life to production and to capital accumulation is, frankly, morally reprehensible.

In any event, much of the financial investment is also borne by the worker in the form of payment for social welfare costs such as unemployment insurance and health care premiums. That is too far of a side road to go down, but I would suggest that changes made to Workers Compensation in the past decade have led to a greater transfer of those costs onto the general public. Clearly, as long as the internal responsibility system assumes a level playing field and common purpose, where neither exists, the impact of the system of the damage done to workers will be minimal. In fact, the internal responsibility system often guarantees minimal and sometimes even negative impact.

So, when there is statistical improvement in, to use a real Manitoba example, reported lost time injuries, such improvement can be attributed to decreased and shifting unemployment, combined with suppressed reporting and not necessarily to meaningful and successful efforts of the Joint Safety and Health committees. These efforts rarely exist because they are thwarted by the very assumptions the internal responsibility system is founded on. They will succeed, we believe, only when power is given to the representatives whose interest are not blinded by greed and who are incurring the actual risks, the workers. Therefore, we make the recommendations on page 12 of our presentation to the public hearings, a number of regulatory ways that this balance of power can be shifted.

One is to give the committee actual functional authority, make it mandatory to implement the recommendations of the committee. Two is to require specific time lines for all the committee recommendations with a maximum time line of 21 days. Obviously, these are appealable and there may be exceptions to some if the whole recommendation, for example, to entirely change the ventilation system, in all likelihood, cannot be effected in 21 days. The idea is to commit to it and to start the process within that time period.

Another is to provide, by way of the Safety and Health Committee, for worker input to the company health and safety policy. That is happening in some places and I do not want to tar all employers with the same brush. There are those who are doing, if not a perfect job, and which one of us does, but are making a considerable effort. I have seen, and I have no idea why this is so difficult for many employers to see, that these sorts of efforts actually improve the bottom line considerably, this kind of healthy workplace created through taking health and safety seriously.

Another recommendation is to provide the union with access to all employer and government health and safety information. A lot of roadblocks get put in the way to getting that access on occasion. Providing for a worker majority on the joint committees, this obviously would be highly controversial, but we believe that the worker is the one that takes the risks and it is the worker that should determine the best way to address those risks. Again, those recommendations can be appealable. Workers are not going to make recommendations that are going to put themselves out of work either, incidentally.

We would also suggest that time be provided for the worker representatives to the committee to conduct a pre-meeting to prepare for that Joint Safety and Health Committee. We would like to see it spelled out clearly, the right of the committee to conduct inspections and investigate accidents. I think that is being clarified more by this upcoming legislation. We believe that committees should be authorized to shut down equipment or processes that are deemed unsafe. We believe that no one should be permitted to do work that has been refused as unsafe until the refusal has been resolved.

We would like to see wage continuance assured. Again, this is being addressed by the current legislation for those who exercise their right to refuse. There should be appeals of an inspector's decision to not write up an order. Inspectors' decisions can be appealed, but the decision to do nothing in the current legislation is not appealable or at least it is not clearly spelled out that it is.

Training, a big, big problem in this province. It is not being done as thoroughly and effectively as it should. Labour, certainly, has a role to play and can improve their role in this also. We concede that, but we need to get together at the table and figure out a way to make this training happen. There are committee members who have been on the committee for a year or longer and still have not had the training required by legislation. Sometimes, especially currently, that is because they simply cannot get into the courses that the Province puts on. Those are often filled up the day that they are announced. I suppose inspectors have already slotted people that they know are really in need of training into these courses. So we would suggest that a workers' health and safety centre funded by the Workers Compensation Board be established to train all committee members.

* (15:50)

Failing the provision of real power to the workers, then we would hope to see measures taken that would communicate to employers in the language they understand most, the language of the dollar. We would have hoped for penalty assessments. I heard the previous presenter object to the extremely limited penalty assessment that is being proposed by this legislation. This is a penalty assessment that says, if you do not obey an order, an improvement order that has been issued by the province, and after appealing it there is–I believe the Manitoba Federation of Labour presentation references it could take some 70 days before all these appeals have been exhausted. After that, then, there will be a penalty in place.

I find it very difficult to believe that anybody would find this objectionable. We not only want to see this sort of penalty assessment in place, we think it should be improved, all of the recommendations of the Federation of Labour. We would also like to see a much more thorough penalty assessment in place that would make it truly costly to violate, more costly at least to violate than to observe the law. I am not sure if that is the case. In fact, I know that is not the case at the moment. We think an inspector should be able to go into a workplace if there are violations that the employer knows or has every reason to know. In that workplace, there would be a list of violations that are automatic, no different than the traffic violations. It is automatic; you get a ticket. It would be the same for this. If that saw does not have a guard on it, boom, there is an automatic ticket in the workplace. That is the kind of penalty assessment system that we think would have a genuine impact and make a difference for those employers that are breaking the law. Obviously, the ones that are adhering to the law have nothing to fear of something like this.

I did hear in the presentation from the CFIB about penalizing employees. I heard it several times, as a matter of fact. For one, workers can and have been prosecuted under the current legislation, I have to point out. For another, under a penalty assessment system, we would be vehemently opposed to that sort of thing. We believe that places workers in triple jeopardy in the sense that they can already be disciplined by the employer for a violation of health and safety rules, and should be, frankly. Of course, they are already been injured, I might point out. They are the ones that are suffering from the accident regardless of whether it is caused by the unsafe action of a worker or not. So, to add on to that yet another penalty, I think, is unjust.

The current maximum penalty we would recommend again, along with the Federation of Labour, that be greatly increased, and we would also like to see at least a doubling of the inspectorate. Both of these would help to provide two final ingredients for compliance with any legislation, and that is a likelihood of apprehension and a meaningful penalty if you are apprehended at the present time, although we see that changing somewhat in recent years, but, on the whole, employees did not have to concern themselves a whole lot with being caught, if you like, and even if they were caught, the penalties were such that they amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist. This is not a climate that is going to lead people who are not interested in complying with the law in doing so. [interjection] I get the signal.

During the public review process, we sought regulation in two specific areas of great concern to our members, workplace violence. We greatly appreciate this bill is attempting to address that, but we greatly lament that it is not addressing the other matter of terrific concern to our members, and that is an ergonomics regulation. I may not have time to read all this, given the signal, but, on page 13, there is our position on why there needs to be an ergonomic regulation. We note that the problems caused by poor ergonomics were pointed out as long ago as the 1600s. We think some 300 years later, it does not seem unreasonable to ask a regulation be put in place to ensure that these problems are finally addressed, and the cost to society from these things. You know the stats from Workers Comp. These are the primary costs that they are incurring right now, repetitive strain injuries and the like. We need to see some regulation. We see some hopeful signs that this may occur, and we strongly urge you to get on with it.

The human side of the equation really comes through in these injuries, and we go through that a little bit. It is later on, too, long after they are off compensation that they cannot pick up their grandchildren, they cannot even brush their hair, and so on. It is something that very, very, very much needs to be addressed.

I have largely focussed this morning on what is missing from the proposed legislation. I want to make it clear, again, that we are very supportive of what is there. We urge you to pass these amendments unanimously. Everyone, including, whether they realize it or not, business, employers, will benefit from you doing so. I was reading my current novel at lunch and saw an excerpt in there that maybe does not apply thoroughly to this, but I could not resist it. It just seemed to jump out. This book takes place in India, and one of the protagonists says there must be a lot of duplication in our country's laws. Every time there are elections, they talk of passing the same laws. Someone should remind them that they need to apply the laws. That is in the enforcement angle. The response to that is, for politicians, passing laws is like passing water. It all ends down the drain. I would strongly urge you to not pass water, this legislation, down the drain and follow it up with real enforcement and real action.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Mesman, for your presentation this afternoon. Questions for the presenter.

Ms. Barrett: I particularly like the end of your presentation. Thank you for your presentation and for all the work you have done on this process. I am sure it will continue in monitoring the health and safety of Manitoba workers. One bit of information for you. We have stated publicly that there will be an ergonomics regulation. So we are committed to that as part of the regulatory review process. Thank you very much.

Mr. Mesman: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there questions for the presenter? No. Thank you, Mr. Mesman, for coming out this afternoon.

The next presenter on the list is Diana Ludnick. Is Ms. Ludnick in the audience? Please come forward.

Good afternoon. Do you have a presentation for the committee members?

Ms. Diana Ludnick (MFL Occupational Health Centre): Yes, I do. Can you hear me?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes. If you want to turn your microphone up just a little bit, please. Thank you. We will distribute. You may proceed when you are ready.

Ms. Ludnick: My name is Diana Ludnick. I am one of the nurses at the Occupational Health Centre. I am presenting on behalf of Carol Loveridge, who is the executive director, but is unable to attend today.

You may or may not know about the centre. The Occupational Centre has been around for almost 20 years. We are a community health centre. We specialize in workplace health and safety. We are funded by the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, and we are governed by a volunteer board of directors that represent workers throughout Manitoba.

We provide a variety of services, educational services, in particular, working with Workplace Health and Safety committees. We have physicians on staff and people can refer themselves or be referred by their physician. So it is from this kind of background that we give you this backdrop of information.

There are handouts there. The first cover sheet is just really my informal notes. Please, do not take them verbatim. They will be sort of spoken to about generally as I do this presentation. What is key in the enclosures that you have are the two documents that we presented at the public hearings, so that is why that is enclosed there for you.

I want to start off by saying that the staff at the Occupational Health Centre really value and commend the inclusion of, not only our centre's recommendations because many of the recommendations that we did make previously have shown up on the paper, but other recommendations that we did not have an opportunity to submit but valued at the time. We are glad that others have submitted and have been honoured.

Three things, though, that we want to highlight are the fact that we really do value and commend the inclusion, and these three things are expanding the duties of the Workplace, Safety and Health committees. We really believe this should strengthen their effectiveness to ensure the safety, health and well-being of workers in Manitoba. We really believe the requirement for the formal health and safety program in each workplace really should be a pivotal piece to nurture a culture of accountability within these committees.

I really speak that from my heart. As I said, we work closely with Workplace, Health and Safety committees, and we know when they take strides to develop a program that looks at important issues for the workplace, they can go a long way. We feel this kind of program should also provide a meaningful way to integrate new regulations, such as the proposed violence regulation into the workplace, as well.

Thirdly, we believe that the competency-based training for workers before they begin working and when they change jobs is critical. However, we would like to mention this, that if training is to be effective, then it needs to be understood by all workers. Therefore, legislation should also include the requirement that training be provided in those languages that are most readily understood by workers in that workplace, and we really strive to do that as part of our work. I think the value of that cannot be underscored.

There are things that Bill 27 does not stipulate. One of them is, although you have stated that there is an intent for an ergonomics regulation and that it has been stated publicly, I would just like to spend a couple of minutes to underscore how much we really value that this talk actually becomes walk in the workplace. So what I would like to do is just bring a little bit of a human face to the information that has already presented in the public hearings, and so I will not go into that information in detail.

* (16:00)

We would like to comment that work should not hurt, but for many workers it does. Workers often do highly repetitive, fast-paced work in awkward positions, and this eventually results in injuries for many of them. These injuries comprise more than half of the Workers Compensation claims in Manitoba. Ergonomics examines ways to adjust the work to fit the worker more, so that the worker is more likely to avoid preventable injuries. Now, the meat-packing sector is probably one of the most vivid illustrations, but it is by no means the only situation where the body wears out very quickly with the demands of the work.

Our centre went to one of the meat-packing plants, and it really spoke strongly to me. There were five workers there that were between the ages of 19 and 25. They were as able-bodied as any men and women that you could find, and within two years, they all had repetitive strain injuries and were receiving compensation for it. So there were no other people on that whole assembly line, which were about 40, that were willing to take on this task on the hog-head skinning line, which is the most difficult task because they are just no longer willing, knowing the hazards involved, to take on the work, even though it was the highest-paid job on the assembly line.

I just want to sort of underscore the economic issues in this way. Investing resources up front in an ergonomics program is in the best interests of all Manitobans, in the long run. If we limit ourselves only to the short-sightedness of the business bottom line, then, eventually, the costs will catch up with us in some way. Later, most of the health, social and financial burdens of these injuries are more likely to be unjustly carried by the worker, their families and communities, rather than at the source of the problem.

Can I have some water, please?

The second area that I wanted to talk about is stress in the workplace. There are many that co-workers described to us as the walking wounded. Unlike ergonomics, sometimes their pain is not so easily noticed or acknowledged, but, I think, it is important to realize that stress is today's most pervasive job related health risk. That is stated in many documents, most recently the Industrial Safety and Hygiene, in their 17th annual white paper.

So, just to put a little human face on this, because you already have the recommendations that we have proposed on this to the public hearings, our centre has gone out to a number of workplaces to talk about stress-related issues. In one small workplace, when one of the managers was invited to explore ways to reduce workplace stress, the response was: What is the problem? They are not jumping out of the windows, yet.

I think that really sometimes underscores the mentality that is in some workplaces. Thank goodness it is not in most workplaces, but it is out there. I think we need to be careful for the workers that are the most vulnerable. Work-related suicides do happen, and we are aware of that, but also, I think, it is important to take a look at the fact that workers are probably dying in our midst from overwork in some of our workplaces.

In our international frenzy to embrace Japanese work practices, to maximize efficiency, these same workplaces have often not been nearly as open to weigh the emerging consequences of karoshi. Are all of you familiar with the term "karoshi" It is a Japanese term for death from overwork. Last week, I saw a document, and it said they actually had 3000 documented cases last year. So I think we really need to take a look at this whole issue of workload and what it means in terms of our workplaces.

In our own work at the centre, we went to a small workplace in the health sector in Manitoba. It struck us that in the course of conversation, the workers volunteered that one-third of them were taking prescribed antidepressants as they cared for some of the most vulnerable members of our community. I think this common use of antidepressants to help workers deal with overwork should be an alert. More than just trusting employers to do the right thing, more is needed. Failure to include and make a meaningful effort to deal with stress in the workplace will seriously limit any attempts that you make to modernize legislation to be relevant for today's workers.

Many things contribute to stress in the workplace, but, certainly, work design and accumulated fatigue are two factors, and they have been documented very well. We believe that regulations can make a difference. Twenty years ago, some people thought it was not possible to have effective regulations to minimize exposure to harmful workplace chemicals–hard to believe that now. WHMIS regulations were introduced. They have helped to protect workers. Ergonomics and reducing workplace stress are now two of the most common requested topics for information and services at our centre.

We believe that this closely reflects the most urgent and the most prevalent concerns in our workplaces today. So the centre urges you to introduce regulations to deal with these issues. Thank you very, very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Ludnick, for your presentation this afternoon. Questions for the presenter?

Ms. Barrett: Again, thank you very much for giving a different kind of a perspective. I think everyone in the Legislature, I know, would certainly not want to fall prey to karoshi although at three in the morning sometimes–seriously, thank you very much. I appreciate the work you have done in the Occupational Health Centre over the last 20 years.

Ms. Ludnick: You are welcome. Thank you for the work that you have done in revising the act. Thank you very, very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Ludnick.

The next presenter on our list is Mr. Paul Labossière. Is he in the audience this afternoon? Mr. Labossière, please come forward. Do you have a written presentation for the committee?

Mr. Paul Labossière (Manitoba Employers Council): Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: The Clerk will distribute it to the members of the committee. When you are ready, please proceed, sir.

Mr. Labossière: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear here before you. We are also going to ask that, if possible, the submission be entered into Hansard, because we feel that this is probably, as will unfold with the presentations, the most comprehensive gathering together of business ever in Manitoba on one issue and presenting their views united together. We wanted to make sure that that is known.

The presentation is from Manitoba Employers Council, was done jointly with the ETF. The Manitoba Employers Council is the largest collective of individual employers and employer associations in Manitoba. The names that you have in front of you are those which are normal registered members. The Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the City of Winnipeg, Construction Labour Relations Association of Manitoba, Keystone Agricultural Producers, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, Manitoba Fashion Institute, the Manitoba Home Builders Association, the Manitoba Hotel Association, the Manitoba Motor Dealers Association, the Manitoba Restaurant and Foodservices Association, the Manitoba Trucking Association, The Mining Association of Manitoba Inc., Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and The Winnipeg Construction Association.

Besides those names, who are listed members, there were also a number of other organizations, very important ones, which also took part in the discussions and the putting together of this paper, and our dealings with the minister in advance. These others include, and some of them are, I would like to name them because, I think, it is very important to see how much business all feels together on this issue. Some of the others were Canada Post, The Manitoba Electrical Association, Heavy Equipment Association, The Manitoba Broadcasters, the roofing contractors, the University of Winnipeg, the University of Manitoba, and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority.

The minister stated to us in writing that it is the Government's responsibility to articulate and enforce reasonable practical standards that support effective prevention initiatives. What we would like to say is that the review committee basically said the same thing. They said that what they wanted to put forward was a culture of safety through education and training. This you heard earlier from the union representatives. But what did we get? What we actually got was a whole bunch of punishment. If we look at this bill and the changes to this bill, the approach that was taken instead of the one that was suggested by the review committee, ends up being one where it is like taking people on welfare who may have taken a few extra dollars here or there, and saying. okay, we are going to cut you off for a while and you will never do this again. It is not exactly the proper way to approach this, we feel.

So the following outlines the position of the MEC and ETF, with respect to Bill 27, The Safer Workplaces Act.

First, the review panel on making workplaces safer prepared a report for government after substantial public consultation. The employer community, as a whole, has endorsed the recommendations of the consensus report of the Review Panel, in particular the target of a 25% reduction in lost time workplace injuries. Regardless of any legislative impetus, the business community is committed to reducing workplace injuries.

* (16:10)

The Government's response to the Review Panel report recognized the tripartite process and the consensus recommendations. Bill 27 incorporates the consensus recommendations appropriate for statutory inclusion.

However, it goes way beyond that. Bill 27 has the potential of adding both confusion and additional cost to employers. Many of the proposed amendments have no explanation as to why there were added. They did not originate from the Public Hearings Review Committee document. Basically, what we are saying is the idea is very good to do this, to review the health and safety of the province, but the legislation is badly written legislation.

The MEC has undertaken a very detailed assessment of which new provisions are based out of the recommendations of the consensus document. The following amendments that are of greatest concern, that were not derived from the recommendations of the review committee, include (and some of these you have heard about already):

The first one is pay during stop-work orders. Of the four jurisdictions that do provide pay during a stop-work order, two limit it; the federal government limits it to a shift and B.C. limits it to the day of the stoppage and three working days thereafter.

There is, we understand, a proposed amendment that, if it has been tabled or has not been tabled yet, but we do not believe that it changes very little. There is concern that the provision for pay during a stop-work order is not limited. This would be particularly problematic if the business ceased operation or decided to permanently discontinue the activity that was the subject of the stop-work order. The latter scenario could, and, in fact, has, occurred where the expense involved in complying with a stop-work order outweighed the value that the work activity generated for the employer's business.

So, we create a scenario that could have people being paid into a long period of time when there is absolutely no work going on. There is also another concern that this kind of thing, because of other things in the act, could lead to disruptions during bargaining issues, where these kinds of things are used as bargaining ploys. There is a little too much left strictly to the minister here, and we feel that there should be some things put in place.

This issue would be remedied by adopting the limitations contained in either the federal or the B.C. legislation. We would endorse the three-day limitation as the most reasonable solution.

Refusal to work ties into there. As there are two issues in relation to this refusal to work, the grounds for such refusal, in particular, the absence of a clause related to dangerous situations that are normally connected to employment, and the repercussions of bad-faith refusal to work–this is where my concern came in earlier about the disruption during bargaining issues.

Also, we feel there should be wording that is put into there that recognizes danger associated with employment. As indicated, most jurisdictions recognize this qualification. We are talking about policemen, and firemen and all those sorts of things. As well, there is a concern that there should be some type of repercussion if the right to refuse is exercised in bad faith. However, the repercussion cannot be such that a worker, who wishes to refuse to work because of a bona fide belief that there is a dangerous situation, declines to do so because of a fear of what will happen if it is shown that he or she is wrong. We do not want people intimidated in any way. We just want to make sure that it is not used wrongly. Therefore, there should be high standards to meet in order to justify retribution against an employee that refuses to work due to safety issues.

So, obviously, some proper definition of what a dangerous situation is has to be involved in here.

Some suggested amendments, some of them are there, just basically where the refusal puts the life, health or safety of another person directly in danger. They may not refuse to work in that particular case or where the danger referred to is inherent in the work of the employee, as I just mentioned, or where it is determined that the employee's refusal was not based on reasonable grounds, that employee shall not be entitled to wages or benefits.

Finally, we note that although section 43(4) authorizes remedial action, it does not authorize the person required to inspect the workplace to order the employee back to work if no danger is found.

I am going to skip, then, to the next issue because what we have in between is just some suggestions as to a way of dealing with that.

Discriminatory action in section 42(2) and 42.1(1). The basis for the concerns in relation to Bill 27 are echoed in Alan Winter's recent review of B.C. legislation: During my meeting with representatives of the WCB's Prevention Division, it was reinforced that the discriminatory action provisions fall outside of the expertise, culture and realm of the prevention officers. The officers' involvement in discriminatory action complaints was described as difficult, time consuming, out of scope and very deeply involved in labour relations. Simply stated, the Prevention Division believes it is being drawn into the labour relations issues of the parties through the guise of occupational health and safety.

The minister is pursuing a number of reforms that will place many new or expanded duties, duties that predominantly involve safety issues, upon the shoulders of our health officers. It is troubling that, on top of these increased demands, these officers may receive the additional burden of an issue that is predominantly a labour issue and only marginally a safety issue for which they have no training or expertise. Indeed, adding such a burden could undoubtedly be counter-productive as it would diminish the officers' ability to focus on other reforms. Of course, the ultimate irony is there are already labour standards staff at the Employment Standards Branch and the Labour Board who have experience in dealing with issues of discrimination.

The Workplace Safety and Health Review Committee in its consensus report recommended that safety and health officers investigate complaints of discriminatory action and offer resolution. There is, of course, a great difference between offering a resolution and imposing one.

We would suggest that section 42(1) be removed in its entirety. Alternatively, it would be acceptable to amend it to provide for an investigative and mediative role for the safety and health officer while retaining the current role of the Labour Board as the adjudicator.

* (16:20)

Power of the director to obtain information; we do understand that there is, again, a supposed amendment to cover some of this, but we are still very concerned about it. One cause for concern is whether the reform seeks to give the director the power to order a specific person or simply the type of person that should undertake this testing. Certainly, it is worded so as to suggest a specific person can be designated by the director. This is in marked contrast to the wording of the other jurisdictions.

The other thing that concerns us are the costs involved here. Down at 54.1(f), there are words: at the expense of the employer. What we are saying is it appears the decision under section 46.1 is not appealable. This seems to be in stark contrast to every other jurisdiction that allows such orders to be appealed, and needs to be changed. It would seem unfair to require an employer to pay for testing if he or she is not in violation of the act and the testing does not reveal either a violation of the act or any type of safety concern. Again, this is left to some extent to the minister.

As well, there may be some dispute as to the degree or sophistication of the testing that is necessary. Alternatively, the testing may confirm some but not all of the director's concern. Therefore, it would seem that some degree of flexibility should be appropriate in ultimately apportioning any costs associated with the tests. So we are suggesting that it be changed to state basically that the director, at the expense of the department, order the employer to do the testing, and if the director is of the opinion that the order was necessary as a result of a violation of a provision of the act or the regulations, or the report or assessment reveals a risk to health or safety, the director may then order the employer to reimburse the department for those costs. We think that would make a lot more sense.

Also, we feel any person directly affected by an order or decision of the director may appeal or should be able to appeal to the board. This amendment deletes the reference that restricts appeals to appeals under section 37 and thereby opens a decision under 46.1 to appeal.

Further, a schedule should be attached to the regulations setting out the specific individuals or organizations that are acceptable to the director. This list should be prepared in consultation with the advisory committee.

I am going to skip over additional penalties because apparently my time is running. I would like to go to administrative penalties so we have time to get that in. The major comment we have with this is, where did this come from? The review committee did not recommend these. They basically said they looked at them, but they did not in any of their recommendations recommend these administrative penalties.

As was said before, while extensive reviews are under way in B.C., to date, the two bills that have been introduced do not seem to address these. It is understood that more bills will be forthcoming which will remove them in B.C. As well, it has been suggested that Saskatchewan looked at and then abandoned the idea of AMPs. We also know that in B.C., the mining sector, they were reviewed in committee and dropped. They were not put into the act.

A number of concerns have been raised. It has been suggested the Government has not provided any substantiation to the claim that there is a 30% non-compliance rate for improvement orders. This figure came out; it was thrown with a spin into the press and made it very difficult for any of us to have a proper discussion about it. This is troubling and ties in with a general theme that there needs to be a better analysis as to what exactly is wrong with the system. For example, where does the 30% number come from? Are we sure they do not involve matters under appeal? Why have they not been complied with, confusion over wording, dispute as to merit of order? Have these instances of non-compliance led to injury? We do not know that.

To put this in a broader scope, an analysis has to be done as to the injuries that did occur to figure out what the problems with the system are. How many accidents involved orders that were not followed up? How many accidents involved workplaces that have not been inspected? How many accidents involved workplaces with health committees?

The review committee did acknowledge that something had to be done to improve compliance, but it was not able to recommend a specific solution. While the Government has picked AMPs as the solution in this regard, it has not articulated why this solution was picked from among the four that were mentioned as being reviewed.

The minister has recently presented a letter to MEC that indicates there was a connection between safety and health compliance in injury prevention. With the greatest respect, this misses the point. The key issue is whether AMPs will enhance compliance and whether the type of compliance, if any, the AMPs would enhance would lead to improvements in safety or health. We are not aware of any evidence anywhere that AMPs improve workplace safety. We believe they should be deleted, and we have a suggestion.

Obviously, my time is wrapped up. There were quite a few other things in there in regard to appeals, payment to the health committees, et cetera. I just want to conclude by saying the Manitoba employer community has both stated its commitment to workplace safety and reacted accordingly. Employers welcome the 25% reduction target and will work toward achieving the goal quickly. Many of the proposed amendments in Bill 27, however, are not likely to assist in achieving the objectives and, in fact, may prove to be obstacles by diverting energy and resources into non-productive disputes.

Further, many of the recommendations in the consensus report which are reflected in the proposed legislation involve increased burdens and costs to employers. The employer community has accepted these increased costs where they have been identified as furthering the objectives of reducing workplace injuries. Nevertheless, there is a cost involved and that cost is likely to be very significant. Accordingly, it is appropriate to avoid costs that are not supported by an identifiable objective or a demonstrated need.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Labossière, for your presentation. Questions for the presenter?

Ms. Barrett: Just, again, a comment that we have enjoyed the process of working with the Employers Council, raising some very interesting issues and concerns and look forward to working with you as we all agree we need to meet that target as quickly as we can to ensure safe, productive workplaces.

Mr. Labossière: We do want to thank you, Minister, for the opportunities we did have to meet with you, for our representatives and also for the letters and the correspondence back and forth. We felt it was very productive and very constructive. We still would like you to see our point of view a little stronger through there and would have hoped that this would have continued on a little longer before we got to this position, but, hopefully, the committee will decide to take a long look at these proposals.

Mr. Schuler: Just recently, Paul, you wrote a letter to the minister and she responded. Did you feel the minister acknowledged the concerns you raised, considering you had set out a fairly exhaustive letter to her with concerns laid out very clearly?

Mr. Labossière: We appreciated that she took the time to respond to us in some detail. I think there was a recognition of some of the minor and some of the wording problems that were reflecting onto other acts and things. Overall, the concern was that it appeared her mind was made up as to what she was going to go ahead with and dismissed some of those very serious concerns we had.

Again, I would like to reiterate the concerns are not with the fact that the act is being upgraded or that it is going to involve a lot of money and a lot of time from employers; it is the confusion in the writing that is there.

I will give you a very simple example of what I mean. We are now going to have a situation where everybody is going to have to have workplace health committees in more cases than previously and plans for each location. On the surface, it is a very good idea, but there are situations where it could lead to some real confusion. In a large building here in the downtown area, we could have 15 different committees in that building, each having to meet, and the people who are actually running the building not having a committee, and no one really then having the authority to do a whole lot about anything. Those are the kinds of things we are concerned about in terms of we thought there had to be a lot more discussion to get to making these things workable and practical, not just sort of an exercise in paperwork.

Mr. Schuler: Paul, thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it and we know the kind of work you have put on, on behalf of the employers of this province. We certainly appreciate what you have done in regard to this legislation and other pieces of legislation. Thanks again for your presentation.

Mr. Murray: Thank you very much for your presentation. I understand there was almost an extraordinary opportunity to bring stakeholders together to work through a number of issues and that there were recommendations that came out of that.

I take it from your submission that a number of those recommendations you all had agreement on were either altered, changed or there were additions to that. When you responded or made your concerns known that there was an agreement in principle on all those issues with all the stakeholders and yet it was changed. I guess my question is, how did the minister respond to your question as to why there were changes made after there was unanimous agreement?

Mr. Labossière: As we stated, we really have not got a really complete answer as we asked for in a paper. We were given some answers that she went outside the department, went outside the review committee's structure, and they took other things into account. We have asked the question, for example, which I brought up at the end, the question regarding the 30 percent and the study. In other words, we felt that we should know what really was the problem. What was causing it? What did it cause, and then you take steps to correct it and not just take a big gun and kind of try to hammer everything from a distance, but we have never been able to get those figures.

It is just the same with the figures between all of the departments, in terms of injuries are different all the time, because they have different methodologies–Workplace Health and Safety, the minister's office, the Workers Comp. All the figures do not jibe together, so that is where you have to sit down and do something together and come to consensus on it on what makes sense, as the review committee did.

* (16:30)

We endorse very much the things the review committee said because it came in terms of that culture that came forward. As we said, the concern with us is that, again, the writing in a lot of these cases is so loose, there is a serious problem with it. We believe it is going to cause a lot of trouble later on. The second thing is that the culture that was proposed is not the culture that is presented. It is totally, totally different. So where that came from we really do not know.

Mr. Murray: Well, thank you for that and, again, I would like to echo the comments of my colleague from Springfield to say thank you for the hard work you have put into this. We hope there are ways to continue to look at improving this. We just appreciate your time, effort and energy because we know you are doing it on the basis of ensuring that we provide a better place for our workers, and that is your goal as well as the goal of the stakeholders. So, thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Labossière. Do you have another comment?

Mr. Labossière: Thank you. I just wanted to thank the committee for taking the time to hear me.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for coming out this afternoon.

The next presenter on the list is Mr. Dave Angus. Is Mr. Angus in the audience? [interjection] Okay. Your name, sir, for the record?

Mr. Loren Remillard (Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce): Loren Remillard, from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee members to allow Mr. Remillard to present on behalf of Mr. Angus?

Mr. Remillard: I will be brief.

Mr. Schuler: Just a point of order. The previous presenter asked that his presentation be made part of Hansard, and there was no agreement. Could we just call for consensus?

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for the reminder, Mr. Schuler. Is it the will of the committee to include the report presented by the Manitoba Employers Council into the Hansard? [Agreed] Thank you, Mr. Schuler, for the reminder.

You may proceed, sir, when you are ready.

Mr. Remillard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to present the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce's perspective on the changes, Bill 27.

In the interests of brevity, because I believe Mr. Labossière did an excellent job in raising the salient points as it relates to Bill 27, I will not get into the actual detail. Our submission does cover off many of the points. It is almost verbatim as to what the Manitoba Employers Council/ETF submission was, so I will spare you the gruesome details.

For the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, in addition to our submission, really, we were looking to raise two points as we see it relates to Bill 27. The first being that through the process that was established by the minister and the advisory panel, what ultimately came out was a consensus report in which all the stakeholders, and I think that is what is important, all the stakeholders, because it is not just businesses' responsibility to create a safer workplace. It is everyone's responsibility to create a safer workplace, and hence why the word "consensus" and that process was so critical to ultimately achieving a goal that everyone embraces.

Ultimately, ideally, you do not want any workplace injuries, but we need to set a target and put into place processes that will help us to achieve that. So we were pleased when the consensus report came out. We thought it was a really good stepping stone towards actually achieving the desired goal, which the business community embraced as soon as it was set. Very much early on saying, yes, this is an important goal we need to achieve. However, with Bill 27 there is significant concern that does deviate significantly from the consensus report. The report was really built on a partnership between those key community stakeholders. It was built on a partnership that was to create an environment of collaboration and joint responsibility. Again, I cannot emphasize the point enough, both as a representative of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce but as an employee myself, that we all have a responsibility to create a workplace.

If the onus is purely on business, you will not succeed. If the onus is purely on the employee, you will not succeed. Bill 27, in a number of areas that were pointed out in the MEC/ETF submission as well as the Winnipeg Chamber submission, is punitive and points fingers unfortunately and that is not constructive to achieving that 25% goal.

I will raise one area in particular, and that is the AMPs. If this were to go into legislation and be enacted, Manitoba would be the only province to have AMPs. I know B.C. does have it, but we are also of the understanding they are looking at eliminating AMPs. So we have to ask ourselves, why are we doing this? Other provinces have taken a look at this and said that it will not achieve the goal. It is punitive. It points fingers. Why are we embracing this as a means to achieve a desirable goal?

Those issues really lead into the second issue, and that is really the business climate in Manitoba. Definitely, safer workplaces is critically important. No one is going to deny that. We embrace the goal. But we also have to understand what message we are sending to the business community here, the ones that are looking to start up, looking to expand, but, as well, those companies that are outside the province looking to this province to say: Should I set up a business there? Unfortunately, given that some of our concerns as it relates to the punitive measures in Bill 27, we do not believe that it is sending a positive message out there to the business community, that this is a great place to do business and create a safe workplace for your employees.

So, ultimately, those were the two points that I wanted to raise in addition to the submission, the fact that we had a consensus report, and that we have seen significant deviation from that consensus report, which does call into question, sometimes, the process when that happens. You have a process where you go into it believing that there will be a fair process, and once the report is realized, especially a consensus report, that will be the basis for legislation.

Secondly, I think we do have to pay attention to the business climate and what messages we are sending out there to local business, as well as those looking to become local business. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Remillard, for your presentation. Questions for the presenter.

Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have had several presenters come forward and say they were going to be brief and then use 17 of their 15 minutes, so we appreciate the brevity.

You, again, referenced the Workplace Safety and Health public consultations, and you referenced the point that it calls into question the process. I would go further, and I am allowed to do that. I would call it the betrayal, basically, of all those people who participated in the process because that is, in fact, what this legislation is. I would go so far as to say this is, rather than a safety bill, it is a bad-for-business bill. Unfortunately, that is what we have in front of us. When we go line by line, certainly, we will be encouraging the Government and try to get them back on track to where this process was when it began. It was much heralded, and, anyway, we will deal with that later on.

The Government is talking about the 25% workplace injury reduction target, and they are basing all of that on this bill. Is that reasonable? Is that something that can happen? We know it should. We should see that reduction, but is there enough in here because, for instance, there is no education component to this which is what the consensus report talked about? Is there enough in this bill to even realize the 25% reduction?

Mr. Remillard: Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, the 25 goal can be achieved. Business believes that you do not always have to use legislation to achieve those goals to begin with. That is where education comes into play. The very idea that legislation will drive this 25% goal–and I am not just speaking about Bill 27, but just legislation, period, the underlying premise there is that business will not react unless they are pushed to react, and that fails to recognize very much that employers–it is in their best interests to make sure they have a safe workplace because, if all your employees are off because they are injured, you are not producing, you are not out there making a product and services. So, ultimately, business will, you know what, 25 percent, business will try to achieve that goal and will go beyond because it is in their best interest to do so; it is in their employees' best interest to do so. Business does not need to be legislated to, say, make a safer workplace. It is in their best interest to do so.

Mr. Schuler: Does it not come strange that other than one province in Canada have no AMPs, and Manitoba still has the highest rate of injury, that maybe we should be looking at something else to try to bring down our injury? I mean, we have all kinds of provinces that have far less injuries than we do in this province, and they have done it without AMPs. Perhaps there is a better way of doing this. The Government should have gone with the consensus report and focussed on the positives of education and not the punishment where this bill seems to focussing on. Rather, you punish business to get your 25 percent, rather than the positive of going on education. But is it not strange that most provinces do not have it, yet have lower injury rates than Manitoba?

* (16:40)

Mr. Remillard: Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I will answer that in two parts. It is very misleading to say we have the highest injury rate to begin with, because there has been significant concern over the statistics that were the basis for the process for the consultations and so forth, and we raised them with the minister and departmental staff that we had some concerns over the workplace injury statistics.

Secondly, in terms of the AMPs, there has been no evidence brought forward to support the notion that AMPs will help you achieve the goal. So, of course, we have significant concerns, because it is punitive in nature, yet there is no evidence to suggest that it will help us achieve that goal.

I think the fact that other provinces, nine out of the other ten provinces, either do not have it or the one that does is looking to get rid of it, should give us great reason to pause in terms of the consensus report, because I know one of the responses back is, well, AMPS was mentioned in the consensus report. I think we need to be very clear on that, though. It was mentioned as an option for further study. It was not saying, go to AMPs. It was put on the table, along with a number of other options, to achieve that goal. Again, there is no evidence to support that AMPs is the best option to go there. I would maybe go a little bit further, say, there is probably more evidence to suggest that it will not do that because other provinces have not adopted it. So that just gives me reason to pause and question the effectiveness of this approach.

Mr. Murray: Thank you very much for your presentation. You are an employer and you also are involved in the chamber and I guess my question to you is: What do you think the membership of the chamber's reaction would be if there is no change with respect to AMPs in this legislation moving forward?

Mr. Remillard: The reaction, again, and that speaks to the business climate issue that I had raised. There have been significant changes in legislation and other areas. I know, I am going to raise the words Bill 44. There have been other pieces of legislation that have contributed to some concern within the business community about the climate that is being created here in Manitoba. Does Bill 27 make for a better business climate in Manitoba? I do not think it goes a great deal to help strengthen the case for business expansion here in the province. That answers your question?

Mr. Murray: I think, during the process, that when you get a consensus, again, and I made the comment that I think it is extraordinary when you bring a group together to get a consensus. I will just pose the same question to you. When the consensus was reached and then you found that there were other changes, or did you, in fact, contact the minister? If you did, can you just maybe explain what her response was?

Mr. Remillard: We did, as soon as the consensus report came out, we started a dialogue with the minister. I would like to extend thanks to the minister; she was very receptive to meeting with us and hearing our concerns. We do still continue to have concerns with the bill, concerns that have been expressed in our submission, but–I am sorry, again, can you repeat the question, I just lost my train of thought.

Mr. Murray: Just wondered if you had got in touch with the minister and if you were satisfied with her response as to why the changes were made after a consensus was reached with the stakeholders?

Mr. Remillard: I know we have received correspondence from the minister reacting to our concerns. We still await confirmation of any potential changes in the form of an amendment. So to the extent that we are pleased with her response, I will have to wait to see what the amendments are, if they do come forward. At this point, I am dealing with legislation as it has been presented originally. So I would love to be able to comment on a host of amendments starting with AMPs right through to the rest of our submission and I would be more than happy to come back and say I was very pleased with the minister's response at that point.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Remillard, for your presentation this afternoon.

Next presenter on the list is Mr. Graham Starmer, in the audience. Please come forward sir. Good afternoon Mr. Starmer.

Mr. Graham Starmer (President, Manitoba Chambers of Commerce): Good afternoon.

Mr. Chairperson: Do you have a written presentation for the committee members?

Mr. Starmer: Yes. It is very thick.

Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed when you are ready, sir, as the assistant distributes to the committee members.

Mr. Starmer: My name is Graham Starmer. I am the president of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce. The Manitoba Chambers of Commerce is pleased to have this opportunity to present to the Law Amendments review committee in relation to Bill 27.

It should be stated at this juncture that the MCC, like many other representatives of management or labour, has had the privilege and ongoing discussions with the honourable Becky Barrett, Minister of Labour and Immigration, Mr. Farrell, deputy minister, and Mr. Parr, assistant deputy minister in relation to Bill 27. We commend the Government for its willingness to discuss these issues.

Oh, before I go on, could I respectfully request that this entire presentation be placed into Hansard?

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee that the text of this presentation appear in Hansard? [Agreed]

Mr. Starmer: We commend the Government for its willingness to discuss these issues. We share the minister's hope that the process of consultation that our Government has embarked upon, a process that culminates in these committee hearings, will lead to legislation that effectively enhances the health and safety of our workers without unnecessarily hampering the economic viability of the workplace.

The MCC is proud to be a member of the Manitoba Employers Council as well as the Employers Task Force on Workplace Safety and Health and Workers Compensation, ETF. We understand that these organizations, as they have done, have made joint submissions today and outline the specific proposals in relation to items of Bill 27 that have caused employers the greatest concerns. As a member of both MEC/ETF, the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce was actively involved in the drafting of that submission, and we heartily endorse its recommendations.

We will leave it to MEC to outline the specifics of the reforms that are being suggested to Bill 27. To avoid repetition, the remainder of our submission will focus on what we regard as the big picture, the environment in which the final form of Bill 27 will need to operate if the goal of enhancing the safety of our workplace is to be achieved. However, make no mistake, the MEC regards the reform suggested by the joint submission of MEC/ETF as crucial in ensuring that Bill 27 does effectively enhance the health and safety of our workers without unnecessarily hampering the economic viability of our work-place. I do make mention there, one of the members used a term which I am going to use, and that is "death by a thousand cuts." We certainly do not want business hampered unnecessarily by a process which will stop the viability of our businesses flourishing.

Of course, to be truly effective, Bill 27 cannot occur in isolation to other broader efforts to enhance workplace health and safety. In recognizing this, Minister Barrett has pursued a comprehensive strategy to improve workplace health and safety that has included a number of well-publicized initiatives.

We applaud the minister for all these initiatives. However, if Bill 27, in whatever form it ultimately takes, is to be effective, there are two more elements to that vision that must be put into place. One is a commitment to enhancing the effectiveness of the offices and a genuine commitment to empowering Manitobans' understanding of workplace health and safety issues. It is trite to say that the safety and health officers play a key role in the enforcement of the legislation in relation to workplace health and safety.

* (16:50)

Many of the minister's recent reforms enhance the role of officers within this system. Thus, now more than ever, officers will be required to assume a myriad of roles ranging from that of investigator, to advocate, to mediator, to advisor, to enforcer. It is crucial that officers possess the wide array of competencies that are required for each of these roles. For this reason, it is imperative that the minister enhance a commitment to enhancing the effectiveness of these officers. Specifically, officers must be trained in communicating both verbally and in writing, for example, improvement orders. We have heard a lot of suggestions that some of these improvement orders are incorrectly written or not processed properly or not enforced.

In a way, it is easy to understand and both inspires and empowers the ability of both employers and employees to enhance workplace health and safety. There should be a requirement that all officers be registered as a Canadian registered safety professional. This should be mandated for all new officers. For current officers, a reasonable time frame should be given in which to receive this certification. Further, a manual of protocol for the officers should be developed. This manual should be made visible to the public including placement in Workplace Safety and Health Web sites.

The MCC has been calling for a genuine commitment to empowering Manitobans' understanding of workplace health and safety since the minister announced her vision for improving workplace health and safety. It cannot be denied that the minister has engaged in extensive consultations and has made a considerable amount of information available. While we applaud these efforts, with the greatest respect, some have not empowered the discussion of these issues in any way that is necessary.

I draw your attention to excerpts from our submission to Workplace Health and Safety Committee that is outlined on page 4 of our submission here. For example, it is not good enough to simply say safety committees need more power. Provide the research to show that these committees are currently ineffective, explain why they are ineffective, explain how this ineffectiveness is leading to injuries or risk of injuries, and then pursue solutions that are effective while, at the same time, minimizing the encroachment upon the autonomy of our employers. Do this and you will build bridges rather than alienate.

Use the incredible resources that Manitoba has to get the type of in-depth analysis that is needed. Tap into the research of the Workplace Safety and Health Division and the WCB. Tap into the benefits of many committees that have been created to address these very issues included in the advisory council. Tell Manitobans where the problems are. Identify the initiatives that are working and those that are not, and identify why.

While our submission to the review committee approached this issue from the perspective of a natural reluctance of employers to relinquish autonomy over their workplaces without a justifiable reason for doing so, from a broader perspective, it simply makes sense that, if you wish to pursue reforms that will be both effective and embraced by key stakeholders, you must provide a meaningful analysis of why these reforms are necessary. In short, if you want to engage in a meaningful improvement of workplace health and safety, you need to provide a meaningful analysis of what is working and why, and what is not working and why.

As another example, in justifying administrative penalties, the Government has indicated that 30 percent of improvement orders are not complied with. However, despite repeated requests, we have not been told where this 30 percent comes from. For example, are we sure they do not involve matters under appeal? We have not received any information as to why specifically these orders have not been complied with. Was there confusion over the wording, or is there a dispute as to the merit of the order? Were these appealed? If they were appealed, where did they go? We have not been provided with any information that suggests that these instances of non-compliance led to injury. It has been suggested by one member that we are killing an ant with a sledgehammer.

Certainly, this information should be available. On page 30 of the Labour and Immigration Annual Report 2000-2001, the Workplace Health and Safety Division confirms that one of its core business activities is evaluating the effectiveness of our safety and health and public safety activities to ensure that programs are delivering services in an effective and efficient manner.

Minister Barrett is quoted as saying during the legislative proceedings of April 26, 2001: A new Advisory Council on Workplace Health and Safety has been appointed. The new council will consider, examine and review a number of crucial workplace issues. These will include violence in the workplace, safety and health enforcement, safety concerns among youth workers, safety in the farming community and threshold limit values, which are guidelines to limit exposure to health hazards.

Why is the advisory council not used to undertake and disseminate the information that is needed to effectively assess what is specifically right and what is specifically wrong in the workplace?

Unless there is a genuine commitment to empower Manitobans' understanding of workplace health and safety issues, there is a serious risk that any reforms to the system will simply go through the motions and, to paraphrase William Shakespeare, are full of sound and fury while signifying nothing. Consider and regard the commitment to–[interjection] You used it. Thank you.

The question we must ask ourselves over a five-year period is not did we meet the arbitrary target of 25 percent, but, rather, have we, as Manitobans, as government, as employers and employees, done everything we reasonably can to prevent workplace injuries? Unless we answer that question, reaching any arbitrary target means nothing.

Worse still, setting an arbitrary target is counterproductive, for it diverts attention away from the discussion about what we should be doing in enhancing workplace health and safety and onto the debate of whether the target has actually been met. You will see a quote there from the final report on the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in B.C. Basically, what that says in a nutshell is that straightforward injury rate changes are affected by so many changes that they are not a good, effective way of making a measurement.

The notion that injury rates are unreliable indicators of program effectiveness is not new. In 1981, the Economic Council of Canada report entitled Occupational Health and Safety: Issues and Alternatives stated that injury statistics are influenced by many factors, and users are cautioned accordingly. New injuries and wage loss injuries will be responsive to shifts in the composition of the workforce, shifts in the structure of industry, worker attitudes toward reporting injuries, compensation board policies on what constitutes a compensable injury, appeal times and the business cycle, and, as we have had in numerous occasions during the discussions with the minister and the department, they are well aware of these changes. They know that these changes are continuously occurring. So 25 percent is really just an arbitrary target. We need to get down to the nitty gritty of working and improving our workplace.

I quote Mr. Rob Hilliard in his submission. Why not? One of the issues not raised in the discussion paper is the clarity of the legislation. Both employers and workers are constantly misinterpreting the content and intention of the act. Most employers in Manitoba are not even aware of their responsibilities until they have an accident and subsequent visit from an inspector. Legislation is often difficult to understand, and, because managers and workers must play an integral role in any successful workplace health and safety system, efforts should be made to make the legislation as user friendly as possible, and I do mention user friendly. Administrative penalties–

In its report, the review committee states: While it is now up to the Government to take a leadership role, we will only succeed if all Manitobans commit themselves to implementing the recommendations in this report. However, it is a mistake to fail to see that these two issues, a government's leadership and the commitment to its public, are inextricably intertwined, for, by definition, true leadership points the way by informing and inspiring its citizens to follow.

* (17:00)

Manitoba is at the crossroads of workplace health and safety. Our Government has committed to a broad and sweeping vision for improvement. Both labour and management have come together in a committee that is unanimous in its recommendations. We have a community of employers that have embraced most of the suggestions in Bill 27, have suggested improvements and have indicated a commitment to work with government and labour to continue to improve the safety of our employees.

The door is open; the opportunity is upon us. It is now up to the Government to lead by undertaking a specific and in-depth analysis, and I keep coming back to that analysis, on the truly meaningful level that will show how we, employers, employees, government and the system of the workplace health and safety, have failed those who have been injured or, more importantly, how we can prevent such tragedies from occurring again.

I thank the committee for listening to my presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Starmer, for your presentation this afternoon. Questions for the presenter.

Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Starmer, and, obviously, you have done a lot of research and the group has put together some interesting ideas. We have been talking about a number of them. I very briefly would like to say I appreciate the last two paragraphs of your presentation. We do have a vision. We have to implement it, and we have to work together to implement it. So I appreciate that. I know we will not always agree on everything, but I think the process has been excellent so far and look forward to working with your group, in the future, on this.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Starmer, did you wish to respond?

Mr. Starmer: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Schuler: On page 7, Graham, of your presentation–and I have to be careful how I say this. I will actually agree with the minister. The last couple of paragraphs are excellent, in which you state both labour and management have come together in a committee that was unanimous in its recommendations, unfortunately, recommendations that the minister did not follow. It goes on to say we have a community of employers that have embraced most of the suggested changes in Bill 27, have suggested improvements.

My question to you is: Why has the Government and, in particular, this minister rejected those recommendations?

Mr. Starmer: Perhaps I could provide that, somewhere between the report being published and the submissions of which we have not been privy to occurred, some of these changes have suddenly come into play, which has caused the business community the most concern. We do not know what they were or where they originated. That is why we have a concern. I mean, if they came out in the public hearing, we did not totally hear them. There was a unanimous report which we supported as a business community, and that is the way we thought the minister was going to proceed. We did know that there was going to be some fine tuning to try to accomplish the culture that is suggested by the report to try to make this a friendly, progressive process, but, unfortunately, it hit the rocks soon after there were other submissions, which we were not privy to, made.

Mr. Gerrard: Yes. I would like to ask you a question about page 5 of the report, the paragraph which talks about that 30 percent of improvement orders are not complied with. You have indicated that, despite many requests, you have not been able to obtain this information. That is a rather shocking display of inactivity by the Government, to make these sorts of statements but not to be able to back them up or provide you the information. Could you expand a little bit on this?

Mr. Starmer: Certainly. As you know, we have been in this process for a good number of months, and one of the first things that we analyzed was, if we were going to go some sort of administrative penalty system, why would that be required? The 30 percent surfaced is a number at that point in time, and we asked basically where that 30 percent was. Were these 30% improvement orders that were screwed up and thrown away? What was the origin of these 30 percent? We were concerned about why the 30 percent did not go to the next stage, which is provided in the current legislation, and go to court. But we will not be able to provide an answer of which of these 30 percent went to the courts. So we were sort of in the dark of what this 30 percent was, and we really are still in the dark as far as the capturing of this information.

Mr. Murray: Mr. Starmer, thank you for your presentation. Again, it is always impressive when somebody does research, brings forward what I believe is a very compelling argument because I think that is what this process should be, and when those thoughts come forward, certainly we would hope and expect that the minister and the Government would listen to those submissions as you come forward.

In your capacity as executive director of the Manitoba Chamber, you obviously deal with your counterparts throughout Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The fact that it has been well documented that Manitoba is likely to be the only province across Canada that would have AMPs, could you just comment as to why you believe the minister is so bent on enforcing something that only will exist in Manitoba?

Mr. Starmer: I cannot answer for the minister, but I can say that we have examined all the jurisdictions across the country. We have examined B.C. We are given to understand by the Chamber of Commerce in B.C. that the AMPs prove to be ineffective in B.C., and they are going to be withdrawn. We have no indications that they have ever been successful. Québec has some process which is quite elongated and that is having problems. Again, like I mentioned, we have no indications that, in any way, AMPs are improving health and safety.

AMPs are a disciplinary process. You only use that type of disciplinary process when all other avenues have been exhausted, and, as far as we know, that has not been the case, as was mentioned by the previous questioner. Thirty percent of those improvement orders, we do not know why they were not enforced. We do not know why they did not go to court. If these people within the business world have not followed the improvement orders, then they deserve to go to court through that process, as outlined within legislation. They do not need an independent bureaucrat making a decision on providing an administrative penalty to an employer.

Mr. Murray: I just, again, would like to emphasize that I think, when you have an organization such as yours that goes out and does research, I want to applaud you. I know that the Chair will probably caution me for not asking a question, but I make a statement to say that I think it is imperative. It adds to the frustration when you are asking for 30 percent, some clarification as to that, when it is not provided, and yet you are prepared to go out and do the research. I share your frustration with that.

Mr. Starmer: Perhaps I can say the mission of the Chamber of Commerce in Manitoba is to try to see that Manitoba moves ahead, that it is competitive, and that we provide every opportunity for the development of businesses and new businesses coming to Manitoba. When we keep providing pieces of legislation that seem detrimental to an outsider looking at Manitoba as a potential place to come, and I think it was eloquently said by the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, they have second thoughts when there are all these small pieces of legislation that are termed, in some ways, unfriendly to business. So, when we get all these pieces stacking up, businesses decide to go elsewhere.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Starmer. Time has expired for questions and answers. Thank you for your presentation this afternoon. The next presenter on the list is Ms. Ellen Olfert. Ms. Olfert will you please come forward? Do you have a written presentation for the committee members?

Ms. Ellen Olfert (Workers of Tomorrow Health and Safety Campaign): Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: The page will distribute, if you do not mind, and then you may proceed when you are ready.

* (17:10)

Ms. Olfert: This is not really conducive to a short person, nor are the chairs we are sitting on, ergonomically speaking, of course. As the co-ordinator of the Workers of Tomorrow Campaign, and I want to add here that I am also here as a mother, and I am also here as a small-business owner. I do not think you can divorce one from the other. All of those experiences bear in what my presentation will have. I welcome this opportunity to speak with you regarding Bill 27, an act to amend The Workplace Safety and Health Act.

For those of you who do not know, the Workers of Tomorrow Health and Safety Campaign is a joint initiative of the Manitoba Federation of Labour and the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club and is funded by the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba. We have been in operation since March 1997. We are a program that goes out and speaks in a classroom setting with young workers just entering into the workforce and who are relatively new in the workforce. We were developed in direct response and concern to the high number of young workers getting hurt and killed at work. As I am speaking, I would really like all of you, especially all of you who are parents, to think of your own children, to think of those young individuals who have excitement and energy and individuality going out into the workforce. Those are the young people that we are speaking with, and those are the young workers that this presentation addresses.

The Workers of Tomorrow Campaign is currently comprised of two full-time staff, one temporary staff and over 120 volunteer speakers who are based throughout Manitoba. Members of our speakers' bureau have extensive health and safety experience and expertise, and we also have young workers who have, themselves, been injured at work. We have also recently been joined by two mothers who have lost their children to workplace deaths, one of whom you heard this morning.

The Workers of Tomorrow Campaign is unique across Canada. We are a grassroots organization with volunteers from business, labour and government, all tied together by a commitment to do what we can to change the workplace safety culture in Manitoba and provide young workers with tools to keep them safe at work. Since March 1997, we have spoken with and presented to over 25 000 young workers. We speak with them about how to recognize hazards in their workplaces, how to prevent workplace injuries, illnesses and death. We talk to them about WHMIS, working with chemicals. We talk to them about their health and safety rights as Manitoba workers. We talk to them about reporting a workplace injury.

We have long recognized the weaknesses of the current Workplace Safety and Health Act, particularly as it pertains to young workers. In my presentation to the review committee, which I have attached for your information, I outlined in depth some of those concerns. We commend this Government for its action to implement changes t