During the review of the legislative action paper on the Workers' Compensation Act, the Standing Committee on Legislation did hear other concerns expressed by one or more presenters. We felt these concerns were worth noting, at this time.
Full Funding
Most groups and individuals who made presentations during the public hearings on the legislative action paper felt a full funding requirement in the legislation was a good idea. However, there was some concern that a legislated full funding requirement may have a negative effect on the economy. There was concern that full funding opened the possibility to an increase in assessment rates if the fund should begin to dip out of full funding stats. This increase in assessment rates would raise the cost to do business which in turn would be passed on to the consumer. The presenters felt costs were high enough. For example:
For an employer in building construction sub class that current rate is $10.25 per $100 wages. The class and sub class in the Yukon and Alberta respectively, the rates are $5.50 per $100 wages and $3.00 per $100 wages. The impact to the consumer can be seen when a comparison of an average new house in Fort Smith will cost an additional $7,000, compared to an equal house built just across the border in Alberta.
Safety Education
The Standing Committee on Legislation heard from every group the desire to keep safety and safety education with the Department of Safety and Public Services. Most felt it would be poor public policy to have insurance and policing functions within the same agency.
Review Of The Workers' Compensation Board
During the review of the legislative action paper on Workers' Compensation, the standing committee became aware that the legislative action paper was not clear whether the section regarding review pertained to the scrutiny of the act, the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board, or the entire system.
All presenters during the public hearings did express support for a review of the operations. Most agreed that a legislated review every four or five years was adequate providing the review is conducted by a committee comprised of equal representation of employers and workers with a neutral chair.
Length of Appeal Process
There is a concern about the delay between the time a decision is made that an applicant is eligible for assistance and the time they can appeal the decision. The review process is too long. Many felt that the length of time posed undue financial hardship on behalf of the injured party. It was felt that the process should be streamlined so the amount of hardship is minimal.
WCB Medical Practitioner
As with the position of the workers' advisor, it was felt this position, too, should be independent of the Workers' Compensation Board.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hand the report back to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation to move motions in committee of the whole.