The wait to see a report on recommended changes to the workers compensation system has gone longer than expected, and it’s going to continue for some time to come.
There are hints the delays flow from the issue that employers raised the alarm about last summer — a big expansion of the terms of reference for what was originally considered a narrow, focused scope.
Labour Minister Harry Bains announced April 3 that labour lawyer Janet Patterson would conduct a review of the system. Five areas were listed as under review, including support for injured workers, modernization to make it more worker-centric and potential legislative changes.
“The review will consider any steps that may be required to increase the confidence of workers and employers in the system, and whether there are any other improvements that could be made,” the government said.
The deadline for delivery was Sept. 30. But the deadline was extended twice and while the report was recently submitted to Bains, it appears to be some time away from seeing the light of day.
He said Monday: “She asked for more time and because of the complexity of the situation she was dealing with, we thought it would be best that she take the time. … ”
“I’m reviewing the report right now and then we’ll take the next step. It’s a long report, I can tell you that. … She touched on many, many areas to improve the workers compensation system.”
Others say the report is hundreds of pages long.
The scope turned into a contentious issue early on. It was originally described as limited, but after a round of consultation with workers and employers and 14 public hearings around B.C., she listed 24 broad areas she was interested in examining.
Business groups said that all but one matched concerns in a B.C. Federation of Labour review that she helped write 10 years ago, one that was highly critical of the system.
Employers expressed dismay at her outline of the scope and walked out en masse. Representatives of 46 business groups wrote to her objecting and saying there was an “apprehension of bias.”
They queried how she could meet the “impartial and balanced” requirements in her terms of reference when she’s concentrating on systemic problems on which she had already reached emphatic conclusions.
They served notice in August that they would no longer participate in the review.
Workers compensation and workplace rights in general are a priority of the government and one of the priorities in its confidence agreement with the B.C. Green Party.
Bains’ mandate letter from Premier John Horgan expressly instructs him to develop options to increase compliance with employment laws and standards to protect the lives and safety of workers.
The minister, in turn, put new people on the agency’s board and instructed them to make the system more worker-centred.
So the employers’ “apprehension of bias” was late in developing — swinging the system more in favour of workers has been a priority since the government changed in 2017.
It arises from changes the B.C. Liberals made early in their first term, when the agency was in deep financial trouble. The Liberals curtailed benefits, reduced injury pensions and rehabilitation assistance and cut other costs to restore it to financial health.
It is currently relatively flush with cash. WorkSafe is mandated to carry billions of dollars as an insurance surplus and it is well above the prescribed level.
Bains has two other reports on his desk, apart from Patterson’s on workers compensation.
One is called “Restoring the Balance” and the other is “Balance. Stability. Improvement.”
He’s got so many recommendations now that he is planning multiple rounds of hearings on them.
He said employers asked for “good, strong structured consultation,” and he’s agreed.
His ministry is putting together a consultation process on the first two reports and a separate one will come later on Patterson’s.
Bains said he is concerned that one key stakeholder — the employers group — is dissatisfied with the process, but he has confidence in Patterson, based on her record.
The former Liberal government’s review that led to the changes in 2002 “was done by one person without any consultation with anybody,” he said.
