|
Interviews Félix Lapan, Union des travailleuses et travailleurs accidentés ou malades
We now have the full picture of all the reductions in workers' entitlement to treatments and rehabilitation. For us, this confirms that Bill 59 is a huge step backwards in terms of workers' rights. The government has withdrawn certain provisions of the legislation, but it is still a disaster in term of treatment for work-related injuries. It will be more difficult than ever to access paid treatment and rehabilitation for work-related injuries. For example, there are huge reductions in medical assistance to injured workers, which is fundamental to workers' recovery. Workers will be denied access to treatments, medication and devices like orthotics and prosthetics. The first objective of the law is supposed to be to ensure treatment and rehabilitation of workers' injuries. Under the current legislation workers are entitled to all the medical assistance that their condition requires, as prescribed by the worker's treating physician, without limits. The Labour Standards, Pay Equity and Workplace Health and Safety Board (CNESST) can challenge the treatments prescribed by the physician if they consider them too expensive, but except in the case of a successful challenge, workers are entitled to whatever is prescribed by their doctor, at no cost. This is a principle that was established in 1985, that the opinion of the attending physician prevails. Bill 59 gives the CNESST new and amazing regulatory powers. It is given the power to determine what will or will not be payable to the victim of an injury. It is given the power to set limits on the number of treatments, the amount payable for an injury, etc. This change alone, the denial of treatment to workers, would result in hundreds of millions of dollars in savings for employers. Another example is that the bill removes the entitlement to retroactive income replacement benefits. If a worker is injured on, for instance, January 1 and is unable to work, and files his claim on February 1, for whatever reason (he might have been in a coma), he is not entitled to compensation for the period between the injury and the date he filed the claim. Also, consider the case of a worker who has a condition that prevents him from working, for example, numbness in his fingers, and is off work while his condition is investigated. After four months he is diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and files his claim. He will receive no compensation for the entire four months that he was unable to work and awaiting a diagnosis. There is no retroactivity to the income replacement benefit. These are just two examples. There are many others. This bill must not pass. If it passes, it will be a great loss of rights for injured workers. There are more than 100,000 occupational injuries every year in Quebec. These changes would mean a huge loss to workers and a gift to employers because the regime is 100 per cent employer-financed. It is employer-financed in exchange for workers not being able to sue employers in civil court if they are injured at work. We will fight this retrogression to the end. (Translated from the original french by Workers' Forum. Photo: WF)
This article was published in Article Link:   Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca |
As far as the study of the bill is concerned, the entire section of the Act respecting industrial accidents
and occupational diseases is essentially complete, except for minor provisions that have been put aside for the moment.