WCB's $122-M rebates to to employers misdirected, unions complain
'There are very clear needs for the WCB to do much more to prevent workplace injuries and deaths,' the Manitoba Federation of Labour said in a news release.
The provincial government issued a news release Thursday announcing that it has provided approximately $962 million in relief and support for workers and businesses impacted by tariffs from China and the United States.
MIKE DEAL / FREE PRESS FILES
It said payroll and retail sales tax deferrals announced March 10 provided businesses approximately $840 million of liquidity for February, March and April. In the release, Finance Minister Adrien Sala said the Workers Compensation Board is issuing $122 million in rebates 'for all employers to support businesses and help keep workers on the job.'
'We are concerned that the NDP government is touting this payout as some sort of business-support program,' MFL president Kevin Rebeck said.
'Last time I checked, the WCB does not have a mandate to provide business subsidies or economic development support. Instead, the WCB's job is to keep workers safe and to support workers and their families with workplace injuries and deaths.'
Sala was not available to comment Thursday.
The WCB was established in 1917 after passage of the Workers Compensation Act. Injured workers gave up the right to sue employers in exchange for guaranteed no-fault benefits, and employers agreed to fund the system in return for protection from lawsuits. The WCB insures more than 40,000 employers and covers 73 per cent of Manitoba's workforce. It's governed by a board of 10 directors appointed by the provincial government from nominations submitted by labour, employers and the public.
The WCB said Thursday eligible employers will receive a credit equivalent to 50 per cent of their 2024 premium. Individual premiums are, in part, based on each employer's claims experience, it said.
The $122 million surplus is the result of WCB 'maintaining financial stability due to strong investment and financial management,' the board said.
Labour Minister Malaya Marcelino, the minister responsible for the WCB, said the province doesn't tell the board what to do with a surplus.
'This decision was made by the WCB board,' Marcelino said.
The government news release touting tax deferrals and WCB rebates 'was an acknowledgment that Manitoba businesses are going through a difficult time right now,' she said.
'It's no secret that there might be a recession coming and it's not an easy time for Manitoba businesses,' she said.
Businesses are facing rising input costs, labour shortages and low consumer demand, said Brianna Solberg, prairie spokesperson for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
The CFIB wants legislation mandating that all WCB surplus funds are returned to employers.
'Workers' compensation premiums are one of the most burdensome taxes for small firms because they're profit-insensitive,' said CFIB policy analyst Tyler Slobogian. 'Business owners appreciate getting some of that money back, but they shouldn't have to wait and hope for discretionary rebates.'
The federation also wants Manitoba to get rid of the payroll tax, not just defer it.
The province is preparing for a 10-year legislative review of the Workers Compensation Act that will hear from workers, the board and employers, Marcelino said.
Wednesdays
A weekly look towards a post-pandemic future.
'Our goal is always to have labour peace. We can accomplish that by working together and having proper consultation,' she said.
'We do get a lot of concerns from workers about whether or not the WCB is fairly compensating them. It's important that we're standing up for workers' safety, health, their rights.'
In 2024, Manitoba recorded 18 workplace-related deaths, the MFL said. In the last decade, there have been 236 fatalities. Manitoba averages about 25,000 workplace injuries a year. In 2023, 25,624 were reported.
Rebeck said the WCB surplus would be better spent on preventing workplace injuries, illnesses, deaths and supporting injured workers.
carol.sanders@freepress.mb.ca
Carol SandersLegislature reporter
Carol Sanders is a reporter at the Free Press legislature bureau. The former general assignment reporter and copy editor joined the paper in 1997. Read more about Carol.
Every piece of reporting Carol produces is reviewed by an editing team before it is posted online or published in print — part of the Free Press's tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.
Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber.
Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
11 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Social housing improvements a must
Opinion The NDP government's pledge to end chronic homelessness by 2031 is both ambitious and overdue. For a province where more than a thousand people sleep in shelters or on the streets on any given night, it is a commitment that should be applauded. But it is also a promise that cannot be realized without a comprehensive plan, one that takes aim at the multiple factors keeping people unhoused. That includes revising rent control rules, building more social housing units, and reforming the province's Rent Assist program, something the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives took aim at last week. Manitoba has long had rent-control rules, but tenants know all too well how easily those rules can be undermined. Each year, landlords can apply for exemptions to raise rents above the guideline, and those requests are routinely granted. For someone living on a low or fixed income, an unexpected increase of even $50 or $100 a month can push them out of their home. MIKAELA MACKENZIE / FREE PRESS Files Without social housing, the cycle of shelter use, encampments and homelessness only deepens. If the government is serious about preventing homelessness, it must strengthen protections for tenants. That does not mean ignoring the genuine costs landlords face in maintaining buildings. But it does mean closing loopholes that allow excessive rent hikes under the guise of routine upgrades. Affordable housing begins with stable rents. Without that, more Manitobans will continue to find themselves at risk. Another pillar of the solution is social housing, an area where Manitoba has fallen badly behind. The former Progressive Conservative government sold off public housing units, shrinking the supply at a time of rising demand. Those decisions are still being felt today. Social housing is not a luxury. It is a lifeline for people who cannot compete in the private rental market, whether because of low incomes, health issues, or systemic barriers. Without it, the cycle of shelter use, encampments, and homelessness only deepens. The NDP government must make rebuilding Manitoba's social housing stock a top priority. That means replacing what was lost under the PCs and building new units in the years ahead. It will take significant public investment, but the alternative — continuing to warehouse people in shelters or leave them in tents along riverbanks — is neither humane nor fiscally responsible. Equally important is reforming the Rent Assist program, which is supposed to help low-income Manitobans cover the cost of housing. In its current form, the program is fundamentally unfair. Thanks to changes introduced by the previous PC government, renters who receive Employment and Income Assistance get less support than other low-income renters. This two-tiered system penalizes those already living in the deepest poverty. Wednesdays A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom. In a report released last week, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called for changes to the program, including ensuring that all low-income renters – whether on social assistance or not – are treated equally, so they have a better chance of remaining in their homes. Some may balk at the price tag attached to new housing, enhanced rent supports, and stronger tenant protections. But the costs of doing nothing are already staggering. Homelessness fuels pressure on the health-care system, emergency shelters, and police services. More importantly, it exacts an incalculable human toll on those forced to live without the security and dignity of a home. The government's 2031 goal sets a high bar. Meeting it will take more than political will, it will take concrete reforms and a willingness to make difficult choices. Tightening rent control rules, rebuilding social housing, and repairing Rent Assist are not optional pieces of the puzzle. They are essential. The alternative is to watch the cycle of homelessness deepen, with more Manitobans left behind. That is not acceptable. Manitoba can, and must, do better.
Winnipeg Free Press
11 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Time to face the fiscal facts
Sometime soon, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew and Finance Minister Adrien Sala will be forced to finally admit they are unable to keep their commitment to balance the province's books before the 2027 provincial election. It was a reckless promise when it was made during the 2023 provincial election campaign but, two years later, the goal is all but impossible to achieve. In fact, that conclusion should have been obvious as early as March of last year, when Budget 2024 was tabled. The document contained a series of projections for the 2023-24 through 2027-28 fiscal years that would lead to a modest surplus in fiscal 2027-28. Mikaela MacKenzie/Free Press Files Finance Minister Adrien Sala delivers the budget speech in the legislative chamber at the Manitoba Legislative Building in March. Among those projections, it predicted a deficit of $1.997 billion for the 2023-24 fiscal year, based on revenues of $21.476 billion and expenses of $23.473 billion. By the 2027-28 fiscal year, however, it was estimated that the province's revenues would swell to $25.966 billion, while expenses would increase to just $25.848 billion. Including a $100-million contingency allowance, the result would be an $18-million surplus. As I read the Budget 2024 documents in the budget lockup, it was obvious that the projected revenues and expenses that served as the foundation for the government's path to a balanced budget were wildly optimistic. It predicted a whopping 20.9 per cent increase in provincial revenues by fiscal 2027-28, yet just a 10.1 per cent rise in expenses over that time. Such revenue growth and expense control would be unprecedented in Manitoba history and unlikely in the post-COVID economy. That concern was validated by Budget 2025, which revealed that the deficit for the 2024-25 fiscal year was $1.239 billion, far higher than the $796 million deficit that had been predicted for that fiscal year in Budget 2024. Beyond that, Budget 2024 projected the deficit for the current 2025-26 fiscal year to be $532 million, but Budget 2025 says the deficit will be much higher, at $794 million. That increased deficit figure will likely end up being even larger, given that Budget 2025 did not contemplate the negative economic impact of the wildfire emergency and lower-than-expected Manitoba Hydro revenues caused by low water levels. Budget 2025 also predicts that government revenues would increase to an astounding $26.982 billion in fiscal 2027-28 — almost $1 billion higher than the amount projected in Budget 2024 — and a staggering 25.6 per cent increase in revenues since fiscal 2023-24. In a slow-growth province like Manitoba, a forecast of such massive revenue growth over such a short period of time is not plausible. Beyond the sky-high revenue projections, Budget 2024 predicted expenses of $25.848 billion for the 2027-28 fiscal year. Budget 2025 estimates the amount will be more than $1 billion higher, however, at $26,922 billion. Under the province's fiscal plan, the huge increase in expenses will be offset by the massive increase in revenues, resulting in a $10 million surplus in fiscal 2027-28. This is 'guesstimate budgeting,' rendered even less reliable by the economic turmoil unfolding in Canada, the U.S. and around the world. Given that reality, the government's revenue and expense projections for two fiscal years from now — let alone promises of a balanced provincial budget before the 2027 election — should be taken with a very large grain of salt, washed down with a healthy degree of skepticism. That conclusion should be readily apparent to regular readers of this newspaper, let alone those who are paying attention to what is happening in the economy. And yet, Kinew and Sala stubbornly refuse to face the fiscal facts. They continue to cling to the notion that they can still table a balanced budget before the next election, despite credible economic data which say they can't. Manitoba's NDP government has proven to be quite determined to keep its election promises, but it is time for Kinew and Sala to concede that their balanced budget pledge is beyond reach in the current economic environment. There is no shame or scandal in making such an admission. To the contrary, it would be regarded by most Manitobans as confirming what most of us already know or suspect. At a time when most politicians duck and spin their way out of difficult situations, it would be a refreshing dose of honesty. Deveryn Ross is a political commentator living in Brandon. deverynrossletters@ X: @deverynross
a day ago
Who controls the food supply? Proposed changes to seed reuse reopens debate
It's a small change that risks cultivating a big debate. On one side is the principle of farmer's privilege — the traditional right of Canadian farmers to save seeds at the end of a growing season and reuse them the next year. On the other is the principle of plant breeders' rights — the right of those who develop new seeds and plants to protect and profit from their discoveries. The issue has been dormant for a decade. Now, proposed changes to government rules regarding plant breeders' rights are reviving that debate. It also raises questions about how Canada gets its food and who controls what is grown. Ultimately, it's about food security, said Keith Currie, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The group supports the changes, which include narrowing the scope of farmer's privilege. Not only keeping us competitive to keep food costs down, but also to make sure that we maintain new varieties coming forward for that food availability. Enlarge image (new window) The proposed changes could reduce the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds for crops like fruits and vegetables. Photo: The Canadian Press / Giordano Ciampini In a notice (new window) dated Aug. 9, the government announced proposed changes to Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations — a form of intellectual property protection for plants, similar to a patent. The regulations give plant breeders a monopoly over the distribution of their product for a set period, as a way to to encourage investment and innovations such as varieties with higher yields or more resistant to drought or pests. It's a big business. Estimates of the economic impact of the seed industry in Canada range from $4 billion to $6 billion a year. The right to reuse The changes would remove the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds and cuttings from protected fruits, vegetables, ornamental varieties, other plants reproduced through vegetative propagation and hybrids. For most plants recognized under the law, the protections last for 20 years. Personal gardens and many other kinds of crops such as wheat, cereals and pulses, where seed saving is more widespread, would not be affected. Among the other proposed changes is to extend the protection for new varieties of mushrooms, asparagus and woody plants like raspberries and blueberries to 25 years from the current 20 years. A public consultation on the changes runs until Oct. 18. Enlarge image (new window) NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns is calling for parliamentary hearings into the proposed changes. Photo: Kendal Hanson/CHEK News NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns says the changes raise an important issue for Canadians. He questions why the government is holding the consultation in summer when most farmers are focused on growing and harvesting crops — not drafting submissions for public consultations. They keep doing this over and over again, said Johns of the federal government. They announce regulatory changes that impact farmers and their livelihoods [and] they schedule the consultation period during the busiest time of the year for farmers. Johns said companies producing new kinds of seed should be adequately compensated for their innovation and intellectual property. But he said farmers who grow and harvest the food Canadians eat shouldn't be starved by big corporations choking off their seed supply. He wants the House of Commons agriculture committee to hold hearings and take a closer look at the changes being proposed. A spokesperson for Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald said the government is committed to encouraging innovation, investment, research and competitiveness in Canadian agriculture, horticulture and ornamental industries. The spokesperson said the government will review all feedback before determining next steps. Access vs. innovation Former prime minister Stephen Harper's government triggered a debate in 2015 when it adopted measures to bring Canada's rules more in line with guidelines adopted by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, known as UPOV 91. The rules are separate from patent law or technology use agreements which some seed companies use to prevent farmers from saving and reusing seeds. Changes to plant breeders' rules are now again on the table. Last year, a government consultation resulted in 109 submissions, the majority supportive of change. Meanwhile, lobbyists have been busy behind the scenes. According to the federal lobbying registry, 13 people from several different groups or companies are currently registered to lobby on plant breeders' rights including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and Swiss-based Syngenta, owned by Sinochem, a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Enlarge image (new window) Wheat is not included in the proposed changes, but a research director for the National Farmers Union worries they could be the start of a 'slippery slope.' Photo: Reuters / Todd Korol Cathy Holtslander, director of research and policy for the National Farmers Union, says the proposed changes risk hurting farmers while increasing profits and the power of seed-producing companies — often multinationals with foreign ownership. While the changes are focused on an area of agriculture where seed saving is less common, Holtslander warns the changes are a slippery slope that could lead to an erosion of the rights of farmers. If they were to go after wheat with the amendment, there would be a huge uproar and people would really be angry and push back, Holtslander said. She said what's being proposed paves the way for other crops to be included later. The seed industry does not want farmers' privilege to exist for any seed. They want to be able to require people to buy new seed every year, she said. Holtslander's group plans to fight the proposed changes. She said the issue goes beyond the question of individual farmers reusing seed. If the big multinational companies control the seed, they control our food supply, she said. Lauren Comin, director of policy for Seeds Canada, acknowledges the issue can be controversial but argues Canada needs strong intellectual property protection if it wants access to the newest innovations to compete on the world stage. It's incredibly important to have these frameworks to encourage investment companies, businesses, public entities, to know that they are going to somehow be compensated and protected, Comin said. She said that while the changes provide that certainty and that incentive for investment, she wants them to go further. While acknowledging there isn't enough certified seed for all of Canada's cereals and small grains crop, Comin would also like to see farmers compensate plant breeders when they reuse seeds, as they do in Europe. The farmer's privilege does not say that that use is free, she said. [Farmers] can choose to buy the latest and greatest product of innovation, which means that there is a tremendous amount of investment and effort that went toward developing this improved variety. Or they can decide that they don't value innovation, and they can go back to a variety that's unprotected and grow that. Currie, an Ontario grains and oil seed farmer who saves and reuses seeds, says Canada needs to balance the two principles. He says farmer's privilege is key to Canada's competitiveness, but so is access to new varieties of seeds and plants. While I do understand where some of the multinationals want to have better control, I believe in order for the industry to be viable, farmers have to have some control as well, he said.
