Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10:05 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, there is nobody here to make any statements.

STORMONT BY-ELECTION

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Or to answer any questions. However, the House leader, with his usual good grace, perhaps won’t mind if I raise a matter that does concern me and many others. Is he aware that the law of the province does not permit a by-election to be held in the Stormont riding under the present provisions of the Legislative Assembly Act unless the House is adjourned, that is, not just recessed?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I regret very much I don’t have the answer I promised the Leader of the Opposition a day or so ago. I will endeavour to have that before this morning is finished, because we are anxious to have both of those seats in the Conservative fold and we want that by-election held as soon as possible.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. I. Deans (Went worth): Supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister predicting that his party is not only going to win the federal seat but that it has a chance for the provincial seat?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Absolutely right!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It will be a clean sweep for the Liberals.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It will be clean all right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I am curious. I don’t want to pry into government affairs, but surely the matter of a pending by-election in the Stormont riding is something that is a matter of government or cabinet policy. Surely the chairman of Management Board must know by now whether or not the government is capable of calling an election during the summer or whether we are looking at a December election.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, again, all I can do is to say that I apologize for not supplying the answer yesterday. I was busy last evening counting people in Varsity Stadium.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It didn’t take me all that long, but there was the time coming and going. I will try to have that answer for my friend.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

HOPE TOWNSHIP GARBAGE SITE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the House leader as well, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), is he aware of an undertaking, at least tentatively entered into by the ministry, if one can enter into an undertaking that way, to inform the House of his decision as to whether or not Toronto garbage is going to be allowed to be dumped in Hope township, a matter that has been pending now for many months? In the absence of the minister, can he indicate what decision cabinet has made in this regard, since the people in the area are living under the threat of these thousands of tons of Metro garbage being dumped into that beautiful township 70 miles to the east of Toronto? Surely we are not going to adjourn the House without a statement being made in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the hon. gentleman. There are some alternative moves under consideration, but I really can’t answer the question directly; it would have to be put to the minister. But I will take it as notice.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: For when, next October?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister without Portfolio for Municipal Affairs if he can indicate to the House the significance, or perhaps the ramifications, of the decision of the council of the city of Toronto to rezone the island for low-density housing? Can he indicate if, in his opinion, this is contrary to any of the enactments on the statute books of the province? If not, what would be the normal procedure for dealing with such a rezoning resolution, particularly in terms of its effect on the houses on the island and their present occupancy by the people living in the area?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Port- folio): Mr. Speaker, I can’t indicate that to the members of the House. I haven’t had any communication whatsoever from those involved. I’ll look into the matter and report back to the hon. leader.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

TRANSFER OF SENIOR CITIZENS TO HOSPITALS

Mr. Deans: I would like to ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh goody!

Mr. Deans: Is the secretary aware of the two articles dealing with the transfer of some 13 senior citizens from active beds in St. Catharines area hospitals to nursing homes and the subsequent death of either five or 10, depending on who you believe?

Will the secretary initiate an investigation into the policy of the Ministry of Health with regard to the transfer of senior citizens from active hospitals beds into nursing homes and, in fact, the entire sphere of the transferring senior citizens in order to ascertain whether it is humane and proper to move people at those ages, to disrupt what is left of their lives and to cause them inconvenience and upset? I’ll leave it at that. I was going to say something else, but I’d better not.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of Community and Social Services would have the answer to that question.

Mr. Deans: It is the Ministry of Health. But if the other minister has the answer, will he answer?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was an article in this morning’s Globe and Mail and an article in Wednesday’s Star. The article that appeared in Wednesday’s Toronto Star was not entirely accurate --

Mr. Roy: Did they spell the minister’s name wrong?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The article mentioned that 12 out of 13 senior citizens had been transferred and had died within four months.

Mr. Deans: It was only five out of 13.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This morning’s Globe and Mail contains the correction that it was five out of 13. These were elderly persons, and it is very difficult to determine whether their deaths were hastened by the transfer. We agree that elderly persons, as much as possible, should not be transferred. My understanding is that these were chronic cases and that they were transferred from homes for the aged to chronic hospitals.

I just wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that this involves two ministries, the Ministry of Health and our ministry, and we are looking into the matter. We certainly want to assure the hon. members that we don’t want to do anything that would be detrimental to the health and the well-being of senior citizens.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Has the minister received complaints over the course of the last year and a half, as I have and as I think probably every other member of the House has, from close relatives and friends of other senior citizens who had been moved and whose lives have been completely destroyed as a result of being taken from an environment in which they may have been for five or six years, from people with whom they have become accustomed to living, from out of the care of people in whom they had placed a considerable amount of trust, and being placed in an entirely different environment with an entirely different level of service --

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): That’s a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Deans: -- which has caused them to experience a lifestyle entirely different from that which they’d been having and has caused them a great deal of pain and suffering, mental if not physical?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, there have been meetings with the officials of the regional municipality of Niagara --

Mr. Deans: It’s not only in Niagara.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, this is in the Niagara region.

Mr. Deans: Not only in the Niagara region.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No. But I am told that in that area, at least 20 per cent, if not more, of the residents in homes for the aged are quite elderly and require chronic care. This whole matter, again Mr. Speaker, is one that we are very concerned about and hopefully, between the Ministry of Health and our ministry, one we will be able to try and resolve.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I think the incident occurred in the vicinity of the city of Welland, in the Northland Manor, and in the city of Port Colborne, at Sunset Haven; and the residents were moved to the hospital in the town of Fort Erie -- to the chronic wing of the hospital.

I had brought this to the attention of the minister because I thought it was the wrong procedure to follow. I want to ask the minister directly now -- and I asked him during the estimates -- what co-operation does he have with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) on this particular matter? There are facilities in the city of Port Colborne, adjoining the city hospital, that are available for 55 bed patients, for extended care or for chronically ill persons. Why can’t this facility be used instead of shuffling people around from one municipality to another? No doubt it did bring about an early death to them.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that there is excellent co-operation between the Ministry of Health and our ministry. 1 know that the hon. member is very concerned and I would be pleased to meet with him, along with my colleague the Minister of Health, to discuss this very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth?

Mr. Deans: I can’t think of anything else I can ask of anyone who is here.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Revenue has the answer to a question asked previously.

LAND SPECULATION TAX

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Back on June 24, the Leader of the Opposition asked me if I could give the House figures on revenues recovered under the Land Speculation Tax Act. I advised him I didn’t have them but I thought I would have them by today.

I am pleased to advise him that I do have figures up to June 21. For the month of April there were no revenue receipts under the Land Speculation Tax Act, but in the month of May there was recovered, a sum of $7,600.64, from a total of 22 cases.

In the month of June, up to the 21st day of this month, a further sum of $14,258.33 in aggregate, was collected for a total of 24 cases. So in all, up to my latest date, being June 21, the ministry has recovered a total of $21,858.97, out of a total of 46 cases under the Land Speculation Tax Act.

Mr. Roy: The minister had better put that in the kitty to pay his legal fees.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I would like to ask the minister if he is keeping the money in a separate account; because it may well be that he is going to have to return quite a bit of it to these innocent bystanders who felt they couldn’t write out the affidavit that the minister was accepting saying that there was no increase in value over that very short period of time.

Is the minister contemplating recommending to his colleagues a reduction in the rate of the taxation so that even if the federal government is successful in their submission that the amount paid is not deductible as a cost of doing business, those people who pay the tax will not have had the responsibility of paying at a level over what was originally established in the bill; since the minister gave his personal assurance that there would be no thought of this by the government, which is not interested in revenue in this particular bill? There is no thought that the government would extend the rate, beyond the one established in the bill, through the combination of provincial and federal tax?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, to the first question: no, I am not keeping the money segregated, it will go into the consolidated revenue fund of the province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is going to have to pay it back, or some of it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: But of course the ministry is keeping a record of every payment --

Mr. Roy: It should go into a trust fund.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- and the name of every payer --

Mr. Deans: Is the minister going to pay interest on the money collected in the event he has to send it back?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- of the moneys that are received.

And on his last question, if it should be necessary to readjust in some fashion, then of course it will be possible, pursuant to the provisions in the legislation, to rebate all, or part, of any of these moneys collected. The records are being kept.

The member suggests there might be a reduction in the rate, that’s one wav to do it if it were necessary at all. We don’t know yet; we’ll have to see. Hopefully, after July 8, when the Minister of Finance will be the gentleman who has expressed his sentiment for the position we’ve taken in Ontario in our attack against speculative land profits, it won’t be necessary to readjust the amount of the tax.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Let’s deal with reality this morning.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The cap doesn’t fit on the minister’s head,

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Inasmuch as the minister is now taking in revenue at the fantastic rate of approximately $100,000 a year, would he care to revise the figure of $25 million that he fooled us with before?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: Later?

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask the minister whether reference has been made to the Court of Appeal for this matter to be debated? Secondly, who is the lawyer acting for the government? Thirdly, does the minister not feel he should not be collecting the tax while this matter is being debated before the court? It is somewhat presumptuous; it is possible the court might rule against him.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the matter of whether the case is taken to the Court of Appeal is not a matter within my jurisdiction and the question should be directed to the Treasurer (Mr. White). I have no idea whether anyone has been retained and I think that would be a matter, again, which awaits the outcome of the great day, July 8.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary? Go ahead.

Mr. Shulman: How much money has been brought in on the foreign owner tax?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Under the Land Transfer Tax Act, Mr. Speaker, we’ve recovered to June 21, a total of $187,474.92.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Not bad, eh?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I would like to ask the minister if he wouldn’t feel it would be his responsibility -- when that money comes in from these innocent people who are prepared to take the government’s stand as authoritative -- to respond to them, and say: “All you’ve got to do is fill out an affidavit which says the value of this land has not changed since April 8”? They could do so in clear conscience --

Mr. MacDonald: The member is as naive as they are.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- since the aim of the legislation is to maintain the value of that land. Surely the minister couldn’t complain if one of the citizens in this province simply said the value had not changed and therefore no tax was payable. That’s what almost everybody else is doing,

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, in some instances under which tax was payable I’m advised it was very clear on the title that a profit had been made. In one or two instances there were registrations of instruments after April 9, followed within a couple of weeks by a resale of the property at a substantially enhanced value. It was quite clear there was a speculative gain for which, therefore, the people of this province were able to benefit to the extent of 50 per cent of that speculative gain.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The people who want the land for housing will pay the cost.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, there have been a reasonable number of supplementaries, seven, I think.

The hon. member for Ottawa East.

MEDICO-LEGAL ETHICS OF LIFE-SAVING SUPPORT

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development whether the Ministry of Health, or maybe the policy field, is giving any consideration to the problem the medical association is wrestling with at present; that is, the question of whether to withhold or withdraw life-saving support and the possible legal implications?

For instance, yesterday their legal adviser apparently told them he would not advise any members of the profession to sign a certificate saying “No resuscitation.” Would the minister not consider it proper at this time that there be a policy established in this area? Or, if she does not have a policy, that this province should take the lead in organizing a policy at the federal level or possibly have this matter studied, on the basis of a committee, to look into this question?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware if there is a study ongoing in the Ministry of Health but I’ll be pleased to look into it for the member.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary; Would the minister again discuss with the Minister of Health, the possibility that this whole area be looked at as it is being looked at in the US? That is the whole question of the decision to withdraw life-saving support; not only the question of resuscitation but this whole area of when one should stop. At least, shouldn’t the government give some directives to the medical profession? Does she not agree that the policy should be set by the government and not by a particular association or profession?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be pleased to discuss the matter with the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

USE OF ETHYLENE OXIDE

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food regarding ethylene oxide: Has the minister a report on the potential public health problem caused by the practice of sterilizing certain foods, including flour, dried fruit, dried eggs, with ethylene oxide, a problem to which I drew his attention on May 31?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I haven’t got a report with me, but I did look into it and I have been given to understand that there is no real problem, no real danger.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ethylene oxide is good for us?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I wouldn’t go so far as to say that -- I’m not that much of a scientist -- but I assured myself that there wasn’t any real problem, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

TRAINING SCHOOLS AND TRADE EXAMS

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A question of the Minister of Correctional Services. Would the minister make arrangements with the Ministry of Labour so that those who are in training schools and take trades training, are in a position to qualify as soon as possible for the trade which they have pursued? I have come across two or three cases recently of chaps who have been released and who seem to have had difficulty getting through the red tape of bureaucracy. It would be of great value, I think, if these chaps have an opportunity before they are released to pass their exams, or arrangements are made for them to pass.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, this is already being dealt with by the ministry, but I think I should point out to the hon. member that a large number of these individuals are unable to qualify because they are only in for short periods of time and they really haven’t been exposed to the particular trade long enough. This is the difficulty we are faced with.

Under our new programme, where we are inviting the private sector to become involved with our institutions, one of the terms of reference in co-operating with them is that they will provide facilities for continuing the training of these individuals after they are released.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

SUNDAY TRUCKING OPERATIONS

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: The minister will recall that he advised the House on June 21 that he had under discussion with the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) the feasibility of obtaining an interim injunction against Sunday trucking as granted by the Canadian Transport Commission. Has the minister concluded this discussion with the Attorney General and is an interim injunction being sought until the appeal is heard?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I concluded my discussion with the Attorney General; and the question as to whether or not there will be an interim injunction will be entirely up to the Attorney General.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister is aware that three more trucking companies presently have applications before the Canadian Transport Commission? What is the minister doing to block the granting of these licenses to operate trucks on Sunday in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am aware there are three other firms that have applied for this special consideration. I draw to the hon. member’s attention -- although I believe he is well aware of it -- that this is a federal law enforced by a federal agency which has the right within the Act to allow these trucks to travel on highways in Ontario and Quebec on Sunday.

There is really nothing that the province can do at this stage except to appeal the decision by the CTC in these matters. That we have done.

The question of an injunction, again I repeat, is a matter for the Attorney General to handle. We have had discussions with him on this particular matter. We are not happy with the situation that a federal agency can in fact make this ruling. All we can do is continue to enforce the law against those trucking firms that have not applied for and received the exemption. That’s all we can do at this time.

The only other alternative would be the development of some sort of legislation within the province itself. I think the hon. member recognizes that the developing of legislation that would work effectively and would not be discriminatory, can create severe problems.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister not, on behalf of the Province of Ontario, appear at the hearing and file an objection and have the government’s views known before he goes the appeal route?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what happened. There were representatives of my ministry who did attend the initial hearings held by the CTC on the application of the original two trucking firms from Manitoba. My ministry offered objections to any decision on the part of that commission. The commission advised that the very points that we were attempting to use as argument -- namely the traffic problems -- were not considered to be relevant to the particular discussion. The only point we had on the question of trucking on Sundays was the traffic problem. They wouldn’t even listen to that argument, and said it was not acceptable. The decision was made after our representations had been made and in the face of that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

METRO WORK GROUP

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: Would she give assurance to this House that she will, in fact, help to initiate the regional working committee on emerging community and social services, as requested by the Metro work group in its third recommendation in the brief presented to her?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, we have just concluded a meeting with the Metro work group. I gave assurances to that group that I would pass along their brief to the Premier of the province (Mr. Davis) and then we will decide.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Is the minister not aware of the fact that the Premier gave assurances in this House that he would indeed meet with this group some weeks ago, and he has not been able -- no doubt by reason of his electioneering duties -- to keep that commitment? Is there not, therefore, an obligation to give an answer to them now?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, no; I don’t believe there is that obligation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

AGGREGATE HAULAGE DISPUTE

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Some time ago now -- a week or two -- the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) indicated that he was trying to get the dump truck operators and the aggregate producers together in a bargaining session. I don’t know what progress he has made on that, but since he is not here, I would like to ask this minister whether or not any progress has been made regarding the request that a public inquiry be held into the dump truck industry?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we have not taken any particular steps to have a public inquiry into the matter. The hon. member is correct that the Minister of Labour and myself have been discussing this matter, and that efforts have been made by members of the staff of the Ministry of Labour to attempt to have the two parties on the dump truck side of the argument get together so that we can come up with reasonably acceptable proposals that can be presented to both factions.

I think the hon. member knows that there is a difference of opinion between the two dump truck organizations -- and I use that term loosely. We have been meeting with them, we have met with the aggregate producers and aggregate haulers. These meetings are continuing, handled mostly by the Minister of Labour in consultation with members of my ministry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville is next.

BICYCLE TRAILS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: What action does he plan on taking concerning the recommendation of his inter-ministerial committee recommending a greatly expanded network of bicycle trails?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we have been looking at the possibility of developing this sort of trail. Quite frankly, we find that it is a very expensive proposal. Also, we have been working in conjunction with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) in the development of their trails programme throughout the province. This has been our major involvement, primarily on that particular programme. We haven’t really zeroed in on bicycle paths or trails in particular but on an overall trail programme to be developed in the province; and that is being carried out by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

DAYCARE SERVICES

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker. A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: Is the report of the task force on the care and education of young children in Ontario, usually known as the Sirman report, a public document?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is this the report on which the minister based the statement of some time ago, in which she raised the ratios for day care in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It was that report, yes.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary: Since this report had public input into it, why is it not being made available to the Association for Early Childhood Education?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated in the past, it was an internal study for the benefit of members of the social policy field, to determine the policy for daycare.

Mr. MacDonald: Why internal?

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Even if it is an internal study --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Foulds: -- why wasn’t it made public or a public statement submitted?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I liked his question too, Mr. Speaker.

What really offends me, is why would the minister give us that pile of stuff yesterday with such ostentation?

Mr. MacDonald: Right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Two feet of reports indicating that this is the basis of the decision, when in fact the real basis of the decision is still a secret document?

How can the minister possibly keep that a secret document, saying it’s for cabinet use only, when there are many people in the province seriously concerned that the policy is undermining the quality of daycare in this province? How can she do that?

Surely she knows that in the long run it’s got to be made public in order to justify her decision.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, maybe it’s because of the late night but I’m getting a little --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What are we supposed to do with that two feet of material?

An hon. member: Wonderbook.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, when he asked for the information I stated, and it’s in Hansard, that I was quite willing to produce some of the material that was in the report.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, but not any of the material that affected the minister’s decision.

Mr. MacDonald: Or not the main material that affected her decision.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, no matter how much material was presented to the policy field, it was still a judgement that had to be made.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur; one more supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why is it that the minister completely ignored, in her decision, the submission by the Association for Early Childhood Education? What evidence did she have that so overpowered the submission of the people who are most vitally concerned in this area? And why is it that she has not the courage to reveal the report and the total information that led her to this political decision?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh quit looking at the gallery. Quit looking at the press gallery --

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t the minister ever look that way?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- with those googly, googly eyes.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, it’s not a question of courage because I feel that it’s a good statement. I feel it’s a good policy and I’m quite willing to stand behind it. I’m appalled at the members of the op- position. I’ve sat here for over two years and listened to them complaining about the lack of daycare facilities. I’ve listened to them in estimates complaining about the working mothers across this province who need daycare facilities.

Mr. Deans: It’s a good question, the minister must admit.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We, in this government, have attempted to provide daycare facilities --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is giving them custodial facilities.

Mr. MacDonald: She is destroying the system.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We are giving daycare facilities to mothers across this province who need it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: This is not a question of education.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deacon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since some of us recognize that there is not an endless amount of money for daycare service and there is some resistance from the public to these increased costs; and since we are aware that the minister is trying to increase the service without reducing standards; and since we don’t have the benefit of all the information, including that report in particular, would the minister make available to us, during the next few weeks, all the information, including that report? Because some of us are going to be holding meetings in our areas to see if we can develop answers to this problem by involving others in the community that would help replace the care now provided by professionals.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is losing her credibility if she doesn’t table that report.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot release that report.

Mr. MacDonald: Why not?

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t she tell us there is no report?

An hon. member: Or maybe it contradicts her findings.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, there are many recommendations that perhaps the opposition wouldn’t be too happy to hear.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): We will be judge of that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just give us a chance to read it.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): We will run that risk.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): It’s nice of the government to censor the report for us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. member for Ottawa East have a new question?

ABORTION REFERRALS

Mr. Roy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, in the absence of the Minister of Health. Is she aware of the comments made by a doctor before the Ontario Medical Association that there are, operating in this province, abortion referral centres which in fact are taking advantage of younger girls in referring them to the US for abortions? Is the minister aware of such a situation existing in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Only from what I have read in the newspapers.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister be in agreement with the doctor that the province should license that type of referral centre, so that under the provincial licence they would not be preyed upon by independents but at least would get some valid referrals from the province? Is the minister in agreement with the comments of the doctor on that?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a question that the Minister of Health should be asked.

Mr. Roy: The minister could have discussed it with him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General has the answer to the question asked previously. Then the hon. member for High Park.

RESALE OF HOME PROGRAMME HOUSES

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wentworth earlier this week asked me: “Did the Ontario Provincial Police recommend to the Solicitor General that charges be laid as a result of the investigation with the sale of Home Ownership Made Easy homes?”

My information is, Mr. Speaker, that the acting managing director of the Ontario Housing Corp. requested the OPP to investigate three sets of transactions -- one in St. Thomas, one in London and one in Mississauga where there were allegations that individuals were circumventing resale restrictions and thereby making excessively large profits.

The investigation to date has concluded that there was no fraudulent intent involved and that as a result criminal action or charges could not be successfully prosecuted. The matter is in fact a breach of the civil agreement between the OHC and the leaseholder. Solicitors in the legal office of the OHC home ownership division concur with this conclusion.

No criminal charges are being contemplated as a result of the foregoing but the OPP will continue to pursue future transactions. The matter is being followed up by investigations at the anti-racket branch.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary -- two supplementaries, I will ask them both at the same time: Were there no investigations of any transactions in the Hamilton area? And secondly, is the result of the statement just made by the Solicitor General, the making-legal, of individuals selling Home Ownership Made Easy properties to others at prices which range up to 80 per cent above the price approved by the Home Ownership Made Easy programme?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, there wasn’t a particular investigation of any Hamilton transaction. As I say, the OPP at the request of OHC investigated three particular transactions which I assume have a certain amount of similarity.

As far as the legality is concerned, it’s a question of criminal action here; it’s a question of fraud. There is no question there is a breach of the lease agreement between the leaseholder and OHC, but whether or not they have evidence to lay a charge into the Criminal Code at this point, the OPP doesn’t feel there is.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary again: Is it legal for a real estate agent acting on behalf of a seller, to procure for the seller more money than is legally allowable under the Ontario Housing Corp. agreement? And has there been no investigation of the real estate companies to determine whether or not there might be charges laid against them for using their offices and their legal position to circumvent the law?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think, Mr. Speaker, as far as the real estate agents are concerned, there is a possibility that the agents who were involved in these transactions will lose their licences. But again the question of filling in a form, or filling in a lease for a figure greater than may be allowed under agreement with HOME --

Mr. Deans: But one has to swear an affidavit.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I realize that, but whether there is a criminal ingredient there or not is the question. This is what the OPP feel.

Mr. Deans: Isn’t that for the courts to decide?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well, as I say, there could be civil actions for breach of contract, whether or not they are fraudulent ingredients there that would warrant criminal investigation is something about which they have not satisfied themselves as of this time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park is next.

NURSING STAFF SHORTAGE

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister recall last month promising to look into the problem of the nursing shortage which was forcing hospitals across the province to shut wards down wholesale? What has she found as a result of that, and what has she done? And why are the hospitals still being forced to shut down more beds?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of press coverage about the shortage of nurses. After having been associated with a hospital for some 13 years, I think I do have a bit of knowledge about this. It’s something that happens every year about this time --

Mr. Shulman: It has been going on since February.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There are many nurses with families who decide to stay home for the summer. There are many younger nurses, because of the higher salaries they are receiving, who decide to travel for the summer. There are many at this time of the year whose husbands are transferred --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Higher salaries?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: As a member of a hospital board, I can say that we have found that we have the same problem every year about this time. We don’t really believe there is any overall shortage of nurses in the metropolitan area.

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister unaware that this problem began long before the summer and these beds began to be shut down months ago? Is that really the impression she has?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of a board of a hospital, and it always happens about May of every year that we begin to have this problem.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister still a member of the board?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, I am.

Mr. Shulman: A final supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: There are only three minutes remaining. I think we should restrict the supplementaries.

The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, I believe, is next.

PROXY VOTING

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, I have a question of the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas. Is the minister giving serious consideration to the resolution passed by the Windsor city council, which asked that the Municipal Elections Act be amended to permit the issuance of a voting proxy certificate by the municipal clerk up to and including the day of the election; to provide that a qualified elector who is out of the community on election day and on both days of advance polling, on business or on vacation, be entitled to a certificate to vote by proxy?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’ll give it full consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

NATIVE TEACHERS

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Education: How many enrollees from the native population does he have in the special summer course at Hamilton Teachers’ College for teacher training?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the last information I had was that 82 had been accepted. I haven’t heard in the last week or so.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How many of those enrollees have guarantees of jobs in the fall for areas in which there are native people in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know whether any of them have guarantees, Mr. Speaker. I’d have to get that information.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

HIGHWAY 404

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Will the minister meet with members of the regional council of York and the local municipalities of Richmond Hill and Markham with regard to the widening of Yonge St. and the matter of directing funds allocated for that widening to Highway 404 so that we can get that major through highway constructed as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I’d be most pleased to meet with the representatives of those areas and discuss that very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside is next.

USE OF ETHYLENE OXIDE

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: In the course of his investigations, did he find reports that cancer-causing ethylene-oxide derivatives have been found on food in concentrations of up to 1,000 parts per million; and did he get in touch with the Columbia University doctors who brought this potentially serious problem to public attention?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t.

Mr. Burr: Would the minister follow this up again?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, I won’t.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

LAND SPECULATION TAX

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Speaker: Inasmuch as his foreign owner tax is bringing in tax at a rate of $1 million a year, would he care to revise his estimate of $60 million a year that he fooled us with earlier?

Hon. Mr. Meen: As I observed earlier, Mr. Speaker, no.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Does the member want us to raise it?

ST. JAMES TOWN HELP PROGRAMME

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Could he give me a report as to the status of the funding for the help programme in St. James Town, which we discussed with Mr. Anderson some weeks ago and which is now falling flat without any funding?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, we met and we were to meet again.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

USE OF FRENCH LANGUAGE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of municipal affairs: Is it true that if a city council, for instance of the city of Vanier, submits a resolution to his department in French he will not accept it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No. It is not true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister care to advise them in Vanier that he will accept resolutions that are passed in the language they use in their committee discussions -- French -- and that he will take charge of getting it translated here and not charge them for it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will certainly receive any resolution in French that comes in from Vanier or any other place.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has now expired.

Petitions.

Reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the select committees and commissions of the House be authorized to release their reports during the recess by filing an official copy with the Clerk of the House, which filing shall be reported to the House on the resumption of the session.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that when the House adjourns for the summer recess it stands adjourned until a date to be named by the Lieutenant Governor by her proclamation.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Roy: Is that an adjournment sine die?

Mr. Singer: Come back here on the 9th so we can commiserate with each other.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Mr. Singer: No bills? How come?

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 22, The Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

Bill 73, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Private Vocational Schools.

Bill 85, An Act to amend the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Bill 86, An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Bill 88, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Bill 95, An Act to restructure the County of Oxford.

Bill 100, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Bill 101, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Bill 115, An Act to establish the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, while the House leader is considering what order to call next. He has communicated with me privately, something having to do with the by-election in Cornwall. Does he not feel there should be a statement made in that regard?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement if the hon. member wishes but I think I expressed my views. However, him having put the question I will take that and respond.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): If I may speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions on the notice paper. When can we expect answers to these questions?

Mr. Speaker: This is really not a point of order. The member is asking for information which I will allow. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Roy: The only other thing I wanted to ask is, is there any significance or anything insidious about the fact that all the questions left are Liberal questions?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Nothing significant nor anything insidious.

Mr. Roy: When are we going to get some answers?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As soon as possible.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves second reading of Bill 116, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the minister would care to make any introductory remarks other than those he gave the House on first reading?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I have anything to add at this time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we are deeply disappointed with the provisions of this bill. We intend to oppose it in principle and we would hope that the government would give further reconsideration to the enactment of this amendment which is totally inadequate.

I want to express my personal disappointment with the new Minister of Labour in bringing in a bill with these provisions and under these circumstances. It is difficult really to find adjectives to be critical enough of the attitude of the government in this regard, although I am sure before we adjourn later today there will be several people here who will attempt to find appropriate adjectives.

I must say that the minister had a lot of sympathy and good feeling in the House when he rose to make the statement. It was a well-prepared statement. I don’t just know who I should be referring to under the gallery there.

But the feeling really was that we had a monkey off our backs with that statement; that at least there was a breakthrough toward ending the embarrassment of being associated in this Legislature with a government that would perpetuate a level of support of the type that injured workmen in this province had been subjected to over the years; that good old John MacBeth, the man in whom we have, or at least had, a good deal of confidence, had somehow knocked some heads together in the cabinet and said, “We cannot as a cabinet continue the inadequate support for injured workmen in this province.”

It is a most amazing saga because I must admit that very few people, certainly very few organizations, gave anything much more than lip service to the need for the improvement of those payments. Certainly it was raised frequently in the Legislature by the Liberal opposition and the NDP; certainly it was raised in committee by individual members of the Conservative Party. Yet somehow there was that residual feeling that the workmen’s compensation enactment was one of the best in Canada, and that even a few months ago, after the great furore over the dismissal of the previous chairman and by bringing in Michael Starr, the friend of the workman, somehow that issue was now passing away into oblivion and the government had somehow maintained itself in the minds of reason- able people.

I remember standing in my place and congratulating Michael Starr for putting an ad in the paper saying, “We are going to be open at night.” In other words, there was some kind of a heart down there and they were prepared to serve the working man and not simply dictate to him.

Yet when it comes to the payments for injured workmen, particularly those on long-term benefits, there were two or three important, pressing organizations which simply would not allow the politicians to rest in this regard. The Union of Injured Workmen is the newest one and it has been very effective in pressing its case. The Hamilton Area Compensation Association has written to us all frequently about the specific problems. The Injured Workmen’s Consultants, which I believe got their basic support through a LIP grant a few years ago, have continued to provide opinions and have lobbied the various members for some changes in this connection.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, it was a continuing embarrassment. I can remember at the opening of the Legislature, back about 1969, a representative of one of these groups intruded right into the Legislature here and threw himself on the floor between their lordships, the judges of the Supreme Court, right at the feet of the Premier’s wife and children. The police rushed in and we thought, “My gosh, what a show that was. Surely that will set their cause back simply by the irrational approach to attempt to bring to public attention the problems that the injured workmen have been facing.”

That man went on to provide the basis for much of the information that has served to improve the case of individual workmen in this province and has worked untiringly on this issue. I remember just a few days ago -- I am sure the Minister of Labour will remember it too because he suffered, I hope he suffered, some embarrassment at that time -- when the Union of Injured Workmen came up here to present their case to us and pushed their way right into the Legislature and had their meeting outside the door of the Legislature.

There were those who were prepared to ask what kind of a radical group of intruders is this. Yet it brought it home to all of us, I am sure, who actually stood among those people and listened to their leaders speak so effectively and impassionedly or spoke to the individuals, many of them having serious problems with the English language, as they thrust their inadequate cheques into our hands as politicians, saying, “Here, this is what I’ve got. You take it, it is of no adequate service to me.” I came away from that meeting with a handful of cheques -- I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, none of them was endorsed. But they were really bringing home to me and to all of us out there that this was a matter that was not some exaggeration of a problem that maybe wasn’t as bad as they felt it was.

If anything, the people in this Legislature were not aware of the hardship and suffering, the inequity, the unfairness, and the injustice that had been associated with the treatment by the government of Ontario of the injured workmen over these years.

We can’t blame Bruce Legge and we can’t blame Michael Starr, although perhaps they might have pushed more diligently for the improvements that have been lacking for so long.

Well, the minister got up and made his statement. It seemed to receive a good deal of support from some members in the House. The leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) said later that he had been traduced, which I guess is a bad thing.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): That’s even worse than being seduced; it’s more painful than being seduced.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I must say my own feeling was that the Minister of Labour as a new man is saying, “Well, I’ve got to have some action on this. I want to follow up on all of the studies and improve this situation.” And somehow or other he was able to get the ministry to go along.

Then we looked at the details of the settlement. I was really quite impressed with the presentation made by the workmen themselves. I don’t know their level of education but I do know the level of their commitment which is complete. The material they have made available to us is excellent. It is to the point and I believe it is accurate and worthwhile when it comes to the debate today.

We look at the minister’s statement. He says he’s going to introduce a formula for the improvement of these payments so that they may be improved by a maximum of 60 per cent. That’s an impressive figure, a 60 per cent increase. It looks as if most of the problems will be solved and we’re going to be left looking for some loopholes which the ministry might have overlooked.

Yet we find that the 60 per cent is based on the original pension payments which, in turn, are based on the 75 per cent payment of the original salary level many years ago. All of the increases from that time to this are going to be taken into account so the increases are going to be minimal and the important factor is the establishment of a new minimum payment of $260 per month.

The figure was raised during the debate a few nights ago in comparison with the level of support for old age pensioners under the so-called GAINS programme. It’s not necessary to go over that argument again, but I think probably the most significant figures was when the minister got to talking about costs. He didn’t talk in absolute terms; he said the government was not going to pick up any of this tab itself, but industry was going to carry the increased burden and the payments were going to be increased by eight per cent, compared with a year ago.

Then, in the fine print, the indications are that the industry commitment to the funding of the Workmen’s Compensation pensions and payments will be going up from 1.5 per cent to 1.6 per cent but these payments will not even begin until January 1, 1975. The government is not going to pay anything at all in addition and that should have been the tipoff that this brave new approach by the brave new Minister of Labour was totally inadequate and a smokescreen, instead of the kind of provisions which are required if we, in all conscience as members of this Legislature, are going to meet the needs of the injured workmen of this province.

One of the things that must surely come home to us is the profit levels of the industries which are served by these workmen. The profits were up, according to the figures made available, by 43 per cent in 1973; and by an additional 45 per cent in the first three months of 1974.

The figures are important in two areas. One is that the industrial profits are soaring; they can well afford to pay some additional moneys into a fund which will adequately compensate those injured in the service of the industry. I agree wholeheartedly with the government’s proposition that the taxpayers should not be burdened in this regard but that industry should pay the shot. Certainly they are not being burdened by this introduction of a so-called change in policy -- far from it.

As a matter of fact, using the minister’s figures, the increased requirements from industry will be up eight per cent this year which is just half the increase they were required to pay a year ago when various changes increased their contributions by 16 per cent overall. So industry is being treated very gently by the proposals made by the minister.

We should not require the taxpayers to involve themselves directly. Industry is in a position to meet the payments for an adequate remuneration to these injured workmen and I think surely, after consideration, we must all accept that.

Now, on the other area, specifically, as to what the level of the payments should be. All of the thoughtful people who have written in this field -- the experts; the present chairman of the board himself, Michael Starr, the former Minister of Labour, Fern Guindon -- have accepted in principle the concept that the payments should be, in fact must be, related to the changes in the cost of living. That is the second way these industrial profits and the profits of industry must be considered.

The fact that their profits have gone up 45 per cent in the first three months of 1974 must surely reflect itself, Mr. Speaker, in your mind, obviously, in a direct relationship to the cost of living these people must put up with. An increase of 45 per cent in the first three months means that the injured workmen may very well come up to a politician, shove a cheque for $39.19 in his hand and say, “What can I do with this this month? It’s no good to me, you keep it.”

They were trying to impress me with the sincerity of their position that the payments from the Workmen’s Compensation Board were an insult and simply left these people in poverty. Many of them are not English-speaking, or they are struggling to learn our language, and they have come over in tremendous numbers into Toronto and Ontario and got the only jobs available to them, often in construction. They have their wives and their small family, and these little kids are clustered around them. I am telling you, it really makes a tremendous impact.

And they were injured while they were working at hard labour jobs, menial jobs really. They were starting out in a brave new country, working their way up. They didn’t get past the bottom rung of the ladder and they were injured when they were receiving the very lowest wage, often the minimum wage established by this Legislature, a wage never designed to allow a workman to support his wife and family with any of the dignity that we feel is a right to anyone living in this province. Then their pension payments are based on 75 per cent of that.

They are often examined by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, as we all know, and this light work provision is brought forward. They say, “Well, you go out and get some light work and we will give you the $39.19,” or whatever it is.

There is no light work for these people. They can’t speak English and even if they could there is just no alternative for them but to feel they have somehow fallen into the worst kind of a hell on earth in the centre of a big city with an expensive cost of living, with television that leads their young children to expect all sorts of things. They are worse off than they were wherever their homes were before they came to this country.

It really is pitiful. The minister must be aware of this. He is a man of great conscience -- I used to think a man of great heart. And maybe he still is.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): He is.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But I am telling you this bill does not show it. Somebody said to me, “The minister has got a head of feathers and a heart of lead.” Maybe that is pretty dramatic, but when you look at the provisions of this amendment you just wonder what he was thinking about and you wonder where the man of great heart went to when these particular provisions were introduced.

Anything less than an indexing to the cost of living is unacceptable. The minister has said that the level of payments will be reviewed regularly. Well, they have been reviewed regularly over the years. But I don’t believe the injured workman should expect political pressure to be brought to bear -- people falling down on the floor of the Legislature or intruding themselves and bullhorning their views through the doors or the Legislature to us. We should not put them to that embarrassment in order to give them an opportunity to have an income based on their labour and based on their rights. There is no welfare in this. This payment is their right because they were injured in this province, working in this province under the provisions of a statute which is supposed to remunerate them properly, fairly and adequately. We should not subject them to the requirement to intrude themselves into public policy in this way. It must be indexed and anything less is unacceptable.

The minister is prepared to say that he is going to review it regularly. You know what is happening to the cost of living and inflation. We are not here to argue the causes, we are here to say, this is what is happening and the statutes of this province must surely reflect it.

The Treasurer (Mr. White), who is not here -- he is probably on his way over to once again visit the financial capitals of Europe --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): There is only one minister who is here. Massive support!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Treasurer, I presume and I expect, has said in cabinet: “We are not going to index our pensions because once all the pensions are indexed everything is indexed. We have some atrocious inflationary machine over which there is no control whatsoever.” I will accept that argument when we are talking about things like interest rates, the remuneration from certain --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): There are six Tories in the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- investments but it is unacceptable when it is related to payments to people who have no control whatsoever over their income or over the cost of those things which they must provide for themselves and their families.

The government of Canada has taken this step in the provision of old age security and the income supplement and Canada Pension Plan payments.

Mr. Breithaupt: Now there are five Tories in the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Right.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Five Tories in the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And this government has rejected that completely and they have said, “No, we will review it from time to time.” We know these people.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Every 18 months.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They have been in office for over a quarter of a century -- 30 years, 31 years. They review it just before an election, when so much pressure comes on they can’t resist it. I don’t believe that this is the sort of review that is democratic or in the best interests of the taxpayers or the people concerned.

What really gets me down is that, while they reject the cost of living concept for the injured workmen, we know they do not reject it for their employees at a higher level. As a matter of fact, the executives of the Workmen’s Compensation Board receive cost of living adjustments for their salaries. In fact, when the government settled with Mr. Legge -- remember those circumstances where he was fired and all the rest of it? -- he was awarded a full 12 months salary without working at all, an amount of $40,950 plus --and this is the part that galls me -- he was awarded an additional cost of living adjustment in the final year of $1,807.70. The government could do that for Bruce, but it couldn’t do it for the injured workmen.

I am just telling you, Mr. Speaker, that for the people who were demonstrating here the other day and who are going to look at this bill and receive the $10 a month adjustment, or whatever it happens to be, it does not sit very well. I would say to the minister it is a further indication of the incompetence and I would say the heartlessness of the government in approaching this problem, because this bill is nothing more than an inadequate Band Aid -- which is not going to meet the needs of the injured workmen, and they very rightly have come forward with a strong protest. The payments do not begin to cover the actual increases in the cost of living, although the minister says they will be reviewed regularly. He goes back many years in his statement, but as the Union of Injured Workmen say in their brief, since 1965 alone the cost of living has increased 55 per cent, while the proposed amendments would give an injured worker’s pension in 1965 a mere 22 per cent increase to cover the rising costs.

What are we trying to do? Are we trying to pay our bill’s? Are we trying to keep our deficit in this province down to what the Treasurer considers a manageable amount of $700 million by squeezing it out of the injured workmen and others? I really cannot see how the government can possibly expect us to give any support to the amendment put forward.

This whole consideration of so-called light work has been another embarrassment and a problem for us all. How often have people come to us in our constituencies and given us the story that is so familiar that I don’t have to repeat it to the members. They say, “I was injured. Yes, I did get my compensation properly and I was looked after adequately. I got 75 per cent of my pay and it was a great programme. But now they say that I have only a partial disability and my payments are reduced. I can’t get work because there isn’t light work here. I can’t bend over, I can’t lift and there is no alternative for me but to come to you as the member.” We go through the appeal proceedings, we do everything we can and we try to get work for them, but it is very inadequate. I am delighted -- and I must say this -- that in the bill there is a section for those people who have a partial disability on a temporary basis that says their payments stay up to the full level as long as they are prepared to co-operate, take training and be available for work. I say that section is supportable.

What about those people who have gone through all of the retraining and all of the facilities and programmes available down there in order to put them back in the work force, confident that they can, in fact, earn their own living and meet their financial responsibilities as family men and women? We find that once they have gone through that routine and are permanently partially disabled, here they are out in the community with a partial disability, and the Workmen’s Compensation Board washes its hands of them. It says, “We have done everything we can for you. Here is your partial payment which will go in perpetuity; you are on your own. If you get a job, that’s great, but if not you can get welfare and there are all sorts of things you can do.”

Really we know that that is inadequate. Surely the Workmen’s Compensation Board ought to maintain its payments until the person concerned is receiving once again an adequate remuneration on the basis of his own employment. We are still going to have those people who were here with their canes and their braces and their bandages just a few days ago who are not going to be looked after adequately. Many of them are certainly going to be getting this partial assistance for the rest of their lives. The result of their appeals to the elected members is, “You are only partially disabled. Why don’t you go out and get light work?” We know that is inadequate; we know we must assume a greater degree of responsibility than that.

I want to say once again how impressed I am with the approach taken to this matter by the Union of Injured Workmen and others. I don’t want to exclude any of those people who have worked so hard over many months and years. They kept the members informed and pushed their attitude to the Minister of Labour and others. I really think they deserve a great deal of credit. The information they have provided -- and I am sure it will be put on the record by other speakers before this debate is completed -- is effective; it is not padded out with a lot of sob stories. It is specific. It is statistical. It is associated with the real world as these people face it.

We really don’t know anything about that. We have just given ourselves a substantial raise, just a few months ago. Even the labour unions, which are very effective when dealing with the work force, don’t seem to come to grips with the needs of the injured workmen. There is a feeling, “that’s not going to happen to us.” Perhaps that’s unfair.

There is always some pious comment in the submissions from the various unions on the matters of safety -- we have got to do everything we can about safety and the government isn’t doing enough about safety. There is a reference to the fact that the pensions are inadequate but there is no real support from the unions that I can see, which really has done anything to improve the position of these injured workmen who were so inadequately dealt with in the past and who are inadequately dealt with at the present time.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Even a man like Al Baldwin.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right. Al Baldwin is the man we saw here on the floor of the Legislature, who has worked so long and so hard in support of these people. And Malcolm Nicholson who was out here with his bullhorn, bellowing through the doors of the Legislature.

The minister said he wouldn’t meet him because he doesn’t want to do the business of the province in the street. Not a bad phrase; I think maybe that will stick with the minister. I heard it on the CBC; some- body was talking about how quickly the new minister sort of learned the political lingo. But I really believe that on occasion the business of government must be done in the street or it has to be done by the ministers going out from the Legislature and from their sumptuous offices, and talking to those people right where they are, in the streets or in their own offices. I don’t think anything less than that is going to be acceptable.

Specifically, we believe further that this bill ought to have provided for a continuation of Canada Pension Plan payments by an arrangement with the government of Canada so that could be done. Automatic payment of OHIP -- that is something they should not be concerned with. We believe the availability of independent medical advice is going to be necessary. We must move further away from maintaining a staff of medical practitioners working for the board whose opinions have such a long-lasting effect on the financial future of the workmen. We believe there is an inherent conflict of interest in that regard which should be done away with.

It has been brought to our attention that the earnings allowance in this bill is still inadequate. Raising the maximum to $12,000, if it is not meaningless now, it soon will be and the maximum should be removed entirely. We find the bill in its intention and particularly the way it was introduced by the minister, to be good, but the principle of the provisions is thoroughly inadequate.

I don’t know how to describe them other than to say again the phrase that came from a workman talking to me, “The minister has a head of feathers and a heart of lead.” Let the minister think about that. He has not done a good enough job in this regard and the bill is totally unsupportable.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe there is not a quorum in the House.

Mr. Deacon: Six Tories.

Mr. Speaker: I find there is a quorum present.

Has the hon. Leader of the Opposition completed his remarks?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour must have felt very gratified when he made his formal statement to the House upon the introduction of his first bill as minister to be greeted with what amounted to fairly generous applause from the op- position side of the House.

On the basis of the statement made on this bill in unqualified form by the minister and the wording used, we applauded. When we took a look at this bill we realized just how badly we were taken in. Seduced is the word. We certainly are not applauding this bill at the moment. We were traduced. When we see the bill in its qualified form in the way the clauses are written out and see how much is going to be given to the people in the province who are covered under the increases in this bill, we are sick and fed up with this type of an increase. It is government by headlines.

All the increases in essence are going to those who are completely and totally disabled. It looks good on the surface to have the increases going to them. But this group is a very, very small percentage of the injured workmen who are receiving pensions, so small as to be almost written down on one piece of paper in half an hour. Most of the people in this province receiving Workmen’s Compensation Board pensions by the way the government rates them are not permanently totally disabled. Some of them are 80 and 90 per cent and certainly can’t be employed anywhere. Even those rated at 20 and 30 per cent aren’t able to be employed, and these are not that group to which the government gives the increases in the rest of the bill. There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to support this bill. We are fed up with seeing yet another few crumbs dropped to the injured workmen of this province.

These benefits are so minuscule. Benefits are supposed to substitute for the loss of earnings because of injury in the workplace and yet they are minuscule. The revalorization to a maximum of 60 per cent at four per cent for the two years passed and then a two per cent per year back to 1945 to a maximum of six per cent is a joke. The paucity of that percentage increase based on the original pensions is a joke. This is an unacceptably low percentage revalorization and it’s calculated on a beggar’s base. We find it completely and utterly unacceptable.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): A sick joke.

Mr. Bounsall: I said when we spoke on the last increase to Workmen’s Compensation Board recipients, which took place more than a year ago, June 5 to be exact, that there is only one way in which Workmen’s Compensation Board recipients’ pensions should be increased, that is, by the same percentage as the increase that occurred in this province in salaries and wages which throughout the 1960s and the early 1970s were double the increases in the consumer price index. If there is any group where one can justify an indexing according to the per cent increase in salaries and wages in Ontario, it is the injured workmen in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Right on.

Mr. Bounsall: A pension is supposed to substitute for loss of earnings. If we take this back to 1945, which is what this bill covers, the percentage increase in salaries and wages in the Province of Ontario from 1945 to May, 1974, amounts to 420 per cent. And the government is giving 60 per cent. What kind of a sick joke is that?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Is the government ever generous?

Mr. Bounsall: If the government wanted just to start it to the unacceptable percentage increase in the consumer price index, that is 180 per cent from 1945 to now. The government is content to give one-third of that, 60 per cent as opposed to 180 per cent, the bare minimum by which it should be increased.

Mr. Martel: Withdraw the bill.

Mr. Bounsall: What sort of a sick joke is that? It is an indication of the Tory attitude to injured workmen in this province. They have no feeling or idea whatsoever about the state in which those workers have to exist. There is no backdating in this bill to accommodate for all those years in which those injured workmen have suffered, not because of the injury alone -- and they have certainly suffered pain and misery because of that -- but suffered because of the lack of pension support and moneys they can put in their hands. The minister says there will be a regular review. The average is once every year and a half, and it is pitifully small each time. That’s no reassurance to us, to people interested in justice in this province or to the injured workers of this province.

Mr. Martel: Just 60 per cent! The government should resign.

Mr. Laughren: Perverse!

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): It is 60 per cent of the old pension away back.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bounsall: Further, on other parts of the bill --

Mr. Martel: The government should be ashamed of itself.

Mr. Bounsall: -- a year ago this month, on June 1, the government increased the minimums to be paid to widows or widowers of workers killed in the workplace. It increased that from $175 to $250. Where the Workmen’s Compensation Board ever gets its figures for any of its increases -- and this bill is very typical -- one cannot determine. But at that time one could determine, for the first time, where that $250 minimum came from. It came from taking the minimum wage at that time, $1.80 an hour, multiplying it by 40 hours a week and taking 75 per cent of it, which is what is a 100 per cent compensation claim or a 100 per cent total disability pension. That came to $250 a month.

One could see, for the first time, how that figure happened to be arrived at. I put that forward at the time, and that was not denied as the means of arriving at that figure in that bill.

What has the minister done this time? He’s raised it from $250 a month to $260 a month. If the minister can explain from what piece of air that figure was pulled, I would like to know. A year ago this month, one June 5, by his own method of calculation, that minimum figure should have risen by the amount by which the minimum wage has risen, times 40 hours a week times 75 per cent. That would have been $312.50 in this category, not $260, by the same method he last used to calculate it. What is the minister doing with $260 in here, not tied to anything and with no explanation for it? If he can give me an explanation for $260 that will be convincing -- well, he won’t be able to give an explanation for a $10 increase from $250 to $260 --

Mr. Martel: My God, he is generous.

Mr. Bounsall: The rationale was made a year ago, and now he fails to follow that rationale.

Mr. Laughren: I think the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) wrote that.

Mr. Bounsall: In addition, the minister does not in any sense make any adjustments for anything other than permanent total disability. In that same bill a year ago he increased the minimums for temporary total disability from $40 to $55 a week; with 4.3 weeks to the month, that works out to very close to his minimum of $250. He applied the same criteria. He applied a minimum wage times the 40 hours times 75 per cent to increase those temporarily totally disabled minimums.

In this bill -- not that the $10 increase from $250 to $260 is much -- the minister hasn’t even bothered with that category. He has failed to use the only type of formula that I have ever seen that he devised in arriving at workmen’s compensation pensions.

We will certainly be speaking on this in clause-by-clause debate and pointing out that the minister should be using what should be the present minimum wage in the Province of Ontario, applied in the proper way to adjust these figures to what indeed they should be.

Of course, there’s nothing extra for children either. One year ago, the minister at least increased the children’s allowance from $60 to $70 if that child lives with the widow or widower. If the widow or widower dies, they get another $10 a month for wherever else they live. That was increased from $70 to $80. That was a year ago. The minister hasn’t touched that one iota -- not that those figures were acceptable at that level either. In essence, what he is saying is that it hasn’t cost one iota more for a child to be sustained in this province since June 5 of a year ago. If the minister did feel that, it would be in this bill. But he hasn’t even touched it.

I don’t know whether the officials associated with the minister in the preparation of this bill feel that this is an acceptable bill. If they do, they are as misled as we were in thinking this. There is no one who can look at this bill with any sort of pride whatsoever.

In addition, the former Minister of Labour always worried a little better; at least, he worried publicly a little better as to how much this was going to cost industry and how much of an assessment industry might be able to bear. By the minister’s own words, in his own statement, what has he said here? It’s an eight per cent increase. There’s going to be an eight per cent increase in the levy to cover the increases in this bill. They will be in different categories he says and the actual wording is:

“Prior to these changes the average workmen’s compensation assessment amounted to approximately 1.5 per cent of an employer’s payroll. These benefits will increase that 1.5 by eight per cent to approximately 1.6 per cent of an employer’s payroll.”

With their profits having gone up by 45.7 per cent in the first three months of 1974, is he ever hitting them! He is asking them to increase their levy by 0.1 per cent --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bounsall: -- of their payroll to cover increased pensions to injured workmen in this province. The profits have gone up 45.7 per cent. It’s as onerous as a mosquito riding on the back of an elephant. I don’t know how anyone --

Mr. Martel: With the intention of rape.

Mr. Bounsall: -- could hold their head up with those percentage profit increases against that small a percentage -- 0.1 per cent -- increase in the payroll levy, all of which, of course, is non-taxable.

Further on in this he makes great to-do about the dramatic changes the board has undergone in the last two months. I suppose he accepts this as one of those great dramatic changes -- an increase of 0.1 per cent on industry’s payroll to pay increased benefits. That’s some dramatic change.

There is nothing there to cause industry to introduce or even sustain safety programmes in their plants. It’s almost saying to them, “Go ahead and have some more accidents because your levy is such that it isn’t going to bother you to have to pay for a few more accidents.” This is a disincentive to industry to do anything about safety programmes within their places of business.

I have the minister’s statement in front of me and there are a few things in this statement -- that portion of his remarks we were able to hear when he introduced this bill on June 21 -- which caused us to tap our desks.

The examples in the last page or rather wrong. Take example No. 2 which talks about “Presently the statutory pension for a widow with four children is $530 per month.” I suppose the minister can be forgiven for being so new in his post but his officials should not have been so new not to know that in the bill we passed on June 5, 1973, there was a maximum placed on that and that maximum turns out to be $460. He used it as an example, saying it is presently $530. He doesn’t even know the present legislation and there is no excuse for that in an example.

Mr. Laughren: Right on.

Mr. Bounsall: I can see by that example that the minister, or whoever is currently advising him in these matters at the moment, hasn’t any feeling at all about what is going on in this Act. Take the first example in which he says a pension of $200 per month awarded in 1952 will now be increased -- going back and using his revalorization figures -- by 46 per cent to $292 a month.

Mr. Speaker, the average wage and salary in the Province of Ontario in 1952 was $52 a week. At that time, the 100 per cent pension was calculated on two-thirds of that amount so the maximum calculation on which the pension could be based was $160 a month, nothing near $200 a month. At that the worker would get that amount only if he was totally, permanently disabled. And we all know the criterion for a totally disabled person in this province. To receive it, he virtually has to have no legs, no arms, and prove that he can’t paint with his teeth.

Mr. Haggerty: Don’t suggest that.

Mr. Bounsall: And this is the type of example that the minister has.

Mrs. Campbell: Don’t give him an idea about that, he will work that in.

Mr. Bounsall: He hasn’t got that sort of a case yet; it will come, if he hasn’t. That’s the sort of examples he gives. The examples are indeed spurious. That type of a person really doesn’t exist. Sure, the minister might go back into his files and find one. How many injured workmen do we have in the province now -- 33,000 on pension? He might be able to find one or two. The examples he used in terms of his release just don’t hold up.

Mr. Haggerty: Most misleading.

Mr. Bounsall: Another thing; the minister beats his chest in another part of his release about whether or not industry should pay the costs. We’ve covered the point about how much industry is paying in this bill; how little, in fact, they are being charged; how small the increase is; and that it shouldn’t be a charge on the public purse.

Mr. Haggerty: The consumer pays for it.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister think those people getting permanent or partial pensions are existing? Where does he think they are getting the money to exist from? Because the Workmen’s Compensation Board pensions aren’t adequate; they are on the public purse. Let me read some statistics into the record --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): It’s okay. This is great stuff.

Mr. Bounsall: For the month of January, 1974, as far as we can determine -- and believe me, it is not easy to dig these figures out. It certainly can’t be obtained through the Workmen’s Compensation Board -- they didn’t release any figures. They don’t keep records by area.

An hon. member: Deliberately.

Mr. Bounsall: They keep records alphabetically. You say: “Okay, give me the data for all the Mcs or all the Ns, and we’ll draw an extrapolation on that.” Oh no, that can’t be handed out. You can’t get much information out of them. But by dint of bugging someone connected with family benefits this winter, we were able to find 936 recipients of workmen’s compensation in the Province of Ontario -- and they were not at all sure that that was complete. They did sort of a sample. They turned out 936 recipients of workmen’s compensation in Ontario, who also were receiving family benefits.

How much did the Workmen’s Compensation Board pay to these 936 recipients? Slightly over $57,000. How much were these recipients getting through family benefits? They were receiving $164,000. In other words, family benefits were paying these injured workmen an amount triple what they were receiving from workmen’s compensation. And the minister talks about there not being a charge on the public purse. He is charging the public purse all over this province, because his pensions aren’t high enough.

The light work provision of the bill is rather interesting. We have all been bedevilled by this. I don’t know how many times someone in my riding -- particularly with back injuries -- has phoned me up or written me a letter and said: “Look, I’m injured. I can’t go back to work yet. I just got a letter from the board saying I’m going to go down to 50 per cent. What are they doing; surely they can’t do that? What can you do?”

You are caught in the situation of having to say “That’s just the way it is.” You have to talk to them for half or three-quarters of an hour to convince them that that’s the way it is -- that there is such a hard-hearted, cruel group in this province which would take them from 75 per cent of their salary and cut that in half; and that there is virtually nothing they can do about it.

The minister must have had a few of them. I don’t know how he deals with it. I don’t know how he can sit there as minister and not make a change on that. He seemingly attempted to make this change. He said: “For those people who do not return to work, we’ll let them sit at 75 per cent of their former earnings for those who are temporarily partially disabled.”

What bothers me is that there is a bunch of “unlesses.” For example: “Unless he fails to co-operate in or is not available for a medical or rehabilitation programme.”

The member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) can give a bunch of examples, in areas in which he has had a lot of concern and a lot of specialty, of people who cannot be vocationally rehabilitated.

Mr. Laughren: That’s right.

Mr. Bounsall: And although I have a lot of respect for the sensitivity and awards that the top members of the Workmen’s Compensation Board have when a case finally gets there, at virtually every step below that, where the decisions are originally made, they’re made in an arbitrary fashion.

Mr. Laughren: Exactly.

Mr. Bounsall: I would predict that all over this province we have injured workmen, temporarily partially disabled, who are somehow, in the eyes of a claims officer, failing to co-operate --

Mr. Laughren: Right.

Mr. Bounsall: -- on his subjective criterion of what failing to co-operate is, and have been dropped right, left and centre all over this province.

Or, part (ii): “fails to accept or is not available for suitable employment.” I suspect that from time immemorial the means by which people got dropped from their 100 per cent pension down to the light-work, 50 per cent pension category -- half of 75 per cent of their former salary -- whenever that occurred, the reason was the doctor having to check a little box which reads: “Is he available for suitable work?” Sure, any of us, even if we’re 99 per cent disabled, if there was work suitable to that 99 per cent disability, could take it. What can the doctor do? Sure, if there is suitable work available he’s available for it, but the doctor has to answer “yes” or “no” to: “Is he avail- able for suitable work?”

Doctors all across this province have been confused by this question and many of them have said, “Sure, he’s available for suitable work.” The board jumps right on that and says: “Ah, he’s available for suitable work. He’s available for light work, therefore, and we cut his compensation in half.” Here we have light work disappearing if --

Mr. Laughren: They won’t define “suitable work” though.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): The doctor doesn’t know what “suitable work” is.

Mr. Laughren: Neither does the board.

Mr. Deans: Ask him what “suitable work” is and he couldn’t tell you.

Mr. Bounsall: -- but won’t, unless that recipient fails to accept work which, in the opinion of the board, is suitable.

I, and I think the other members of this House, are very suspicious over how this disappearance of the light work category is, in fact, going to be treated. I would suspect that really what’s happened here -- and I’d be delighted if the minister could stand up here and assure me otherwise in this section -- is that the 50 per cent level has just completely disappeared. Now we’re going to go from the 100 per cent disability -- again still only 75 per cent of his salary -- right straight down to a pension rating which will be 20, 30 or 15 per cent, based not on his employability but upon his physical disability, of his former wages and there won’t even be a 50 per cent category halfway through in which he sits. Sure, they dropped the light work category in order that it goes from one step, from 100 per cent, down to a percentage based upon not his employability but the extent of his physical disability.

If the minister can assure me otherwise I would be very delighted -- and if he assures me otherwise, I can assure him that all of the cases that I’ve described, if and when they come to me, will end up on his desk along with that statement of assurance from him that that won’t happen, if he can, in fact, give it.

Mr. Laughren: I think they should all end up there anyway.

Mr. Bounsall: In addition, just while we’re talking about this 75 per cent, there is no question in my mind that Workmen’s Compensation Board recipients should be paid 100 per cent of the salary which they were making at the time of the accident; 100 per cent, not 75 per cent.

I don’t know how the minister is going to justify this, but the previous minister used to say “it is not taxable”. Well, show me a Workmen’s Compensation Board recipient who, at the level the Workmen’s Compensation Board pays him, is paying 25 per cent of his total wages in income tax. None of them do. And that 75 per cent was supposed to be adequate because it was not taxable.

None of these people would have been paying 25 per cent of their total wages in income tax, if they had made that 100 per cent, so there is no justification on that ground. Let’s see if the minister can try to justify why he is paying 75 per cent; and surely he is not going to fall back on that reactionary claptrap that if he paid them 100 per cent none of them would work? That is no answer either and the minister knows it, if that is what he was thinking of saying.

Further along, in a further section of the bill, he talks about the ceiling going up from $10,000 to $12,000. Again, how does he justify retaining any form of ceiling on which pensions can be calculated? And of course, they can only get 75 per cent of that $12,000, so in fact he is saying the maximum pension base, the maximum base on which pensions can be calculated, is simply $9,000.

That 75 per cent rule should go, as I mentioned, and that maximum figure should be taken out completely. There is no justification for retention of a maximum in any way, shape or form on the wages on which pensions could be based.

This Act, Mr. Minister, is to compensate injured workmen for their loss of earnings due to an accident in the workplace; to compensate for their loss of earnings until they can get back to work. What on earth is a maximum earning section doing in here? There is no justification for it whatsoever.

Another thing in this bill which just makes one’s blood run cold is all of these picayunish -- four per cent and beyond that two per cent -- increases, based on these poor bases, wages that were paid years ago. Even those increases, however, are not going to apply to a commutation lump sum award, in spite of the fact it states, under section 42(4) of the Act: “When the impairment does not exceed 10 per cent of his earning capacity, the board shall direct that a lump sum payment be paid.” And they do it all the time.

So here is a workman who is injured, we won’t even argue about how one arrives at a decision of impairment of less than 10 per cent -- and all of us in this House know how unjust those are -- but if he ends up with an impairment of less than 10 per cent, he has had to accept, no choice about it, a lump sum payment. And now he is saying there is no way we are going to apply these percentage increases to any lump sum payments, including all those that workers were forced to take.

There is no justification for that either but even if the board didn’t force workers to take them, even if by sheer dint of proving a good financial need and a good financial basis for the pension that a recipient got, the board -- not because of it being below 10 per cent but because of the good sound financial argument that an injured workman made -- the board allowed a commutation of those pensions to take place, how can you justify not increasing the pensions by using the percentage based on the original monthly pension allotment?

There is no rationale for saying that a portion of the commutation or the entire commuted pension should not enter into the calculations. There is no way you can justify that. That is a pension the same as any other pension given back to 1945 and because all of it or some of it was given out in a lump sum payment there is no way that should make one particle of difference to any -- picayunish though it is -- per cent increase the government gives injured workmen in this province.

There were other points I was very disappointed in, but one gets to realize that one doesn’t get disappointed about changes to the Workmen’s Compensation Act which this government brings in. One doesn’t get one’s hopes up.

There is nothing in here that relates to OHIP payments by the board on behalf of the pension recipients if they aren’t allowed to work or if they have not been able to find employment in the work place.

Why, in terms of Canada Pension, is the Workmen’s Compensation Board not paying Canada Pension, or at least its share of Canada Pension such as employers do, for all those workmen who are not able to find employment? That should be in this bill. On a pension that compensates for loss of earnings, the board should be paying pensions based on those earnings for those workmen when they reach retirement age.

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly going to place amendments to this Act when it comes to clause-by-clause and we will argue those points in much further detail there.

I have another couple of points. We have repeatedly requested in the last days since the Act was introduced into this House that this bill go to committee so the injured workmen in this province could come and address the minister on the clauses of this bill. It would have been nice if this bill had gone to committee because in committee -- the new minister has not had the opportunity to experience the levelling that takes place in committee.

Mr. Laughren: I don’t wonder, with this bill.

Mr. Bounsall: On this bill, however, I can see why he wanted to avoid it, because the increases are so poor. The increases are so minuscule that what the minister would be doing would be exposing himself to groups of people, the Union of Injured Workmen, the Injured Workmen’s Consultants and unions around this province who would give him, no matter how politely they said it, what would amount to a terrible battering telling him these increases weren’t worth anything and giving example after example of hardships and by how little these pension increases affected or alleviated those hardships.

I can understand why there would be no way he would want to face that. It is quite understandable.

When one looks at the entire question of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and the pensions it pays, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that one needs an entirely different system of compensating people for accidents, not only accidents occurring in the workplace but for accidents, period. One of my colleagues, I am sure, will speak at more length on this, but there is no question that the proper scheme which should be operating in this province is one that compensates people for accidents whether they occur in the workplace or not.

It should be a government-funded and run accident and sickness insurance programme which compensates people for loss of earnings due to accidents, wherever those accidents occur -- or illness which keeps them away from the job -- with the funding to be from three different sources: public premiums; from automobile insurance if those accidents occur in automobiles; and thirdly from employers when those accidents have occurred on the job. Until we have that sort of a scheme and abolish all the rest of this fiddling around, we are going to continue to have a problem and will continue to have a bill with which the government can fiddle all it wants on the surface, and nothing is ever really accomplished.

Looking at all these minuscule changes, and all the various sections of this bill which do not properly help remunerate a person injured in this province, reminds me of part of the Scriptures: Revelation 3:16. A few revelations should occur from time to time to this government. It speaks about an interim position that people take. This bill is such a minuscule step forward it reminds me of that phrase. “Because you are barely warm, neither hot nor cold,” I would say in reference to this bill: “It is fit only to be spewed from the mouth.”

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make a few comments relating to this bill and the intent of the amendment as it affects the injured workers of this province.

We support the principle that increased benefits are the right of every injured worker in Ontario. But I regret, Mr. Speaker, after some thorough thought and investigation into the amendments, that I have to support my leader (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in this particular bill. It doesn’t go far enough and we may be moving amendments in the hope that the minister will make improvements in the bill itself.

Quoting from the minister’s statement in the House in the Legislature on June 21: “The amendments will provide benefits for most injured workmen presently receiving a Workmen’s Compensation Board pension,” and “will benefit those workers whose pensions have been depreciated by inflation.” The announcement by the minister that pensions presently in existence will be increased by a maximum of 60 per cent prior to Jan. 1, 1971, and as indicated by the minister, means two per cent per year and is not based on the necessary assessment as to the seriousness of the disablement so that the claimant may be compensated accordingly.

It has been indicated by members and myself on numerous occasions that there are wide discrepancies in methods available for determining the degree in evaluation of a disability. The amount of compensation to be paid may become quite complicated and thereby seriously affects the amount of the benefits obtained by the disabled employee.

I, as well as the injured worker, find the terms or thresholds, which the Workmen’s Compensation Board uses in arriving at a fair assessment of the seriousness of the injury, are as follows: Permanent total disability, which permanently and totally incapacitates the worker from gainful employment; permanent partial disability, which involves only partial loss; temporary total disability and injury which satisfies none of the above but which prevents the worker from reporting for work on the following regularly scheduled shift.

Many families are forced into poverty or destitution because of the methods or procedures followed by the Workmen’s Compensation Board disability ratings in percentage points of an injury. In a number of cases where I have made representations to an appeal hearing, the injured worker often is placed in a position of proving the highest degree of disability conceivable, and a substantial portion of his testimony by medical experts or his family physician, will be involved in the evaluation or assessment of his claim.

I have stated in this Legislature time and time again -- and this is the position of the Liberal Party -- that when an employee is injured on the job or receives bodily injury from an occupational disease as a result of his in-plant environment, he should not be penalized by receiving less than his full wages when on a 100 per cent compensation or until he is rehabilitated to be gainfully employed by a suitable job replacement.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board is well aware of the common occurrence that an injured worker may return to work and, because of disability or other related matters, he may be forced to leave his permanent place of employment. He is further penalized, because he loses many social security benefits and he is not eligible to receive unemployment insurance since he no longer contributes to that scheme while on compensation as being disentitled. Contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Commission should continue by deduction from compensation payments. In fact, Canada Pension or any private pension should also continue without any undue hardship to the injured worker.

Many of the injured workers have been capable of earning an adequate income if allowed to continue to work, and have contributed enough service in industry to aid in the development and the productive progress of this province to warrant an income above the poverty level. This bill does little, if anything, to provide a sufficient means of income to those workers who have been injured prior to the year 1971. It does little to support their income maintenance.

It has been indicated by the Minister of Labour and the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board that pensions have been eroded by inflation and require adjustment. We had a debate, I believe in June last year, on a similar type of bill, and very small increases were allowed at that time. That is not good enough.

Almost all industry and government employees just recently have had included in their bargaining rights a cost of living escalator clause based upon the consumer price index. Why has this not been included? In fact the old age security programme in Canada has included it in its present amendments and the Canada Pension Plan has an escalator clause based upon consumer price index. But for some reason this minister is not able -- I don’t think it is his fault; perhaps it’s the cabinet that will not bend a little bit -- to include this in this bill today.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board pensions should include provisions for increased benefits relating to the cost of living and inflation and should be reviewed twice yearly. The more I look at this bill the more I realize the backward approach the government has taken. Why not have this Legislature take a rational approach and base the rate of compensation on present incomes that are produced in industry today?

Should an injured worker through some misfortune of an industrial accident be denied an income of equal amount to that which his co-worker now receives under present economic conditions in Ontario? Why not move in this direction? If he had not been injured, he would be earning that income today.

The guidelines the minister indicated in his statement in the Legislature on June 21, 1974, for determining disability pensions prior to Jan. 1, 1971, this is two per cent to a 60 per cent increase do not reflect the advances in the Ontario wage levels that have occurred during the past two decades. There is nothing in this bill to offset the loss of income that the injured worker has been subjected to by decisions rendered by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I was under the impression that the Workmen’s Compensation Act was designed so that there would be no loss of income to an injured worker due to his disability.

I have encountered wide deviation on this point in a number of appeals to the board. The minister’s statement has indicated that to cover the cost of increased benefits to the injured workers will also add an increase in assessments of industry’s employee payrolls from 1.5 per cent to 1.6 per cent. As mentioned before, that is one percentage point difference. It is very small.

I hope this formula for calculating new benefits and bringing revenues up to date will keep pace with the future increases in the average earnings of Ontario industrial workers. If not, then the government should be looking to the consolidated revenue fund for the additional increase in benefits to the injured worker, as suggested by previous royal commissions looking into the affairs of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker, section 3 of the bill is a welcome addition to the Act. It is a major change that provides measures to include additional benefits to a survivor if the pensioner dies. This is of great concern to me, for I have on a number of occasions in the Legislature stressed the need for improvement in this particular field. This is one area that requires government action, as survivors do have a right to a better deal in income support maintenance.

There is presently a working paper by the federal government relating to spouse contributors to the Canada Pension Plan and their entitlement; and under a new look at the Canada pension social security programme no doubt legislation will be introduced to give spouses of workers a share in Canada’s economic growth; for they do contribute but in a different manner.

Mr. Speaker, if one believes it is a set goal to obtain a better deal for his fellow workers, then a person must be consistent in this approach. To illustrate this, time and time again, the Minister of Labour and his government should bring in a comprehensive programme relating to a guaranteed annual income, to cover all working forces in Ontario, regardless of where the accident occurred, in the private home or in the industry.

I might add a quote to this particular section, Mr. Speaker. I can recall the former member for Niagara Falls, now the mayor of the city of Niagara Falls, Mr. George Bukator, introducing a private member’s bill in this House relating to this particular subject I am talking about now, that stated regardless of where the accident happens, a person should be compensated for it.

I remember supporting that private member’s bill, but my friends to the left here did not support that. I was interested to see that there is a change in heart by the lead-off speaker for the NDP, that they do now go along with this view. And I welcome it.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): They saw the light of day. We welcome it.

Mr. Martel: What nonsense is the member talking now?

Mr. Haggerty: It is in Hansard.

Mr. B. Newman: We welcome them.

Mr. Martel: What nonsense.

Mr. B. Newman: Oh, it’s nonsense to help them, is it?

Mr. Haggerty: Let the province take the lead, Mr. Speaker. I was delighted to read --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Haggerty: -- the statement in the press release by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism on June 25, 1974. He goes about praising how well off the Province of Ontario is. He says:

“Let me illustrate the magnitude of what we do in Ontario by reminding you that with some 8,000,000 persons in 1973 we are the largest Canadian province in terms of population. Ontario accounts for 50 per cent of all manufacturing in Canada; 43 per cent of all Canadian exports and 82 per cent of all exports of fully manufactured products. It is clear that Ontario is exceedingly important to the economy and well-being of Canada and of a large segment of national population.”

So there’s much praise given to the Province of Ontario.

The government should initiate a study to complete the study it has. I believe they indicated there was such a study by the minister’s predecessor, relating to -- perhaps the term I’m looking for is transfer of payments, as it is called, of all those benefits to which an employee now contributes for those many Ontario citizens who now receive some form of compensation.

I would like to list some of those, Mr. Speaker, that the worker in the Province of Ontario is contributing to. Many of them are duplications. Perhaps he is being charged two or three times in the belief that he is going to get some form of compensation as a result of an illness or some accident.

These are in the public sector: Unemployment insurance; Canada Pension; old age security; disability insurance; sick and accident insurance; veterans’ benefits; public assistance programmes such as the Family Benefits Act.

It’s been mentioned by previous speakers that many times a claimant, with a rather low pension allowed through the Workmen’s Compensation Act, has to go through the Family Benefits Act, or even to the Veterans’ Benefits Act, for some assistance.

Now, if they make an appeal to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, they are also asked: “Do you have Canada Pension Plan? Go to them and get some help.” But the responsibility lies with the WCB in the case of an injury to the worker in Ontario.

Then there is the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In the private sector we have private pension programmes; supplementary unemployment benefits; organized private charities; insurance programmes, including automobiles and other private insurance.

Surely, it is time that a complete assessment is made for a new approach, for a fair deal for all the province’s citizens.

If there is some misfortune, such as an accident or sickness, they should have sufficient income for the same standard of living as most Canadians -- which is the highest standard of any nation throughout the world.

What I’m saying here, Mr. Speaker, is that no person should have less income today. You can’t live on a pension of $40 or $60 based on an accident during the years 1947 or 1952. It should be in tune with the times today, with the present cost of living and the present economic standards in our Canadian society.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): New-found concern for the working man.

Mr. Haggerty: By combining all of these programmes I’ve discussed here, there is no reason why this province cannot have a programme that will provide a guaranteed annual income well above the poverty line for workers or employees in industry today.

On previous occasions, Mr. Speaker, I’ve stressed the need for a complete revamping of safety procedures in this province. We need a new Occupational Safety and Health Act in Ontario. There are a number of industries that do have an excellent safety programme, and there are a great number that have a poor safety record. There are instances where employees are presently challenged by specific companies concerning occupational health. I don’t want to belabour the debate here any longer.

Going back to the Minister of Natural Resources, he has initiated a study into the mining industry, particularly Elliot Lake, but other mines in Ontario, and there is a need for improvements in occupational safety in the mines.

It should be an established requirement that an employer must advise an employee of the nature of a toxic substance and noxious conditions to which he is exposed in his job environment and to advise the employee of the effects on human health.

Surely, it is time that a complete assessment is required for a new approach to a fair deal for the province’s citizens. I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in the recent publication by the Ontario Federation of Labour and I would like to quote it for the record:

“Labour Representative Speaks to IAPA

“In a hard-hitting speech to the Lindsay-Peterborough chapter of the IAPA in March, Henry Wiseback, secretary of the Ontario Federation of Labour Safety Committee, told a meeting that management-imposed safety programmes where workers are not consulted, are useless.

“He said the joint labour-management safety committees which work out safety programmes jointly and administer them jointly, are the only programmes which can be effective.

“He further stated the unions are doing a considerable amount of safety education work and will co-operate on joint safety programmes when consulted. Too often supervisory personnel, without consultation, try to impose programmes on workers without properly explaining to them the need for such programmes. He also stated that too many employees are still resisting joint safety efforts; and too often we have to call on the government enforcement agencies to have some managements comply with safety regulations.”

No employees in industry in Ontario should be subject to such conditions.

I don’t want to be repetitious, Mr. Speaker, but I do have a private member’s bill, An Act to provide for the Establishment of Safety Committees in Industries in Ontario. Some time, I hope it is debated in the Legislature during the private members’ hour because I think this is the answer to reducing the number of accidents in industry in Ontario. The bill would give the employees and employers equal representation on a safety committee through legislation; they will have an input in safety matters. I think it is an important bill and hopefully this minister may move in that direction, to give the workers some input in safety matters. Not some -- they should have input in safety matters and safety procedures in industry in Ontario. It is long overdue and I hope the minister will move in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, to sum it up, I would want to deal with one particular claim. It is claim 6150395. This was a nurse who was injured some 10 or 12 years ago; I believe it was in one of the hospitals in the riding. A stool collapsed and she fell and injured her spine. There is quite a lengthy history of the injured person. When I look at what she will receive under the present proposals -- this two per cent per year as the minister has indicated in his statement -- it’s rather disgusting that the minister should introduce a bill such as this. I have to sympathize with those persons who were injured before 1971 because what the minister has indicated to them looks great -- that 60 per cent increase. I’ll tell the minister what that 60 per cent increase will give to this particular claimant based on two per cent. It happened some 10 or 12 years ago and she is presently classified as 37.5 per cent disabled. There is another clause in here that she is rated at only 16 per cent, but there are stipulations under the regulations or under the interpretations of the Act so she can be raised to 37 per cent. Under the present legislation she is getting $93.75 a month and under the new legislation she will receive $97.50 per month, an increase of only $3.75. How ridiculous can we get in going along with accepting the principle of this bill?

We know what the nurses are looking for today in salary increases; they are talking about $800 or $900 a month. Here is a registered nurse who will receive an increase of $3.75 a month. They say there is nothing wrong with this particular case and yet she has had six operations on her spine; the last one was a lumbotonomy -- I guess that is the word I am looking for. That was the last that could be done for her.

As serious as this case is, she gets a measly $97.50 after July of this year. That’s what she will receive.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can give me the date of that accident?

Mr. Haggerty: I believe it is 1964 or 1963. I hope these figures are right, because I believe they come from the minister’s department. I’m sure they are.

But for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill. I think these persons who have been injured some 15, 20 or 25 years ago are going to be shortchanged further. The bill doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t even bring them out of poverty. They will still remain perhaps the lowest that there is.

Sure we can go around bragging that we have one of the best compensation programmes throughout the world, but there is no reason why we cannot bring in some decent improvements to it. I feel this bill does not go far enough to give those injured workers sufficient maintenance income, and it doesn’t.

Upon those bases, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the minister should give consideration to some form of amendments to meet the need for a comprehensive educational plan and unemployment policy directed to the rehabilitation and reallocation of workers; compensation benefits should be paid on the basis of capability for full employment and not be based upon clinical assessment of the injury; commutations of the injured workers’ pensions should be granted upon request; the cost-of-living escalator clause should be part of the bill in accordance with the consumers price index; and we should include the contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance and OHIP premiums.

One cannot support the bill unless the minister brings in some amendments that will make it a decent bill, so that these workers have sufficient income to maintain a decent standard of living in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Thank you, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The first speaker on the bill is Conservative, the minister, the second speaker is Liberal, and the next speaker is an NDP member, then we alternate with Liberals, and I think --

Mr. Taylor: Well, the member for Sudbury East has been kind enough to ask me to proceed, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate his courtesy and your recognition.

I rise in support of this bill not because it’s the ultimate in legislation but because I think it is a step forward. I know that the Minister of Labour is a very compassionate and sensitive and understanding man --

Mr. Martel: Did the member say “passionate”?

Mr. Taylor: -- fair minded --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s how I got this job.

Mr. Taylor: -- and we look at this as a step forward but not the ultimate. I think concern is expressed in connection with the present legislation because of a couple of matters. It has been said that the legislation does not go far enough. I think, in terms of the workman who has been totally disabled, that he is very fairly taken care of. But the problem arises in connection with the workman who is partially disabled.

Mr. Martel: Right on.

Mr. Taylor: Our history really, in terms of the civilization of law, has been to put a price tag on an eye, an ear, an arm and a leg, and all parts of the body, so that really you dissect a human being and you put a dollar value on each of the parts; and then you put them together again and you have a price tag on a person. I think that approach is wrong.

The reason I say that, is that a person is surely more than the composite parts, and when you try to compensate someone on those terms, then of course you lose the whole purpose of the legislation, which in my estimation is to compensate someone adequately for his loss in not being able to make the type of living he was making previously.

There is often a very traumatic experience suffered by a workman as a result of an accident. There is a psychological impact that cannot be measured in terms of dollars and in laboratory terms. I know there are cases that are difficult to judge, because there are persons who probably feign types of injuries where they don’t exist; but I don’t think we should be unmindful of the bulk of the cases where a person is so affected psychologically by an accident in losing an arm or a leg or some other faculty, whereby that has a decided impact on his capabilities -- not only physically but mentally -- and his ability to make a decent living.

So here we are dealing really with the philosophy of the legislation, and it may be that while we have the finest legislation of any jurisdiction, nevertheless we should take a look at the approach or the philosophy of compensating a workman rather than in terms of trying to put a dollar value on each of the parts of his person.

Mr. Speaker, that is something that concerns me. I do hope the minister will take a look at the thrust of the legislation as it exists now and how it might be amended in the future to take care of that type of situation. Take a look at that approach. A person who might be compensated in terms of a loss of 20 per cent disability, really when you take into consideration the other aspects of the situation, including the psychological impact, he may be capable of earning only half as much money as he was, but is being compensated in terms of a 20 per cent disability.

That is a different approach. I would ask the minister, in future consideration of the legislation, to take that into consideration; and it may be that as time goes on the legislation can be further modernized and in my opinion tailored to suit --

Mr. Young: Tailored?

Mr. Martel: Is he punning?

Mr. B. Newman: “Jim Taylored?”

Mr. Taylor: -- the realities of our current economic and social conditions. Thank you.

Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): He stole the member for Sudbury East’s thunder; I am sorry.

Mr. Martel: Well, I gave him the thunder and I appreciate that he took the opportunity to use it. I am in agreement with him.

Mr. R. D. Rowe (Northumberland): Well then, forget it and sit down.

Mr. Martel: Well, there is more to be said.

Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t in the Legislature last Friday. I was driving along and I heard the statement to the press as to what the changes in the legislation were going to be, and I thought my goodness, that sounded great. I came back to Queen’s Park and got a copy of the minister’s statement before I read the bill, and it looked great. And then I looked at the bill. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

It does nothing, absolutely nothing, for the real flaw in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and that relates to those groups of men who are only partially disabled.

If a man is totally disabled -- if he’s on permanent total disability or if he’s on temporary total disability -- he can survive; he can get by. But those men who demonstrated out here last week, or the week before, and the people that are having the problems, are not considered totally disabled, either permanently or temporarily. And the bill by-passes them totally.

I’m going to come to the clause which is so carefully worded and which worries me most about the entire bill. But again, I make the original point: The bill can’t stand to be scrutinized. It’s a skeleton compared to the statement that was carefully prepared by the Workmen’s Compensation Board people or the minister’s staff themselves.

There’s a basic raise of $10. Well hell, what do you do with $10 today, when you’re already earning insufficient or drawing insufficient pay to meet today’s cost of living? The government might as well have kept it; Scrooge couldn’t have been so miserable. The generosity of this government is overwhelming, really it is.

Then we move on and we find included in the bill this section 41 which clarifies the amount to be paid; but again, doesn’t help the partially disabled. It fails in a couple of ways.

For example, if you take a worker who’s returning to work -- and this is under section 41(1)(a) -- if the man returns to some type of work different than the work he was injured doing, he, in all probability, will have a lesser remuneration.

Let me give you an example: If a man, before he got injured was earning $4.50 an hour, and he returned to work and he was getting $4 an hour, the board, in fact, would pay him a differential of 75 per cent, or 37 1/2 cents an hour. But as his contract works its way through and the raises of the new contractual arrangements come into effect, his regular work might go to $4.75 an hour.

The light duty job he returned to do, and you don’t call it that, but the other job in fact would go maybe to $4.25. The only difference paid to him is on the 25 cents an hour. You don’t give him his new rating, had he stayed in the original job; you give him the old rating at the time he was injured. So he gets 75 per cent of 25 cents, which reduces his ultimate take home pay.

Eventually he reaches that point with the new job which was equivalent to the job he left at the time he was injured -- and let us say there is still 50 cents an hour difference -- so he gets nothing as a result of that disability to offset his wage loss.

He ultimately will have at least, just on those figures alone, $1,000 a year less take-home pay. That might not mean much to the minister or the cabinet, but it does to him and his family. He might be lucky and get a small pension, you know $35 or $40 a month, but it will not offset his losses. That hasn’t changed really, except that the bill has clarified the position.

There are those who handle a good many compensation cases. Through my office every week I handle at least five. The next section really bothers me.

The minister in his statement said, there will be no more classification of light duty. That’s all well and good and we’ll see the man getting 100 per cent supposedly. That bothers me. Listen to the wording. It says “fails to co-operate.” What do you mean by “fails to co-operate”?

Let me give you an example of a man who has a functional overlay as a result of a back injury and who feels that he is totally disabled -- in his own mind he is convinced he is. A man who at one time was the highest bonused worker at Falconbridge suffer- ed a back injury. He ultimately got 16 per cent disability from the Compensation Board. In fact, when he fell down he could no longer get up by himself. He ended up with a $69-a-month pension.

It is going to be very easy to classify him as not being co-operative because to him the fact he couldn’t get up off the floor was very real. In physical terms it was not. The board classified him as 16 per cent disabled. If the man is only 16 per cent disabled and says he can’t go back to work, they are going to classify him as unco-operative. What does he do then?

Mr. B. Newman: They are doing it to him now.

Mr. Martel: They are doing it to him now. He is unco-operative and doesn’t want to try. What do you do with the functional overlay? Are you going to treat every man who has a functional overlay for the functional overlay?

Try doing it with the board presently. Try to get psychiatric help for a worker. It is almost an impossibility, because they say it is unrelated to the industrial accident. Sometimes you can prove it; most frequently you can’t. He is an unco-operative man in the board’s terms. He will be taken from 100 per cent temporary total disability, as I understand this piece of legislation, under clause 2 to a permanent rating. In other words, he’ll drop from 100 per cent to a pension of $50, $60, $70 or $80 a month.

My friend from Prince Edward-Lennox was right, because the whole concept of compensation is wrong. You don’t judge it on the amount of physical disability that’s there.

I am going to have to give the minister a few more examples in a moment and ask him to respond. What do you do with the man who has silicosis and who can’t be put back into an area of exposure? What do you do with a man who has an industrial deafness claim? You can’t retrain him, particularly if he has limited education.

What is the minister going to classify him as under this 41(1)(b), “fails to co-operate in or is not available for a medical or vocational rehabilitation programme”? Fails to co-operate! What type of medical programme is the minister talking about for a man who is industrially deaf? What type of vocational programme is he talking about for a man who is industrially deaf or has silicosis?

The minister will move that man from 100 per cent temporary total disability, to a final pension of $50, $60 or $70 a month and dump him in the garbage can, as the government has been doing for years and this legislation doesn’t change that one single iota.

Or we can go down to clause 2 and it says “fails to accept or is not available for employment.” Let’s say the board decide they have a light duty job for a man in Toronto and he lives in Sudbury; and that would become a gimmick. I’m convinced. People under the gallery shake their heads.

I suspect it will become a gimmick because we all know that a man cannot leave the Sudbury area and come to Toronto today. The board knows that full well, because he couldn’t even afford a house on the type of modified work that he will be forced to take. But it will be convenient to say: “Well, the man doesn’t want to go from Sudbury to Timmins to North Bay.” So these clauses in 41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) contain all the potential for taking every man off a 100 per cent temporary disability allowance at any opportunity or any time the occasion merits.

The government can simply move in and say: “This man has a functional overlay, he’s not very co-operative, we’ll take him off,” and he is moved from the 100 per cent.

I sometimes think what this minister is doing is destroying what the former Minister of Labour had succeeded in doing, and that was getting six additional weeks, and I understand he wanted to move it to 12 additional weeks, at 100 per cent.

It all looks very good, Mr. Speaker, but that section smells. It has all of the mechanism needed to take every single, solitary, temporary, partially disabled man and classify him as any category to which the minister wants to reduce it. I don’t know who thought up that wording, but I read it last night and I read it the day before and I’ve reread it and reread it.

An hon. member: The Provincial Secretary for Social Development thought it up.

Mr. Martel: What it does is continue the philosophy in the board that this government has adopted that you can segment a man into pieces, as is now done; really, the government chops him up. It doesn’t look at his ability to earn being destroyed.

I want to know what the government asks a grade 6 miner, a man with grade 6 education, 45 years old, of ethnic background, when it says he’s 30 per cent disabled because it says his arms are great and he’s got two eyes and two ears and he can see, but it doesn’t look at the fact that he is disabled from earning a living.

Those of us who have been fortunate enough to get an education could suffer that kind of a disability -- 20 or 30 per cent with a back injury -- and still earn a living. To many workmen in the province an injured back means finis, done; his ability to earn is destroyed. And that’s the fundamental problem with the legislation.

I could go to my files now and bring down five, 10 cases in which men have been granted Canada Pensions, which state categorically from the physician down, from the specialist down, that the man is totally disabled.

I have written the Premier (Mr. Davis), too. in the last week. When they say a man is totally disabled he gets a Canada Pension. From the Workmen’s Compensation Board he is getting 20 per cent. What in God’s name gives, when all of the specialists who treat these men say they are totally disabled? Canada Pension grants them a disability pension and the Workmen’s Compensation Board, using its sick formula of deduction -- he’s got two good eyes and therefore he is not 100 per cent disabled -- grants him 20 or 25 per cent.

There is something that stinks in the state of Denmark. We have to look at people as people when their ability to earn is destroyed and we won’t. What is even more frustrating is the nonsense of this government. It went off to Ottawa last year -- the Treasurer and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) and they implored the federal government to put an escalator clause in the Canada Pension.

I’ve read the papers and in every instance when this government is responsible for pensions it will not include an escalator clause. When we talked about GAINS the other night, the Treasurer said. “We will review it.” We talk about this, the compensation, and the Minister of Labour says: “We will review it.” But in Ottawa, playing politics, this government presents a series of papers on an escalator clause in the Canada Pension, and by God the federal government put it in. But not this government. How can it play such games with the people most afflicted in our society?

Mrs. Campbell: When is it going to stop playing, that’s the point?

Mr. Martel: We are talking about human lives. We are talking about families which are being destroyed. I would suspect if we ever looked into those 900 cases -- 936 cases, I think, is the exact number -- of people who are on family benefit pensions who are there as a result of industrial accidents -- can the minister tell me what the taxpayer of Ontario is doing paying family benefit pensions, through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, for people who are injured on the job?

Mr. Young: It takes the burden off the industries.

Mr. Martel: Poor old industry. We can’t burden them too much, can we?

An hon. member: They don’t have any money.

Mr. Bounsall: Public charge, charge on the public.

Mr. Martel: They don’t have any money. The minister should ask the Compensation Board staff to study what is happening in the families which are on that 20, 30 or 40 per cent disability pension, to find out what is happening to the total family. I can show the minister family after family which has broken up because of it.

There is inadequate income, there is pain, there is suffering and all of the problems that go with it and the government continues to ignore it in totality. This bill doesn’t deal with it. This bill is a farce. It doesn’t include an escalator clause, although, piously, the Treasurer went to Ottawa and asked for it in the Canada Pension. This minister won’t introduce it. It doesn’t increase the benefits to the partially disabled.

I want the minister to tell us, when he rises in his place to respond, precisely how many men in this province are receiving 100 per cent permanent disability pensions. Because that is going to indicate exactly how many people are affected by this bill, really. It’s going to be a handful. The overwhelming majority of men and women who are on any range of pensions under the 100 per cent, will be fortunate if they get $10, plus that rather inadequate amount of increase that the minister brags about, 60 per cent -- that my friend, the member for Windsor West, did such a magnificent job in documenting. The minister is giving 60 per cent, when in the same period of time the cost of living increased 180 per cent. In the same period, from 1945 to the present, the cost of living went up 180 per cent. And the minister is going to give 60 per cent of their pension. And that’s maximum, providing you were injured in 1945.

When we look at it in terms of wages and what those people would have earned, the minister is giving 60 per cent when industrial wages and salaries went up 420 per cent. The minister has certainly kept that in tune with this pile of garbage he calls a bill.

The interesting part is that he influenced the press. Like the most of us, they just read his statement. The minister has got his colleagues hoodwinked. They won’t even look at the bill, they think it’s so good. They think it’s so good they are not going to bother reading it. The minister told them it was good. And there isn’t one that has the intestinal fortitude to scrutinize the bill and see what it really means; who would get up and say that a 60 per cent increase since 1945, when the increased cost of living is 180 per cent, is not enough. There isn’t one who has the guts to stand up and be counted, who would say that they should have a 180 per cent increase as well. But they won’t. They will sit around and the minister will salve his conscience, or he won’t come in and listen.

I want to know from the minister what is going to happen to the industrial worker who has industrial silicosis, and he can’t go somewhere else. I want to know what is going to happen to the industrially deaf? There were 138 cases in Sudbury last year, 80 of which have been established, 40 more pending, and only 18 rejected -- and many hundreds more to come.

Mr. Haggerty: They may buy a hearing aid.

Mr. Martel: What is going to happen to those people when they can’t be retrained, medically or vocationally? Is the minister going to reduce them from a maximum of 100 per cent down to a final pension? I suspect that’s what he is going to do. I want to know what he is going to do for men with a functional overlay? Is he going to treat each and every man who has a functional overlay, and then attempt to rehabilitate them? The minister is not doing that now.

These things have to be answered. Because the group that most desperately needs help in this province is the partially disabled. The minister hasn’t looked at it, except to say: “We’re removing light duty.” Well, that doesn’t do anything for anyone, unless there are guarantees in the language; and the language in that section scares the hell out of me.

Mr. Laughren: Is the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) the minister’s parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Martel: Finally it is interesting, that the minister has a clause in there -- and I’m not sure if my colleague alluded to it -- where he will not give those who have been paid off, without choice, the benefit of the 60 per cent escalation.

In other words, what you are going to do, as I understand the bill, is that anyone who was given a commutation for any reason -- whether because it was under a certain percentage which the board automatically pays off or if the worker asks for it -- those workers will lose that escalation pay, bad as it is; and that will involve thousands of workers.

The minister does everything to chisel the worker on behalf of his industrial friends, doesn’t he? The government doesn’t care how badly it socks it to the workers, it has got to protect that one-tenth of one per cent. They don’t want that to go too high.

Heaven forbid, one only had to read the Globe and Mail last Friday and see that the manufacturing sector’s increase in profit in the first three months of this year was 45 per cent. Then when we discussed the GAINS bill the other night, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) put on the record that we gave back, in tax concessions and so on for last year, something like $73 million I guess it was.

One can’t affect one’s friends too much can one? When weighing it in terms of affecting their financial friends or in human suffering, this government opts for suffering and destitution every time.

Mr. Laughren: Shame!

Mr. Martel: I’m always impressed by the religiousness of the men over on that side of the House, always impressed; but in human terms it doesn’t translate itself.

Mr. Laughren: Is the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Downer) listening?

Mr. Martel: It doesn’t translate itself. They don’t even have the guts to get up and oppose a hunk of garbage like this. So they delete 50,000, 60,000 or 100,000 men, I suppose, from getting any adjustment.

That’s a neat way of doing it, isn’t it? Simply to write them off and say that if they have received a commutation in the last 25 years, really they are not entitled to any of that 60 per cent increase. That is a neat manoeuvre, and that members opposite could support that bothers me, that you people could support that.

This is not charity you know, it is their entitlement. As bad as it is, they were entitled to that amount of money, and this is no charitable institution we are talking about; those men were injured on the job. They are entitled to that pension, as bad as it is, but if they were given a commutation under the legislation, this government won’t even pay them that, and members opposite will rise in their places to support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sick bill. It doesn’t stand any scrutiny and it really doesn’t benefit those who most desperately need it. Those with any percentage of disability are ignored unless they are 100 per cent disabled, and this government, in its Scrooge-like manner, over and over again when it comes to the most deprived group -- we saw it in GAINS the other night -- this government will manipulate, will ignore and will allow the suffering to continue. We are going to oppose this bill, and we are going to be here a long time doing so.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the normal adjournment time on Friday is 1 o’clock. There has been general agreement that we sit beyond, but the House leader’s original motion does not account for such a situation. So I move, seconded by Mr. Laughren, that the House sit beyond the normal adjournment hour of 1 p.m., but that we sit not beyond 6 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: First of all I must say that sort of motion may not be made, in my opinion, by anyone other than the House leader.

Mr. Martel: Where is the House leader? Oh, here he comes.

Mr. Speaker: In fact I believe that the motion did provide for sitting beyond the normal hours. I haven’t the motion before me, but I believe it did --

Mr. Foulds: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Speaker: While I am on my feet will the member please be seated?

I believe that the original motion provided that the House, commencing immediately, would sit at 10 a.m. until 10:30 p.m. Now it did not distinguish between Friday or Monday, or Tuesday or any day. I believe it did indicate 10:30 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let’s not fool around. Let’s get this straightened out.

Mr. Foulds: The motion was that the House will sit at 10 a.m. and may sit beyond the normal adjournment hour of 10:30 p.m., but the standing orders which outline the normal sitting hours, say -- this is rule 2(d):

“When the House adjourns on Friday at 1 o’clock, p.m., it shall stand adjourned, unless otherwise ordered, until the following Monday.”

Rule 3 says:

“If at 6 o’clock, p.m., on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday” [it’s quite specific] “the business of the day is not concluded, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o’clock, p.m., and the House will continue until 10:30 o’clock, p.m., unless otherwise ordered: by government motion.”

There is nothing in Mr. Winkler’s motion that takes Friday into account.

As I have said, there is general agreement to sit beyond 1 o’clock. I think, however, we should attend to the technicalities and rules of the House and have a motion that we do sit beyond 1 p.m. today.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member probably is right. The motion, as I now recall it, did say that we would sit beyond the normal adjournment hour of 10:30 p.m., which, of course, does not include Friday, because we don’t sit until 10:30 p.m. on a Friday.

Mr. Laughren: The House leader should do his job.

Mr. Speaker: This can be done by government motion or it can be done by unanimous consent of the House. Do I have the unanimous consent of the House to sit beyond the normal hour of 1 p.m.?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I regret that the issue has been raised. The hon. member himself said he thinks there is general agreement. There is.

An hon. member: There is.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If he would speak to his House leader, I think he will agree that the motion is not necessary.

Mr. Roy: He agrees. No use fighting it. We all agree.

Mr. Speaker: Then I do have unanimous consent for the House to sit beyond the hour of 1 p.m.?

Mr. Foulds: Of course you do.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make some comments concerning Bill 116 and to point out the reasons for my objections to the bill, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

First, I would like to commend the member for Prince Edward-Lennox on his very compassionate and concerned comments during the debate. I think he really spoke from the heart. I only hope that his comments in the House can touch his fellow members in exactly the same way that I think they should touch them. I hope the minister paid particular attention to what the member said and that he speaks and brings in amendments to this legislation that will overcome a lot of the problems that have been presented to him this morning and that will be presented as the debate carries on.

Mr. Speaker, on the bill we are debating, we had an opportunity on Nov. 5 to express our feelings concerning the Workmen’s Compensation Board. At that time, I spoke for approximately 10 minutes, pointing out some of the things that I thought should have been taken into consideration by the ministry and by the board in an attempt to improve any legislation that they anticipated introducing.

Now that the minister has introduced Bill 116, I can say to him how very disappointed I am to see that he has not taken into consideration the facts of life, the realities of life, as to exactly how those who are on workmen’s compensation and are receiving partial permanent disability benefits are being treated.

Many of the speakers prior to me did mention that the cost of living in the past 10 or 12 years, I believe has gone up by some 180 per cent, yet the benefits that are going to the injured worker are up by only 60 per cent. Mr. Speaker, this is a real shame. These people have to live in exactly the same society and under the same conditions as we, Mr. Speaker, and surely we have an obligation to provide to them something at least above the poverty line. The benefits that are being provided to many of them, certainly are completely unsatisfactory.

They are not the working poor. They are just the poor. The benefits provided don’t even put them in the category of the working poor and their disability precludes many of them from taking any type of employment.

Mr. Speaker, I made mention back on Nov. 5 of a Peter Sparabola who fought for some 30 years with the Workmen’s Compensation Board before they recognized that he was right and the board was wrong. They eventually did give him back payments to the total of $14,000. But, Mr. Speaker, what is $14,000 today to Peter Sparabola, who has the greatest difficulty getting out of bed, who still calls me at least once a week, and who still keeps talking of suicide simply because of the intense pain that he is going through because of a low back injury at the Ford Motor Co. in the 1940s.

Mr. Speaker, had we taken care of Mr. Sparabola back in the earlier days, something possibly could have been done for him. In the meantime, he went through hell from the day of his injury up to today.

Think of the effect that has had on his good wife. I don’t like to mention this, Mr. Speaker, but his wife passed away within the last year simply because of having to take care of Mr. Sparabola, in addition to having to go through the suffering and the anxiety of seeing her husband going through such pain and the Workmen’s Compensation Board in their wisdom at times were saying, well, the man really wasn’t interested in work.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. “He should be doing light work.”

Mr. B. Newman: “He should be doing light work. He’s gold bricking. He is taking advantage of society.”

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, if any of us were in Peter Sparabola’s position we wouldn’t have done what some of the Workmen’s Compensation Board victims did. We would have been by far more active and more militant than many of them were. We have seen the Workmen’s Compensation Board victims come into this Legislature and out on the steps of the building pleading with government to take care of them; but no, they get only a deaf ear.

I thought, Mr. Speaker, that with the appointment of Mr. Starr things would change. I really think they have changed. They haven’t changed fast enough, but they have changed.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, back in the same old rut.

Mr. B. Newman: But I think what has happened is Mr. Starr --

Mr. Foulds: Same old bureaucracy.

Mr. B. Newman: -- is being hamstrung by this government. I think he is a concerned man. I think his background indicates it, but this government refuses, in my estimation, to consider probably many of the recommendations and suggestions that he may have put forth during his short term as the chair- man of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker, it is only fair that any benefits given to an individual should be indexed to the cost of living; not only should they be indexed, but in the first instance we should have brought that fellow’s base pay on which we base the compensation up to the going pay today. That fellow has to pay exactly the same amount of money for a bottle of milk or for a loaf of bread as do we.

Some of these people were injured in the days in which $1 an hour was a lot of money but in today’s economy $2 an hour is almost poverty, Mr. Speaker. And for some, for example, a married couple with a family, it certainly is not satisfactory and it certainly is poverty.

Mr. Speaker, I could make mention of a fellow by the name of Frank Cohinski who has gone through a battle with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Mr. Cohinski every day, twice a day, has to place his head in a sling and slowly bend his knees so that he can stretch his neck to relieve himself of some of the pain as a result of an injury.

I could talk of Kristo Gacinin whose disability has been cut from 100 per cent to 50 per cent. In my discussion with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Gacinin doesn’t want to work. If one were to see Kristo he certainly wouldn’t say that. One would see Kristo and would say he is in perfect condition, but turn around and look at Kristo and he is writhing in intense pain. Yet the Workmen’s Compensation Board says he can work. Were we in Kristo’s position we would talk differently.

It is easy for someone to come along in the board or the doctors to assess an individual by seeing him at one given time, but to have the injury that the man has that doesn’t necessarily make itself known or visibly show itself at any given time is a different story. Yet the board doesn’t take that into consideration.

I could also make mention of Bill Pearl who in his appeal with the board had his appeal turned down simply because they would not accept the fact that his back injury may have been caused by him lifting a bag of potatoes and falling back. They claimed it was simply a tumour in the back. That injury, that lifting of the bag of potatoes, may have activated the tumour. As a result, Bill Pearl receives nothing.

Too often I hear, Mr. Speaker, that the individual who does have the temporary disability doesn’t want to work. I don’t accept that at all -- no way. None of us here does not want to work. We all want to be gainfully employed. We all want to make our contribution to the betterment of society as well as to take care of our own families.

Mr. Speaker, basing the pension, as I had made mention, on earnings back some 10 or 20 years ago is completely unrealistic. In the first instance, we should bring that base pay to what the individual is earning today or would be earning today if he were employed, and then the pensions should be based on 75 per cent of that.

There is the problem that the individual does return to work, but he can no longer get the type of employment that he had before. For example, Mr. Speaker, if you operated a plant and you had a choice of taking a young, bright high school student or a college student or a college graduate or of taking an individual who has had a claim against Workmen’s Compensation; knowing that, who would you take on? You certainly wouldn’t take the fellow who has gone through a Workmen’s Compensation claim procedure. You know that he has had some type of injury. You are afraid that he may reinjure himself on the job and as a result the employer’s assessment will increase. You can see that the fellow, especially once he has low back claim with the board, is sort of ostracized too often when it comes to getting gainful employment; and especially when it comes to getting employment at least on the wage scale that he received before his injury.

I also maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the pension benefits should be based on a going rate -- that is, the rate paid in the industry generally rather than in the small plant. A fellow who works for one of the big three, Ford, Chrysler or General Motors, because of the union activity, receives a fairly good wage. But the fellow who has to work in one of the service industries or in one of the parts plants that do not pay the same rate of earnings per hour is disadvantaged. He is penalized. If he suffers the same injury as the other individual, his pension is substantially lower.

Why should it be lower? Why should it be based solely on his earnings in the given plant? Why shouldn’t that be industry-wide instead?

I know you will say: “Well, we’re going to have to assess the smaller plants substantially more.” No. Assess the larger plant more, or assess according to the profit and loss figure, using that as part of a guide, not as a complete guide.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have before us now is really punishing those who can least afford to be punished. We punish the weak, those who cannot unionize themselves to any extent, those who have no clout when it comes to attempting to receive increased benefits from the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Earlier this year I did make mention of the Canada Pension Act and the way Workmen’s Compensation should carry on payments for an individual who is on compensation so that, when and if he can no longer work, at least he would be entitled to his maximum Canada Pension benefits.

But if he is on workmen’s compensation, Mr. Speaker, it’s a completely different story. He no longer has 10 maximum earning years. He may only have six or seven. He may not have any, depending on his age. I think the Workmen’s Compensation Board should make some arrangement with the federal government so that it can carry on the Canada Pension payments to keep that fellow’s plan active.

The individual who works for the smaller plant doesn’t have all of the fringe benefits of one who works for the bigger industry. As a result, he can really be adversely affected. Especially today, where we have a “30 and out” pension scheme in the big three. Ford, Chrysler and General Motors -- and I think there is one other industry -- today will give the individual who has worked for the company for 30 years a pension based on his earnings, on his number of years service.

The fact that an individual working for a smaller plant doesn’t have that benefit means that the minister has to compensate for that after some fashion. Likewise, if the individual who is working for the big plant is injured on the job and can’t get the maximum benefits under the “30 and out” or “35 and out” scheme, the ministry or the Workmen’s Compensation Board should carry the fellow in that scheme so that he can retire with maximum benefits.

The member from the Sudbury area --

An hon. member: Sudbury East.

Mr. B. Newman: Sudbury East; did mention the effects on those who have had their pensions commuted in the past. I think he does make a really good point. I think the minister should give serious consideration to those who have accepted their pension benefits by way of commutation and make some type of cash settlement so that they would not be taken advantage of.

Mr. Speaker, I could make a few extra comments concerning the legislation, but rather than take up too much time of the House I would sincerely ask the minister to reconsider the legislation, bring in amendments that can overcome a lot of the problems that have been mentioned and which will be mentioned as the debates carry on. Step into the 20th century. Be a little more compassionate. Let him think of his fellow man --

Mr. Laughren: It’d be a giant step.

Mr. B. Newman: -- and allow that individual who is on workmen’s compensation today, who is living either at the poverty level or below the poverty level, to be brought up so that he can enjoy the fruits of our society. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suppose that even though this debate is really just getting under way the minister already has the message that the opposition parties find his amendment totally inadequate.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am sure he has that message.

Mr. Laughren: I am sure he has already had messages from the Injured Workmen’s Consultants and from the Union of Injured Workmen that they find it totally unacceptable. This makes you wonder who finds it acceptable, other than the minister himself. The Provincial Secretary for Social Development probably finds it too generous, and perhaps the employers in the Province of Ontario; and, I suppose the member for Timiskaming.

Most of us who deal with workmen’s compensation problems on a regular basis -- and I suppose there is no one who spends as much time dealing with the problems of injured workmen as the members from the Sudbury area. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we spend an inordinate amount of our time dealing with the problems of injured workmen, since the Sudbury area is a highly industrialized community.

We accept the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment is an improvement to the existing legislation, but of course the existing legislation was simply intolerable. It was grossly inadequate.

I suppose that the minister expected us to be grateful when improvements were made in the existing legislation. When the minister’s initial statement was read in the Legislature there was some desk-thumping on this side of the House, but I can assure you that was only because the statement was misleading, as was pointed out by my colleague from Windsor West.

And then, just the other night -- I believe it was Tuesday night -- the debate on the GAINS Act indicated just how ridiculous are the social priorities in the Province of Ontario, as the difference between the amount of disability pension that would accrue to someone who was disabled as a result of an injury on the job and someone who is just plain disabled, for whatever reason, was pointed out. It makes no sense whatsoever that someone who is totally disabled would receive $500 a year less because of how he came to be disabled.

One of the inadequacies of a compensation plan for injured workers is the limitations of that compensation plan. For example, restricting compensation strictly to men who are injured on the job just does not make sense. Surely getting to work and going home from work is a necessary appendage to that job and yet there is no coverage for those people except through the private sector.

Work on the job involves only 40 hours out of about 168 hours in the week, so it doesn’t make sense to cover men, who have to go to and from work, only while they are at work.

Some people say why not have door-to-door coverage under the Workmen’s Compensation Act whereby one would be covered under the Act from the time one left home to the time one got back. But that doesn’t make any sense either, because what happens if one gets injured just as one is about to leave or just as one gets home? What difference does that make?

It doesn’t make sense to restrict the coverage of injured people in any jurisdiction. I would take issue with those people who would argue strictly for a Workmen’s Compensation Act or for door-to-door coverage under the same kind of legislation. The issue, Mr. Speaker, to which this government should be addressing itself is not just to make improvements in the existing legislation but rather to address itself to three key issues when we talk about injuries to people.

One is accident prevention. That surely should take top priority. Second is compensation for those people who do sustain injuries; and third is rehabilitation for those people who sustain injuries. The present system does not concentrate on that. The present system is plainly and simply an adversary system; and I have heard the Workmen’s Compensation Board hearings, I have been at them.

I have had them say to me: “This is not an adversary situation. Ask the workman to relax,” and so forth. Of course trying to make the workman feel relaxed, that is fine; but it doesn’t hide the fact that it truly is an adversary system.

It is up to the injured workman to prove that the injury occurred on the job; to indicate that the injury is related to his job and arose out of the fact that he was employed and doing his job. We can’t escape the fact that the present system is an adversary one.

I would like to quote from the 1969 report of the Woodhouse commission in New Zealand and what it had to say about that:

“Financial rehabilitation is provided by adequate compensation as a stimulus rather than a deterrent to speedy recovery. Prompt and regular payment of compensation during the period of incapacity is important in the rehabilitation process.

“Doubts and fears, unconsciously fostered by an adversary system, should be prevented if at all possible. The patient should not be allowed to be unduly disturbed about financial hardship during the course of his total disability or to have fears and forebodings for the future. Such fears accentuate the stress reaction so ably described by Dr. Selye, prolonging disability and driving reputable citizens to the only refuge they knew, litigation.

“Knowledgeable rehabilitation officers attached to the staff of the administrative authority can dispel the doubts and fears of the injured workman at an early stage of treatment. They can point out to him his rights and responsibilities under the Act and influence positive thinking about rehabilitation and employment possibilities.”

Mr. Speaker, that was a quote from the Woodhouse commission in New Zealand, but the man who said that was reporting to the commission and the man was Dr. E. C. Steele, who was at that time a commissioner on the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Board. Dr. Steele understood what is meant by an adversary system and what it can do to the injured workman.

The solution, Mr. Speaker, which was referred to by my colleague from Windsor West, is a comprehensive social insurance scheme. I would like to indicate to you exactly what I see the purpose of such a social insurance scheme to be:

To promote the rehabilitation of earners who suffer personal injury by accident, wherever that accident might occur; to promote the rehabilitation of anyone who suffers personal injury by a motor vehicle accident, so as to seek to restore all such earners and persons to the fullest physical, mental, social, vocational and economic usefulness of which they are capable; and, further, to make provision for the compensation of earners who suffer personal injury by accident and to every person who suffers personal injury by a motor vehicle accident and certain dependents of those earners and persons whose death results from the injury.

Those are the purposes of what a truly comprehensive social insurance scheme could be. Mr. Speaker, there is such a system. This is not something which is dredged out of my mind or the policies of the New Democratic Party. There is such a system as this in New Zealand at the present time and a 1973 report to the Saskatchewan government recommended that such a scheme be implemented in Saskatchewan as well. It has not been implemented, but I would hope with a New Democratic Party government in that province we will see the day when there will be a comprehensive scheme in Saskatchewan as well.

Put simply, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about a plan to compensate and rehabilitate every injured person irrespective of fault or where the accident occurs. Such a plan deserves the top priority of this government. I would suggest there are a number of basic principles to which such a plan would attach itself, and the first one I see as being something called community responsibility.

I would like to read briefly what community responsibility would mean in terms of a comprehensive social insurance programme.

“Just as a modem society benefits from the productive work of its citizens so should society accept responsibility for those willing to work but prevented from doing so by physical incapacity. And since we all persist in following community activities which year by year exact a predictable price in bodily injury, so should we all share in sustaining those who become the random but statistically necessary victims. The inherent costs of these community purposes should be borne as a basis of equity by the community.”

That’s the end of a quote from the Woodhouse commission report in New Zealand. What it is really saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is necessary for people to carry on their activities in a community -- whether it is going to work or from work or at work or in normal activities around the home or driving on the highway -- and that surely if by some accident, some quirk of fate, those people get injured they should not be punished. Yet we have not accepted that responsibility in the Province of Ontario. As a matter of fact, we haven’t accepted that responsibility anyplace in this country. But I am hopeful that will change.

I think a second crucial principle is the obligation of society to prevent accidents. Surely there is no better way to prevent accidents than to have a central body, such as a comprehensive social insurance scheme, that could assemble the statistics that it would have available to it as a result of having control over all compensation for people who are injured. It would know what was causing the accidents; it would know how better to prevent them; it would have a major role in all safety programmes, not just on the highway, not just on the job, not just around the home, but in everything that was related to safety. And that could be done much better, rather than with the kind of balkanized approach there is now to safety.

Another crucial principle is the whole question of rehabilitation. That is a critical one, because when I talk about rehabilitation I’m talking about not just getting the man back to his previous job or getting him back to cope.

Another problem, Mr. Speaker, is that people say that when you have a comprehensive scheme like that, how would you know when people were beating the system? I can tell the House that in a study that was done in the United States -- and this was a comment by an orthopaedic surgeon in the United States -- he had this to say about that problem:

“Most of the patients whom we used to call malingerers are not that at all. They are frightened individuals. They are afraid that they are never going to be able to hold down a good job again and hence are worrying about how they are going to support their families. To overcome this is a challenge to every doctor who has to deal with compensation injuries. Even our private patients experience a good deal of that same worry.”

That is a major part of the problem with injured workmen in the Province of Ontario. The uncertainty under which they live, given the antics of the existing compensation board in the Province of Ontario, is intolerable.

I could point out to the House families that have been broken up -- the member for Sudbury East talked about this and he’s quite right; I get enormous numbers of them as well. You have people with back injuries where it’s almost impossible to detect the seriousness of that injury by x-ray. They give them something called a myelogram, which can be as bad as the disease or whatever it is that is bothering them.

I have had couples in my riding, the man in tears and his wife beside him, saying they don’t understand how everything was fine until he had that blessed myelogram. Now he has no sex life, he can’t sleep at nights and he is in a state of perpetual inner turmoil.

That’s the kind of thing you get when you have an adversary system of compensation, because those men never know when their compensation is going to be cut. If it is a back injury in particular there is no way that the doctors can measure it either. Although they have some pretty sophisticated methods of trying, they just cannot detect it in every case.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we must eventually move toward this kind of system. This is what I don’t understand about the Conservative Party of Ontario. The Conservative Party, at least ideologically, has always been associated with free enterprise and the idea that people should strive on their own and individual effort is to be rewarded; yet here we have workers who have put in a lifetime of work, and when they get injured they are punished. It is not even as though the government kept their income at the same level. We punish them. We punish them in their income levels, we punish them in the status they hold in the community and we punish them in what it does to their families.

I have seen men’s egos destroyed by the fact that the Workmen’s Compensation Board would not provide them a level of benefits which would allow them even to make payments on their house. It sent them to the welfare rolls; and given the attitude of the welfare offices in this province, you know what that does to a man’s ego and his sense of dignity. You leave him none under the present system.

What has to be done is that when a workman is injured he must be seen to be receiving, not assistance, but insurance. At the present time he has to fight for it instead of it being viewed as a right of his.

What is so unacceptable is that despite the fact that this government trumpets the cause of individual effort and free enterprise, when someone contributes to that, it stomps all over him.

I think that is a disgrace. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is no aspect of government in the Province of Ontario that angers me as much as the administration of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I am not going to get into personalities, at least not to any great degree, but there has been not a single iota or a single bit of change since the present chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board replaced Mr. Legge, or shall I refer to him as Col. Legge? There has been no change. They are acting under the same legislation as they ever were; and that will not change with this government apparently.

I suppose the government would pretend at least to be concerned about efficiency. One hears Conservative backbenchers sometimes say: “Oh, yes, you would have a great big social insurance scheme and it would be so inefficient.” I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker, a government-operated social insurance scheme would be more efficient. I am sure the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that of the total costs of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, including benefits paid of course, administrative costs are about 10 per cent. According to figures from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, from 1960 to 1965 the administration costs ranged from 7.8 per cent down to 6.5 per cent in 1965. Compare that to the private sector and see what percentage of the total costs of the private insurance companies are paid out in benefits to workmen. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Board, 89.9 per cent of the total costs of the board were paid out to injured workmen in 1965.

I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that in the private sector probably closer to 40 per cent is administrative costs, which would include profits and commissions and so forth, as compared to the 6.5, or perhaps even up to 10 per cent at this point in time. I don’t know, but I would sure like to know from the minister just what percentage it is.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be most specific. What we must establish in the Province of Ontario is the principle of compensation to injured workmen in such a way that it is regarded as insurance, not assistance. We must establish the no-fault principle with regard to injuries. We must establish rehabilitation as being a major role for the Workmen’s Compensation Board in such a way that when a man is injured all the expertise available zeroes in on that injured workman and an attempt is made to provide him with not just a job, as I said, but perhaps even a better job.

Mr. Deans: Right.

Mr. Laughren: That is certainly not done now. What must be a corollary of the programme I suggested is the complete abolishment of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the removal of the private sector from insuring injured working people, except for supplementary benefits.

I have regrets for the private sector, Mr. Speaker. They have not served the injured people of this province well. They are neither consistent nor fair. I was reading out statistics on insurance companies. If you look at premiums for insurance companies, for the same coverage for the same individual they will vary as much as 77 per cent in the premiums. Now what kind of consistency is that? We can expect no better from insurance companies who are trying to compensate injured workmen who might have had a private insurance scheme.

A question I should comment briefly on, Mr. Speaker, is the whole matter of costing such a comprehensive social insurance scheme. They went through a lot of discussion and a lot of work in New Zealand over this problem, because there was concern that it would be a drain on the taxpayers of the country there -- and of course that just didn’t happen. I think the total cost of the scheme in New Zealand ended up something like $5 million or $6 million more, and that was mainly because of a separate levy on drivers’ licences to compensate for injuries on the road.

Under the scheme that I’m suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, the employers would pay the kind of share they do now, only perhaps a little more in order to provide decent benefits. The self-employed would be levied as well.

I have a man in my riding right now who has been self-employed all his life. He works at bricklaying and he’s a handyman in a small community and he’s never needed any assistance at all. If he gets injured he’s not covered, and that’s just not fair. So the self-employed should be levied.

There should be a levy of drivers in the Province of Ontario as well. What I’m saying to you, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, is that what is required in the Province of Ontario is a universal, fully-integrated programme; a comprehensive social insurance programme.

I’d like to indicate to you, in closing, exactly what such a comprehensive insurance programme would provide for:

1. Immediate compensation to every injured person, irrespective of fault or where the accident occurred -- on the highway, at work, on public or private property.

2. The scheme to be financed by the whole community, from a levy of employers based on salaries and wages paid, from a levy on operators of motor vehicles and, as appropriate from universal premiums and/or general revenues.

3. Injured persons to receive compensation both for permanent physical disability and for income losses on an income-related basis, with regular adjustments in the level of payments to allow for inflation.

4. Similar compensation to be paid to those who are incapacitated by illness.

5. The right of court action based on fault to be abolished.

6. The Workmen’s Compensation Act to be repealed and private carriers to be excluded in the field of accident and sickness coverage except for supplementary coverage.

7. Death benefits so as to ensure a continuing and adequate income for surviving dependents.

That, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, is the policy of the New Democratic Party in Ontario.

Mr. Deans: And that is a programme!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my leader has indicated the position of this party on this bill and the fact that it is totally unacceptable to us. Indeed, to me, I find it almost distasteful to be asked to debate seriously this bill, which in human terms is an obscenity. I regret very much that I should have to address these remarks to this particular minister, whom I have known and respected through a number of years, and I have to say that I feel that it cannot be that he has brought this forward of his volition, but rather that, perhaps as a new minister, he has been unable to effect change in the cabinet of this government.

Mr. Foulds: He has been conned as well.

Mrs. Campbell: Much has been said about the inadequacy of the payments indicated here; I am not going to dwell on that. But I am going to say that I cannot understand why this government continues to make policy statements which sound so very pleasing and so beguiling, only to see that the actual mechanics of the functioning under such bills are totally and utterly dissimilar to the statements which are publicly made.

The other evening I was heartsick in the GAINS debate to note that those would not receive GAINS were the ones who needed it most. Here, by the same perverse type of policy, we see the same thing in this bill.

I cannot understand a government which seems to operate without heart, without concern for people. I can’t understand that. They are caught up in fine buildings, in structures, in elitism, but they are not caught up in the needs of the people of this province.

Because of this perverse attitude, I have wondered whether I would be right in suggesting that the benefits should be increased to at least $300. I will tell you what would happen, Mr. Speaker. If we won that point under the formula, people would be put off until we found that the same funds would be used to pay fewer people more money. That is what frightens us when we try to put this sort of concern forward in this House.

I would like to look at section 41 of the Act, specifically section 41(1)(b)(ii). I would like to relate this to an experience I had with a client of mine a few years ago. This man was injured on a construction job. As a result of his injury, he had smashed both heels and both ankles; consequently, he underwent surgery to fuse the bones in his feet. I asked that he have rehabilitation -- and I have to say that I have never been successful in getting anybody rehabilitated through this board. They tell me that some do get some help; in fact, they challenged me to send down named cases to them for consideration for rehabilitation. I did. Not one of them was accepted for rehabilitation.

Mr. Laughren: They all should be.

Mrs. Campbell: However, this man then be- came one of those fit for light duties or, under the terms of this piece of legislation, if it can be so dignified, “available for employment which is available and which, in the opinion of the board, is suitable for his capabilities.” So I then insisted that if the board felt that there were jobs available for which he was suited that they give us some so that he could go and see. In its wisdom the board reacted. A member of the board called me and said: “We have a job available.” I sent the man to the job with the injury I have described. The man was on crutches. The work which was available and which this board thought was suitable for him was work in a quarry.

Mr. Haggerty: Light duty.

Mrs. Campbell: When he got there the man in charge couldn’t believe that the WCB thought this was the kind of work which he could do.

Now, with this kind of a cross, Mr. Speaker, and that kind of a philosophy, I agree with the member for Sudbury East that they will, indeed, cut people out. Because they will argue that they had jobs available and that in their opinion they were suitable, and the man could not or would not perform.

As a matter of fact, of course, it seems to me that it’s high time that we eliminated this kind of criterion. And for this reason: If employers were faced with the continuing payments for these people, they might well be less callous and try to find some employment in their plants for these men and women.

But as long as you give them no incentive to find that kind of employment for one of their injured workmen, then they and this government may well cast these people into the discard. From the government’s point of view they are no longer important in our society. They are expendable and in everything the government does it makes it clear to them that that is precisely what it thinks of them.

These men and women are people who have been injured as the result of working. They have been trying to maintain themselves and, suddenly, there is an accident and they can no longer work.

One of the things that I have found in the many people who I have had come to me with complaints is that there is no kind of human approach available apparently to the board to understand the problems touched on by my colleague, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, and others. We have been very glad to have in our community those men from Italy who come here to do work which we are not very anxious to do. We know perfectly well that many of them have not had the opportunity to become educated in their own language and therefore it is almost impossible for them to be rehabilitated in the use of English, at least over a period of time.

Industry has been so glad to have these men but when they are hurt, they are fit for light duty and what do you do about it? Absolutely nothing. I wonder if there is a way on earth to present the human factor to this government, the suffering of people within this type of legislation? They are treated as though they were welfare recipients and with a government such as this there seems to be a very real sense of the importance of punishing the poor, the disabled and those who cannot quite make it in our society on the terms of this government. Nothing is more apparent than the way in which this bill proposes to deal with proud people who do not want to be on welfare but who very often have no other alternative.

We talk about people going on welfare and how to keep them off. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the policies of this government are such as to virtually force people into that trap. I say to you it is immoral. It is totally immoral to do this to these people.

I can recall visiting a workman who had both hands badly burned. He was able to get some compensation for a while and then some person in his comfortable office said that he was fit for light duty. The only tools that man had to work with were hands which they acknowledged could not do the kinds of jobs he had been doing. But that didn’t matter. Cast him into the discard; put his whole family on welfare, relieve the burden of industry and then start the round of welfare because people get so defeated, and destroyed -- proud, independent people, and we take the spirit right out of them. Then we don’t want to see them around to remind us of our very real responsibilities to them.

Mr. Speaker, I know that probably nothing that I have said will have any meaning at all. And it is very disheartening to stand here speaking of something which is of deep importance to me personally and know that I am speaking to empty chairs and resolute minds.

However, it is important, I suppose, that we in the opposition express ourselves time after time on these issues. Because perhaps over the long years there will come to some people a sense of urgency and perhaps, as they sit in the opposition, they may at least remember the warnings which have been cast by this side of the House.

I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that the minister would rationalize the thinking of this bill, because I feel certain that when he comes to do this, knowing him as I do, that he will be as embarrassed as we are for him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, what is so horribly and inhumanly wrong with the workmen’s compensation, the laws that govern our industrial safety and the present amendment, is the tacit assumption underlying the present operation and the way the worker is treated in this country that the industrial workers and the miners are expendable; that the industrial complex is right and that the worker, like a part in an assembly production chain, is replaceable by another worker.

Our society’s ethic of free enterprise has led consequently and logically to state that one group of people preys, like carnivorous animals, on the other group of people. And as a placebo, the government throws a few dollars as if to a beggar.

You don’t amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Mr. Speaker. You throw it out, there is so much wrong with it. All the other speakers have been mentioning, item by item, what is wrong with it. I am not going to go over in detail what other people have said, but there are at least two points which are so obviously, glaringly wrong they need to be mentioned.

One item -- and I speak on it because it happens to be my subject -- is the functional overlay. The whole term is wrong. It assumes immediately that it is something which develops not only from the accident, but develops even more so from the personality of the individual.

The very term is prejudicial. The psychological damage is an inherent part of any injury and cannot be separated. And there is now enough evidence to show that it is as important a part of an injury as an actual visible, physical injury. Yet the way we treat the workers, the way the workmen’s compensation operates, we assume that the worker is lying, that the worker is malingering or being psychiatrically sick or, even worse, that he is culturally predisposed to malinger or to complain.

To prove that psychological injury is related to the actual accident is a major attempt. It needs a whole board of highly qualified specialists and yet even then, letter after letter, statement after statement, it is still not accepted. It is not accepted by the Workmen’s Compensation Board that this happens.

Like other people, I have had a number of cases. Because of my particular training, I was put in the position that I can write a letter on behalf of a worker as an MPP and I can also write a letter, if I enter into a contractual arrangement with him, as a psychiatrist.

I can see from the point of view of my own knowledge and my own experience that the psychological injury which has been associated and following the accident is related to the accident. This has been repeatedly, over and over again, rejected because of this predisposition on the part of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to believe the injury had nothing to do with it and, as is so often stated, it is the personality of the individual who is guilty.

I received a letter from one particular individual, I won’t mention his name, Mr. T who has had several psychiatric examinations, all tending to suggest that the individual developed the state post-accident and it had nothing to do with his prior personality. Yet I am asked once more in a letter, dated May 28, 1974 to answer the following questions.

“Pre-accident state;

“(a) estimation of workman’s intelligence and education;

“(b) prior dependency if any on alcohol or drugs;

“(c) history and diagnosis of any prior nervous or mental disorder;

“(d) previous work history;

“(e) workman’s family situation;

“(f) previous interpersonal relationship problems;

“(g) economic status.”

Under the second point they are asking me to answer, they are saying

“Present state:

“(a) what is your diagnosis?

“(b) What is your estimation of the workman’s degree of disability from the psychiatric point of view at the present time?

“(c) What is the relationship of his present psychiatrical disability to the incident described as having occurred on Jan. 31, 1969?

“(d) What other factors, if any, are responsible for his psychiatrical disability?

“(e) What treatment do you recommend?

“(f) Could you give a prognosis?”

This was the third letter which rejected a number of opinions that his psychological problems of the moment are related to his accident.

Wouldn’t members say that anyone who formulates these types of questions already acts on a prejudicial level? They will simply reject and find out every possible excuse not to deal with this matter? This is not an isolated case. It happens over and over again and there may be something wrong -- there is a lot wrong with the law -- but there is a very specific thing wrong when we do not accept the psychological injury which occurs after an injury.

The other major point which is related to this is that a workman needs to prove that everything has occurred. In the adversary system we operate in, he needs to be plugged into a number of systems, both the legal and the medical, merely to prove his point. When he thinks he has been able to get the help to prove this, the board, just as easily as not, may reject it and he goes through the system of a series of appeals for which he needs expensive and articulate help merely to state his case which should have been granted to him before. If we would only assume that the worker is not lying but is saying that something has occurred and that he hurts. It is this horrible assumption that he is lying, that he is malingering; a pall is thrown upon anyone who has been injured. Being injured is almost like being sinful, in the whole approach of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the government. The approach to the working man by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and continued by this misbegotten amendment, characterizes the whole policy of the government; the worker is an object -- the cannon fodder, so to speak -- of the industrial machine.

A working man’s health is a privilege, not a right -- as it is and it should be -- of every human being, even if an individual is not a member of a privileged middle class or a dominant class. It seems as if we approach the working man’s health as his lookout. If he develops lung cancer from working with asbestos, as the people who work in the Johns-Manville plants in this province may develop soon enough in view of the new knowledge of the cancer associated with asbestos, that is his lookout.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board says -- and it may sound ironic when I say this, but it is how these people approach it -- “Are you sure that your coughing is due to asbestosis? It may be just a psychosomatic complaint due to some kind of a personality disorder in the past.” It is criminal to approach it in this way. It is tragicomical to describe someone actually saying to a person suffering from an industrial accident or an industrial illness that it may be due to a personality disorder, to some shit-like Oedipal complex or otherwise. It is criminal for us to approach people in this way.

The whole approach to workmen’s compensation has been that the worker is expendable, that he is industrial cannon fodder. In many respects we treat workers like we used to treat slaves. With all the dressing that we have done, with all the rights that we have, we still treat workers like black slaves. There used to be a horrible saying which was applied to slaves: “Nigger, you have done your work. You can go and die.” Though we don’t quite say it that way, in our treatment of workers this is exactly what we do. Do we not say this to people when they develop silicosis? We give them a small pension and we tell them to go home; they are finished. When they develop lead encephalopathy from working with lead, we do the same to them. And if they are unlucky enough to develop a liver cancer when they work with vinyl chloride or one of the more complicated fast-growing cancers, usually from working with asbestos, it is the same: “Well, it just happens. It is part of our life; it has nothing to do with us.”

The whole field of working conditions in industry and the mines is criminally neglected by the government, and nowhere in this amendment is it even mentioned that it should be dealt with. We accept -- that is, the government accepts; I don’t accept it -- that injury is a worker’s responsibility and he should take care of it himself. But it is our responsibility; it is the government’s responsibility, and it is society’s responsibility to take care of him. There has been no foresight, no planning; and there is no research inherent, either in the original Workmen’s Compensation Act or in this one. The government with vast carelessness, complacently assumes that things will be all right somehow, that little needs to be done, that the still silent people will continue suffering and not disturb the status quo.

Our industrial situation, with so many people felled by noxious substances which we need, is so deficient in principle that it is almost like 19th-century England, when children had to work where mortality among workers was accepted simply as fate.

The government’s total carelessness in dealing with injured workers, as particularized in this bill, becomes even more ominous when we examine the almost criminal inactivity of the government in the field of industrial safety and increasing health hazards to the worker in our complex industrial society. People in the 19th century died to produce goods which were often, if not most of the time, not for their use. They worked for others. And they died on a scale so vast that retrospectively it seems like genocide. Historical and social and medical books are full of cases of children dying in cotton mills from emphysema -- chimney sweeps, children, dying of cancer before reaching maturity.

People are not dying obviously now; they die quietly and hidden away. Let’s not fool ourselves. Our industrial system is as cruel as always. We just put away the damaged people. The government, faced with the pressure from the corporations and possible diminution of their profits, buckles in and does not face the dangers that face workers in our industrial society. The dangers do not face us, they do not face professional people, they do not face anyone in this chamber; they face people who work with the material.

Lead: It is true that we do not have those dangers. The government lightly assumes that the lead is present everywhere in the ambient air. It is not. It is much more dangerous to people who work in places like Prestolite, Canada Metal, and Toronto Refiners and Smelters. There has been enough going on and the government knows there is a danger. There is a danger to the children who live next to the plant; there is a danger in the soil to the people who live around the plant; there is more than danger to the people who work in the plant. Our standards are not adequate.

We have reported over and over again the cases of danger to the miners in the Elliot Lake mines; the danger of silicosis which leads to cancer of the lung, the danger from beryllium. Whenever we look around, in almost every industrial factory in this province there is some kind of a danger about which this government is not doing anything. Whether we work with beryllium, carbon-monoxide or mercury, there is a danger.

Mercury: We learn after the fact, and when we learn what mercury does to the people who live in the Whitedog Indian bands, we don’t do anything afterwards to them. We tell them, “Do not eat the fish in the lake.” We are not prepared to deal any further. This is a group which has been let go.

For the miners in the uranium mines at Elliot Lake, the mines of Rio Algom and Denison, the danger is not exaggerated. From 1960 to 1964 there has been a major battle going on with the Workmen’s Compensation Board about the cases of cancer which developed in Elliot Lake and which the Workmen’s Compensation Board has not accepted as being related to the industrial situation. One would think that this was so long ago we would have already dealt with it. But it’s not true. The same Workmen’s Compensation Board goes on in the same way of not accepting the relationship between an industrial noxious substance and the occurrence of a major medical illness. They do not accept it.

I was looking at an article in the Globe and Mail on June 17 on the question of lung cancer developing in people who work in Elliot Lake mines. It’s interesting that the article, which is sympathetic on the whole, first describes meeting a number of people who have suffered from it, and says that after meeting a number of people a lot of impassioned statements are made. The writer says there are “hysteria, hyperbole, politics, unnecessary fear.” The people there say yes, it is. It is all worked out unnecessarily. It is all hysterical, it doesn’t really exist. So if it doesn’t exist, what are you worrying about?

It does exist. It is present in all of the industrial situations, such as major mines like the ones I have just mentioned, in Elliot Lake, and we cannot hide from it. I think it is the responsibility of the minister who is responsible for the Workmen’s Compensation Board to take care of it, to introduce different laws which will modify the situation, and not to throw out a few dollars to deal with the whole situation, as he does in his amendment.

One of the major industrial problems which I don’t see anywhere being dealt with by this government -- it’s not being dealt with by this government, it’s not being dealt with in this amendment -- is the major danger to the health of the workers who work with asbestos. Asbestosis is not something which characterizes only Johns-Manville plants in the United States. It very much characterizes the Johns-Manville plant here in Toronto. Anyone who works with asbestos is not only in danger of developing asbestosis, which is a major chest problem on its own, but faces another danger which will only show itself in a few years when we start seeing how many people who have worked with asbestosis will develop a major lung cancer, a pleural mesothelioma, which according to Dr. Selikoff, and the work done in the United States, occurs in maybe as many as 20 per cent of such people. Not only are the 20 per cent of people who work in the plants affected, but 40 per cent of their relatives develop this cancer also, which means the small asbestos fibres that cause the cancer, are carried in their clothes and in other ways home to the family and then the family develops it. So, that this could potentially assume a major epidemic-like proportion to the danger of the health of the people who work with asbestos.

Do we do anything about this at the moment? No. We have accepted standards which even scant perusal shows, have been unacceptable to the much more strict standard levels in the United Kingdom.

In an article in the New Yorker it has been stated directly that pressure from a large company like Johns-Manville is applied to make sure that the standards of safety which are accepted, are not necessarily those standards which will be effective in making sure that the company doesn’t lose anything by them.

The Johns-Manville company very blatantly states that if they accept more stringent standards, and reduce the size of the unallowable particle from five microns to two microns, their profits will go down and they will not be able to function.

If this is so, then here is an obvious case for government intervention. First, government intervention to check whether this is so, and since most of the medical opinions state that it is dangerous to have asbestos fibres which are larger than two microns, then it is the government’s responsibility to do something about it -- even going so far as to control the company producing this problem.

We cannot abandon people to the mercy of a large profit-making company, because their first interest is not the safety, not the workers and not the welfare of the workers, but profit.

In our province, in this city, we have another example in which I think governmental action is essential, not only from the Minister of Labour, but from the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller). It is these three lead companies. A long dialogue has been going on between the people who have worked with the residents around these three lead plants in Toronto and the various government officials.

I think people know that there is a danger at the moment, and I charge this government with moral laxity in that it is not prepared to do anything. The minister may have to deal with it soon enough through his own agency, the Workmen’s Compensation Board, when both the workers and the people around start developing plumbism and various lead encephalopathy problems, and all the other symptoms and signs associated with lead poisoning.

The government will have to deal with it. It would be easier and better and more humane if it dealt with it prior to the problem, instead of always coming in at the last moment and throwing a few more pennies towards the injured workers.

Why doesn’t the minister deal with it right now, because that is a problem? There’s an obvious problem here with the lead, and surely with the Elliott Mines situation or the Johns-Manville situation, where asbestosis is something which the Labour ministry needs to deal with right now, not after it happens.

Sometimes I feel that our own guilt here is that of not being able to do anything ourselves. I feel in that sense a little like the hon. member for St. George; that it’s an empty gesture that we’re making and an empty gesture that I’m making right now and that these are empty words I throw out by saying that we must do something about the injured workers; we must stop treating them like expendable objects, like machines.

It may be the same guilt that I have here because I am protected, I am a member of a privileged minority, and one is protected from it. But we do live on others. It is their work which pays for a lot of our own comforts and we should realize this, just as much myself as the government which has the power to do it. It is our responsibility to change it, our human responsibility towards other people.

Maybe like the people who have survived the last war, they feel guilty forever that they have survived because so many have died. We must, maybe as a first step, feel guilty ourselves, and recognize our responsibility towards the injured workers, because it is on their backs that our society exists. And it is the minister who, at the moment, represents the power that can change this, and he should do something about it.

I charge the minister again that he has failed lamentably, in this ridiculous, absurd amendment of his, to deal with the situation, and I hope he does not continue on that immoral course in the rest of his ministry.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Yes. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Ottawa East for allowing me to enter the debate at this point, albeit briefly. I have an out-of-town engagement, sir, which will take me away from this building very quickly, and I would just like to get some thoughts on record along with so many other members of the House, because this bill should be spoken to by as many members as possible.

Mr. Speaker, like a great many people in the opposition, I enter the debate with a great deal of frustration, and not a little anger, at the ritual we are now engaging in in this Legislature. It demonstrates such contempt for the process, such contempt for injured workmen, such contempt for the whole parliamentary apparatus that one hardly knows how to cope with it.

I want to tell the minister something, be he new or otherwise: This is no time to be debating a Workmen’s Compensation Act in Ontario. If there is any respect for the injured workman at all, he doesn’t shove it in on the last day of the session with his nasty words of attrition, hoping to grind the debate into some kind of oblivion by having it take place when there are members away, when the media are absent in large numbers, where people are engaged in a holiday weekend, when there is no avenue available for the workers to present their case, when he can try to manipulate the democratic process in such a way as to make of it a mockery. And it’s maddening the way those people toy with the whole system.

That the Minister of Labour, who began his tenure with a sense of openness and fair play, should allow himself to be a participant in this charade, is almost beyond the pale. If he was serious about this legislation; if he was willing to have it subject to the light of scrutiny, whether it was by injured workmen themselves, trade unionists involved in the field, social agencies who know something about physical disability and emotional disability; if he had any appreciation for any of those things, this bill would be in next week, it would be in committee, the people would be able to present their views. If he had any appreciation for those things, this bill would have been introduced six weeks ago, not at the penultimate moment of the session.

There is so much contempt today, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, in what we are doing here. There were, of course, at other times a number of people from the Union of Injured Workmen who came to the gallery and paraded here hoping to have the ear of the minister and the ear of the members. There were people who felt strongly about all this. There isn’t one of us who is affected by this legislation, I remind the minister smug in his comfortable pew. None of us is affected by this legislation, but the people who are affected won’t have a voice in this process. The minister has seen to that.

Oh, he’ll have them march on the streets outside 400 University Ave. and then come into the Legislature and say, “I don’t do the business of Ontario on the streets.” Shades of Louis XIV. L’état, c’est moi. This minister will not condescend to deal with mere mortals who can’t parade up into his inner sanctum and meet him on whatever floor of that austere building he inhabits. He won’t conduct the business of the province on the streets. I want to tell the minister something. There are some of those people for whom it is a physical pain to mount the stairs to his building.

It’s time that the government recognized in something less than gratuitous asides that when it is dealing with 33,000 injured workmen it is a serious proposition and it isn’t fashioned in such a cavalier way. If there is some frustration and some anger in the opposition, let me add my voice to all of those who have spoken. I’ve had a review and some reports from my own colleagues and staff about what has taken place in the last few hours when I was out of town. If there is some impatience and anger from rage and frustration, let me tell the minister it was never more merited. He brings in a bill at the eleventh hour. He cuts out public acceptability. He drags it through the House as the last item on the order paper and he pretends that the democratic process makes sense.

I didn’t much like the statement either. The minister knows that I have regard for him as a person. The minister knows that many of us enjoy working with him directly on disputes that are intractable and difficult in the province. The minister knows that we want him to succeed in his job, but I want to say to the minister that he won’t succeed if he engages in the kind of misleading pronouncements which accompanied the introduction of the bill. It was designed to raise expectations at the time, only to find them demolished 48 hours later.

He simply has to get out of that habit because this isn’t a bill worth supporting. As much as every single one of us wanted to applaud it, as every single one of us wanted to quicken to the contents of the bill, this isn’t a bill worth supporting. When one makes all the calculations, when he reads the fine print, when he looks at the absurd examples the minister used, then one realizes what a wholesale deception the bill is.

I am working from memory, but didn’t he use an example of someone who bad a pension of roughly $200 in the mid-1950s? In 1952? Does he want to tell me how many people in Ontario are on a pension of $200 from the Workmen’s Compensation Board in 1952? He can count them on the fingers of both hands.

Mr. Foulds: I doubt if there are any.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t use examples that are patently fraudulent and totally unrepresentative to make the case. That is not the way to conduct a serious bill. One uses examples which are representative. One shows what it will mean to the average workmen who has been injured over the last 10 or 15 years. One doesn’t use figures that have about as much relevance to most workers as an income of $15,000 or $20,000 a year.

The fundamental problem with this legislation, Mr. Speaker, with the whole process, is its essential lack of fairness and equity. Apparently it is impossible for us to communicate with the government in a way which requires and elicits justice for injured workmen: I think the minister said on camera outside the door, as he said at the time of the increase to the minimum wage, that it is not what he would describe as generous but that it is the best he can do. If it is the best the people over there can do, they should pack in their whole blessed government and go home, because they are not serving the interests of the injured workman in any fashion which can be described as palatable or supportable.

Every time we bring in an amendment to the Workmen’s Compensation Act it is never enough. It is always begrudging. It is always reluctant. This government is always catching up and it is always the result of some last-minute, insistent pressure. One would think, even if not in policy terms, it would get through to this government in human terms.

These compensation recipients come to the building on crutches. They wear braces, they wear neck supports -- some of them are amputees. They march every three months, every six months, every year. They beg this government for some kind of justice, but it can never find it in its heart to bring them up to par.

I want to tell the minister something, Mr. Speaker. It is just too personally degrading for words for those injured workmen to have to forever engage in that kind of pressure. It reminds me very much -- my colleague from Wentworth is frequently recalling -- that the senior citizens of Ontario had to appear on the steps of this Legislature in the middle of the winter in order to try to wrest a concession from this government over a guaranteed monthly income.

The same pattern is now repeated from the injured workman. And the result for all of them, even after the government brought in the increase, is that there is a continuing result in personal humiliation and financial dependence. The government will simply not allow them any self-respect whatsoever. It is a kind of perverse determination on the government’s part that no matter how much they search for equity, so much less will it grant them. And the minister knows that. And I ask him why?

Why is it in this instance that the government won’t respond to them? It is great on models and monuments. It is superb on buildings and bureaucrats, but it is lousy when it comes to dealing with people. That is the Achilles’ heel of the government. Because it is gradually alienating and disenchanting groups of people right across Ontario -- group after group, time after time -- because it won’t deal with them fairly with any elemental sense of justice. This government won’t give them adequate protections -- and above all it won’t give them an adequate income.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): It gives $2.50 a week and nothing for the kids.

Mr. Lewis: My friend, the member for Wellington South mutters to himself, $2.50 a week. Such largesse, such largesse from the gold in the coffers of the government. I think, Mr. Speaker, it has been well evidenced by my colleagues; I just couldn’t put it better. When you bring in a workmen’s compensation plan, it has to be a full plan. You don’t trifle with it. You don’t moderate it. It has to be full. And I want to say to the hon. minister opposite, Mr. Speaker, that there are three ways of achieving that and this government has rejected them all.

1. You take more from industry. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition used the 45 per cent profit figures that were released by StatCan for the first three months of 1974 for the manufacturing industry generally, contrasting that with the 1.5 or 1.6 per cent -- which I guess amounts now to six per cent in total or so -- which industry is assessed for workmen’s compensation.

Think of the miners in Inco. Inco, whose profits increased 107 per cent in 1973 over 1972. But the government can’t provide for their workers who were injured along the way, any pension which is even marginally adequate.

Mr. Speaker, the payment of money into this fund by industry to allow for a legitimate pension is a charge for doing business in Ontario. It is a protection for the work force. It is not some indulgence. It is not some writ which the government serves on industry. It is a simple economic truth that you protect the workers of the province by building that kind of industrial fund. If a business cannot be profitable because it has to contribute to a pension for the workers injured on the job, then the bloody business shouldn’t be in business. The government assesses them accordingly and doesn’t bring in these picayune raises, percentage point by percentage point, never allowing the workers to have a pension which is adequate. If the friendly neanderthals to my left are worried that the businesses of Ontario may be tied too much, let it be added they can take it out of the consolidated revenue fund because that’s another alternative -- the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. Roy: Scrap the Krauss-Maffei deal.

Mr. Lewis: The government can scrap many of its projects, precisely. These people would have been making a quite different income if they weren’t injured. The injury is an accident, something that hasn’t been grasped by the hon. cabinet opposite. If the minister can’t do it out of the consolidated revenue fund, he does what my colleague from Nickel Belt earlier today told him to do. He sets up a sickness and accident disability insurance which covers everybody on and off the job, no discrimination, no invidious consequences, and pays people what they deserve to be paid if they suffer such an injury.

The minister has all those three alternatives -- an adequate assessment on industry; using the consolidated revenue fund of the province; using a principle of social insurance which until now he disavows -- and he will solve his problems, but he absolutely refuses. When the crunch comes, when austerity reigns, when the government is cutting back, it is the injured workman who receives the cutback. Everything else is a process of inflation and self-infatuation around this blessed place when it comes to what we spend on but when it comes to pensions for pensioners, for the disabled, for the handicapped, for the blind, for Workmen’s Compensation recipients, there is where we show our capacity to wield the scalpel.

My colleagues have summarized the essential injustices in the bill -- the fact that the computations are made at the time of the original injury, than which there can be no clause more unfair. How does one arrange a pension in 1974 applicable to a wage in 1958? I would like to know which Solomon the government is going to find over there to explain that. How does the minister tell an injured workman whom it is paying, who has to deal with the cost of living in 1974, that the calculation will be made on the basis of wages of 10, 12 or 14 years ago? If the minister wants to look for a principle of injustice in his bill, there’s one to look at.

Look at the level of the pensions; $260 a month for a widow, let alone for the pensioners. If he wants to find an injustice in his bill, let him look at that clause. Look at his refusal, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, to include an indexing for the cost of living when he knows what the situation is in the economy. If he wants to find an injustice in his bill, look at the absence of that clause.

Look at what he has granted for the year 1973 -- four per cent -- when he knows it was 10 per cent and better. For the year 1972, four per cent when he knows it was eight to nine per cent. For the year 1971, two per cent when he knows it was six to eight per cent. If he wants to find an injustice in his bill, look at that clause.

Look at all the mealy-mouthed language he has attached to the light work clauses, section 41 of the bill, allowing the Workmen’s Compensation Board with a neat sleight of hand to disqualify workers, to reduce workers, to exclude workers. If he wants to see injustice in his bill, look at that clause.

Yes, it sounded good when he heralded it publicly on first reading, flim-flamming everyone in sight, indulging himself in verbal fantasies about what the bill contains, embellishing, gilding the lily, using examples which are unrepresentative. But when our looks at the clauses!

Part of my anger -- I suppose it was what the member for Parkdale said when he talked about guilt. I sat here; I sat beside my colleague from Wentworth. It sounded good. You fight so hard for changes. You work so long at it. There are so many delegations. You think, “Sixty per cent. Think of what it will mean.”

Let me tell you what it will mean -- and I’ve got to bring this to an end, because I have to get on the road. In the last four or five days there have been a number of people from the Union of Injured Workmen, with various disabilities, appearing in the galleries. I asked one of my research associates to speak to some of these people and to see what this bill would mean to them. Let me tell the minister what the bill will mean to them.

Let me tell him about Savario Vardaro, without going into details. He was injured back in 1963 and is on permanent disability. He was making a pension of $312 per month, and under the minister’s calculations he will get $26 more -- which is $81.12 more -- and that will give him $393.12 per month. That will give him a total annual income of $4,717. When he was injured he was making $6,800, and had he stayed at the same job he’d be making almost $18,000 a year now -- having checked it out with both the union and some of the men in comparable positions. The minister is paying him $4,717 in 1974 when he could have been earning an income of $18,000 a year.

Mr. Deans: And all he did wrong was get hurt.

Mr. Lewis: And all he did wrong was to be injured on the job, and the minister congratulates himself for his nobility.

Mr. Bounsall: And largesse.

Mr. Lewis: I ask him to take a look at the case of Dominic Seninarotti. Dominic was injured on June 20, 1961, in the Porcupine Gold Mine in Palmer, Ont. He fell 110 ft down the shaft and heavy equipment fell on top of him. He was making $3,600 a year at the time. He’d be making $12,000 a year now. According to the new formula, he will be receiving $325 a month, which, in my calculations, is around $4,000 a year. Just $4,000 a year now, with his earning capacity what it would have been, $12,000 a year. And the only mistake he made in life was to have an accident on the job. But the minister will penalize him and his family for the rest of his living days.

Then Mr. Buzzo, injured on June 22, 1972. In 1971 he was making $7,300. He would be making $11,000 in 1974-1975. His pension was cut back to $137 per month. With this increase he will now receive $147.96 a month. His total annual income will, therefore, be $1,765. He could have been making $11,000. They describe him as partially disabled, that delicious phrase which the Workmen’s Compensation Board works over, like the witches over their brew, attempting to extract from it some rationale. There is no rationale. All kinds of these injured workmen whom the minister describes as permanently partially disabled, are permanently totally disabled. Who will hire them? Who will give them jobs? The minister should ask himself that.

Mr. Martel: There’s nothing in the book.

Mr. Lewis: He’s a new minister.

Mr. Deans: Even the government doesn’t hire them.

Mr. Lewis: Ask the other ministries, the social welfare ministries. Ask Margaret Birch and Rene Brunelle, ask Frank Miller and Richard Potter, ask them all how many workmen’s compensation recipients on partial disability they have on staff? Boy, that would be an interesting statistic. And if it isn’t okay in the social development field then ask the Ministry of Labour, or ask the Ministry of Government Services, which hires all kinds of people with various skills,

Mr. Breithaupt: Or the liquor stores.

Mr. Lewis: Ask them, and take a tabulation of how many they have hired who are on permanent partial disability and who receive $147 or $150 a month.

Mr. Martel: He’s worse than Scrooge.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, my colleague from Wentworth says to me, “Even the board itself.” It would be interesting to find out just what proportion or percentage of the Workmen’s Compensation Board employees are people on permanent partial disability pensions. Maybe they can’t find a satisfactory job in that milieu; I won’t cavil with that. But there are all kinds of other milieus where they could find jobs in the government, but the government, like private industry, won’t hire them. Instead it will penalize them with as punitive a belligerence as ever has been visited on injured workmen. It will penalize them.

I won’t go into any of the other cases. I have two or three more here. They are all of the same land. Their earning capacity in 1974, had they not been injured, would be three, four, five, six times what they are receiving by way of an annual income with the increase in this legislation. That, sir, is unacceptable. That, sir, is morally wrong. That does not befit a government because it has the alternatives before it.

The last notes I have say, what it means is that around Ontario, of these 33,000 injured workers, there is a large clutch of workers -- what are they; 400, 500, 600, maybe more? -- who never receive justice and who can’t understand it. We’ve all written to the board about those people. We’ve all written letters to Michael Starr, of whom many of us are profoundly fond, about these people.

These are the people who are wrecked by the government’s compensation Act, and by the manipulativeness of its board. These are the people in whom are induced emotional reactions by virtue of the physical injury. These are the people whom the government so fashionably deems as having psychological overlays, but who do suffer psychological consequences as a result of an industrial accident.

An hon. member: Who wouldn’t?

Mr. Lewis: Right, who wouldn’t? But more than that, the way in which they are treated by the board, the amount of money they receive under the Act, drives them into even further a sense of psychological persecution. It undermines their families. It destroys their sense of self-worth. There are cases on record.

How I would like to spell out for the House the case of Antonio Negro which to this day remains unsolved. I haven’t the time. But there is a man who was driven to periods of emotional despair not because he wasn’t intrinsically a healthy human being in psychological terms, but because his frustration of dealing with the Act and of dealing with the board drove him almost over the brink.

It is a tribute only to his enormous resilience that he didn’t collapse under the blows, and it is a tribute to his enormous resilience that he finally got awarded an amount of money which was due him. But in that final act of vindictiveness, of which the board was so capable under the stewardship of the previous incumbent, it wouldn’t give it to him direct; no, it gave it to him through the public trustee, knowing that he could never accept it on those terms. Ask Michael Starr about the case.

So the government has several hundred people in the province who will never receive justice, who will never receive a sense of fair play, who will forever be hammering at the government’s doors. I want to ask the minister, through the Speaker, why is it that he can’t deal with that manageable group? We are not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. We are not talking about unmanageable sums. We are talking about a few hundred or a few thousand people who deserve to receive a decent standard of financial compensation for an injury received on the job and the government won’t do it.

They reel from despair to despair, and their families reel with them. They appear on the steps of the Legislature and they appear outside the minister’s offices. They drive all of us in the opposition to distraction because we don’t know how to cope with it, and I’m sure there are government members who feel the same sense of frustration.

The minister knows from the figures I quoted him that his bill will not give them a sense of justice because there is no retroactivity on the basis of its calculations. So don’t ask us to support the bill.

Mr. Martel: Withdraw the damn thing.

Mr. Lewis: If it is all the government can bring in, considering it is not even the money of the public of Ontario, then it is disgrace compounded. It is not as auspicious a beginning for the Minister of Labour as some of us would have hoped. His minimum wage approximates that of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, despite the fact that we are the most industrialized province in Canada, and his Workmen’s Compensation Act has now set levels of poverty which are quite out of character with the requirements of 1974.

I presume that doesn’t give him any great spirit of pride or self-satisfaction. He described it himself as not overly generous. When we were discussing the GAINS Act my colleague from Wentworth, barely containing himself because there are points of frustration in this Legislature, was saying to this minister that if there is anything that separates socialists from Tories it is on issues like this. Don’t let me be invidious; if there is anything that separates opposition from Tories, it is on issues like this.

The government can do everything in the world for those who have it already, but it can do very little for those who are most vulnerable. And when it does do it, it likes to sneak it through the night as it were, to bring it in at the final moment when it hopes public scrutiny is at a minimum, when it hopes the injured workmen won’t recognize, when it hopes it is not accountable, when the minister has eight Tory colleagues in the House with him, and when generally it is able to turn the parliamentary forum into some kind of nonsensical symbolism, making much noise and achieving very little.

This is a damnable bill, and the government should withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak on this bill but after reading the bill and listening to the comments of my leader and to the members to my left and to the leader of the New Democratic Party, I think it is obvious that for every member who has an opportunity, and every member who has had -- as in my case, since 1971, so many cases dealing with injured workers -- it is incumbent to express to the minister, if through nothing else but repetition, the weaknesses of the bill and what we feel is wrong with the system of workmen’s compensation in this province.

The member for York West (Mr. MacBeth) is probably sitting there, as he has been since sometime this morning, wondering what he has done to deserve all this. I suppose that he can, with some sensibility, appreciate that we have all had sort of a warm feeling for him, and that we appreciate to some degree that this is handed to him and has been cooked up by somebody else. But we would have hoped that he would have shown in his early days as Minister of Labour some of the guts that he showed when he was chairman of the committee looking into the question of Hydro, and was prepared at that time to make his own decisions.

I am convinced that he sees in this bill, and he sees in the proposals, and in fact he probably saw at the time that he was making public statements, that there is something that borders on misrepresentation, or on what we call in the field of law, touting -- something that is false in what he is saying, or is misrepresentation to a degree in what he is saying.

I am sure the minister can appreciate that there is no way that all of us here, looking at the statements and then looking at the bill, having experienced case after case of problems in relation to people who are injured and dealing with workmen’s compensation, can’t help but express our wrath and direct it toward him. Hopefully through this experience, as he brings in legislation to a most sensitive field, as is the field of labour, he will make his own decisions on it and respond to the needs and not to what he feels he has to, or what might be politically palatable.

As the leader of the New Democratic Party mentioned, very often we are talking about a small minority of people as compared to the total population of this province. It has been expressed by so many leaders that the measure of a government or the measure of the depth of a government is how it treats its minorities, those who are dispossessed and those who are in need.

Mr. Speaker, to the minister, I think it is important to repeat that I can’t quite understand why this type of legislation, in the light of the inflationary trend this country has experienced over the last years, is not associated with, or has not tacked onto it a cost of living escalator clause. The federal government is criticized but at least it has done so in relation to old age pensions. Surely this could be done in relation to these types of pensions.

Secondly, I think the question of light work has been a frustration, Mr. Speaker, to every member who has had any cases at all dealing with workmen’s compensation. This has been repeated by a number of members and I don’t intend to emphasize it too long, Mr. Speaker. I would only say to the minister that surely before he starts cutting off someone’s pension, saying he should have been doing some light work, there should be an onus on this government, or there should be an onus on the Workmen’s Compensation Board, to find him light work. If the government doesn’t cut him off until it has at least satisfied itself that there is light work he can do it doesn’t keep putting the onus on the individual. I intend to talk about this onus after a while because I don’t think the workmen’s compensation system in this province was intended to be an adversary system but basically this is what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that when the system was set up originally it was not set up to do with onuses, the adversary system and so on. That’s not the way it has worked. The member for Parkdale mentioned it. The onus is always on the individual who is injured. It is always on him to show, first of all, that he was injured in relation to his work; that the injuries are flowing from that particular work or that particular time of day when he fell or did whatsoever. Then the onus is on him to show what the percentage of his disability is and so on.

If the minister is going to put the onus on the individual, at least he should try to make it fair. Any other system, even our criminal system, does not put the onus on the accused; but having decided to put the onus on the victim of the circumstances, at least he should try to make it fair.

I don’t think there are enough members around here -- 217 members in the Legislature -- to go around to service --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): It’s 117.

Mr. Roy: Yes, 117. Did I say 217? That’s what there should be.

Mr. Singer: Yes. There are not even 17 here at the moment. Does the member want me to call a quorum?

Mr. Roy: It’d be hard to count them on the other side.

Interjection by an hon. member,

Mr. Singer: No, count them, 17.

Mr. Roy: There are only seven members out of 76, isn’t it?

I was saying, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, there are not enough members to go around to service the difficult cases in workmen’s compensation because it appears one gets response according to the weight of the paper one is sending to the board. If one is prepared to make a career out of a particular case somewhere along the way after three, four or five years one might get some success.

Of course, the role of the member of the Legislature, the duties we have, do not permit us to devote our full time to one particular case which would be needed in some circumstances.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville mentioned a case he had been working on for something like nine years; he finally got some response after nine years.

If the minister is going to put the onus on the individual, at least make it fair. It would seem to me that what he should do -- and I say this, Mr. Speaker, to the minister who can certainly understand it -- if he is going to put the onus on the individual, he should at least make it fair.

We should enlist all the lawyers of the province. What we should be doing is giving the workers who are disputing or appealing a particular decision the right to get legal aid. They have it now to a degree but they should get legal aid on a Supreme Court scale. I don’t know what the scale is now but they are getting, I think, lower than county court scale.

What is more important than the livelihood of an individual? People are getting legal aid on Supreme Court scale, for instance, for divorces. They are getting it, let’s say, if they are fighting an action for something over $7,000. Surely that doesn’t have the importance of an individual whose livelihood depends on that, who has got to live or attempt to live on that pension?

I would suggest very sincerely to the minister this is what should be done. If he wants to retain the adversary system, which it is now, then the workman must show his injuries flow from his work; that his disability flows from his injuries and that his disability is partial, and so on. If he is going to put the onus on the individual, at least he should give him every opportunity to have the best services possible to represent him. After all his whole life depends on it. Yet we are paying legal aid in this province for certain individuals. A person who’s accused in our criminal courts gets better representation than that. Why can’t an individual who is claiming that he has not received adequate pension or justice from the workmen’s compensation get that type of representation? I would urge the minister to look into that question.

First of all, I would tell him it should not be an adversary system. I hate to think what could happen, for instance, in motor vehicle accidents if he took that same approach, if he worked towards a universal motor vehicle insurance and had boards and did away with the courts and started treating motor vehicle victims the same way. I would urge the minister, if he intends to retain the same approach and the same way he is treating individuals, to work something out with the Law Society with their Legal Aid plan and to say to an individual, “If you are not satisfied with an appeal, the services of a lawyer are open to you.” I say that services should be on a Supreme Court scale, because I can’t see anything that’s more important to an individual than his livelihood.

I can’t understand, Mr. Speaker, how the sense of values we have in this country should be such that we should put the onus on an individual in relation to his injuries from his work when our whole criminal system in this country is the reverse. An individual who is charged with a criminal offence does not have that type of onus. Is that the type of values that we have in this province?

I say to the minister the first thing he should do is change this approach. The onus should not be on the individual. He should write into legislation that a fellow is disabled, that he is injured, that he’s got this percentage of injury and that his pension is worth so much up until the point that the workmen’s compensation proves otherwise. The onus should not be on the individual but on the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Surely we should have the type of system in relation to injured workers that we have in relation to our criminal system in this province?

The second thing is a point raised in the brief I was reading, the brief from the injured workers when it talked about the conflicts in doctors. There again not only is the onus on the worker but he has to see doctors who are related to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. These doctors have a conflict. There is their job with the Workmen’s Compensation Board and there is their duty towards their patients. If the minister took away the onus and allowed them proper representation, then the lawyer representing them could get independent advice. That’s the type of approach we should be looking at. Sure there are going to be abuses in this. There are abuses in our criminal system, but I feel in any system that is going to be universal and just, there are going to be some abuses. One doesn’t look at the exception. He tries to look at the rule.

Mr. Speaker, having said this, I feel I should make some special comment about a problem that I have in the Ottawa area for a certain group of workers. I think I should bring this to the minister’s attention. The minister may be aware, because of the closeness of the cities of Ottawa and Hull in the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec, there are thousands of workers whose residences are in Quebec but who in fact, work in Ontario. Flowing from this is the fact that a very great number of workers who are injured working in Ontario must then look to the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Board for benefits, although they are Quebec residents. Many of them don’t even have a voice in the sense that they are not Ontario residents. They can’t go through Ontario MPs, and their member in Quebec sends them back into Ontario.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in many of these cases. I am convinced the majority cannot get any representation at all. In other words, Mr. Speaker, these people cannot speak through their member of parliament who often is a member of parliament from the Province of Quebec. And secondly, most of these people in this difficulty are not Ontario residents, and they can’t even get legal aid available to Ontario residents to assist them in claims with the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

I found that very many of these people are sort of left aside, Mr. Speaker. They don’t have a voice. I’m not saying the Workmen’s Compensation Board is taking advantage of the situation with these people who don’t have a voice. But the very fact that they do not have a voice creates this problem.

I think that we should look at this situation. There ought to be a way to assure that a Quebec resident injured in Ontario is at least assured of his full rights. Many of these people, for instance, can’t even speak English, and so there is the other problem of communicating with the board.

I think that some attention should be paid to their situation. One member from the Ottawa area cannot represent all their cases. I think there should be some way to help them -- even if the Workmen’s Compensation Board pays for some of their legal fees for representation.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, in today’s paper it says the federal government is going to pay legal costs to help Indians fight deportation -- they’ll pay legal costs for that.

Why wouldn’t the Workmen’s Compensation Board pay legal costs for certain individuals who fought the claim for years through the courts and through a series of appeals and whose claim is later accepted? Why couldn’t they get some assistance?

And so, Mr. Speaker, I think we are justified in opposing this bill, inasmuch as we have a certain amount of friendliness, or a certain amount of softness -- I shouldn’t say softness, but camaraderie with the minister. We feel that the comments that have been made here -- and repeated over again -- are justified, and for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we cannot support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my party and leader in the opposition that we have expressed to this bill; and I don’t want to repeat too much of what has been said. I think the minister has heard it and I hope he has profited by it, even though his party may not agree in changing the terms of this particular bill.

I come from an area, Mr. Speaker, where we have a very large influx of immigrant population, particularly from Italy. They are people who have been brought into this country and welcomed here to do the hard, dangerous labour of this country -- largely construction work. And their effort has helped make possible the great building boom in Metropolitan Toronto following the Second World War. We paid these people pretty inadequate wages at the start, until they unionized. Today many of them are getting very high wages; some of them aren’t.

But the fact is, when those people are hurt, then we simply say “All right, they’ve played their part, and we’re not too worried about them from this point on.” They come into my office in a steady stream with their answers received from the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All too often the answer has been “no.” For some of them the answer has been: “Well, we’ve paid 100 per cent for a certain length of time, and now you are able to do half a job. You are 25 or 50 or 75 per cent disabled; and we will pay you proportionately.” And then they are cut off and told to look for light work.

The wonder at how in the world these people who are 50 per cent disabled, or even less, without adequate knowledge of the language in this country, with only the skill to do construction or hard heavy labour, with no real skills beyond that, can be expected to find light work has already been expressed by speaker after speaker here today. For the life of me I can’t understand why the minister can’t understand this too, although he did express this attitude in his press release. I would hope that some of this is now passed.

But the thing that irks me more than anything else is this matter of the process of retraining whereby if you are not retrained then you are discarded. I have had instance after instance where men have come to me and said, “Well, I have a rehabilitation officer.” I talked to the rehabilitation officer. He is concerned about this particular workman but he says to me, “The man hasn’t even enough basic English to be retrained in any real skill.” Or, “His pain is still with him in his back or his arms and when he tries to do something else, then, of course, he runs into real difficulty.” For these people without language and without skills to be retrained is almost impossible, although there are instances here and there where success is achieved. It is a long process, and sometimes we are not willing to spend the money on them.

My experience is also that most of these men are not soldiering on the job at all, as sometimes they are accused. Most of them are anxious to get back to the job. They want to work. They don’t want to draw compensation. They don’t want to draw un- employment insurance. They don’t want to draw welfare. They want to work.

Mr. Foulds: Absolutely.

Mr. Young: I would say that 99.9 per cent of the people that I see in this regard are anxious to get back. There are one or two I could think of who perhaps are just a little happy to stay where they are and make excuses for not getting back, but the vast majority are anxious to work.

Mr. Speaker, this matter of reviewing instead of indexing is an abominable sort of thing. We see this happen time after time as we start to build up to elections, where reviews of government payments take place and one becomes very suspicious that this is done for a political purpose. To people who are on fixed payments from government we say, “We will look at your situation now, after the four years is up. An election is coming up, so we will give you another bit,” like the $50 that was given to the old age pensioners just before the last election. They are supposed to be grateful and vote for the party that gives it to them. I presume this is the philosophy. It looks very much it.

If we could index these payments, gear them to the cost of living, after first of all they are made adequate --

Mr. Foulds: Right.

Mr. Young: -- then, of course, we are getting someplace and we are completely divorcing it from the political process.

I just want to say a word, Mr. Speaker, about the ability of this province to do the kind of thing that we have been talking about on this side of the House. I had some figures looked up for me and I looked up one of my speeches of a year or so ago when we were talking about welfare. I find that in Ontario we have 7.6 million people -- 7,638,887 to be exact. Our gross provincial product this year by all economic forecasts looked to be $54.3 billion. That means we are producing a provincial product this year in Ontario equal to $7,100 per person. We have just under 1.9 million families in Ontario, which means we are actually producing a gross provincial product of $28,000 per family. I know there’s quite a bit of duplication and that people will argue with the figures. So if we squeeze out the duplication and use the net national income figure or, in this case, the net provincial income figure, which is 78 per cent of the gross provincial product, we get personal production in Ontario of $5,538 per person and $21,840 per family. That’s what we are actually producing as a net provincial product with the duplication squeezed out.

Mr. Speaker, despite that kind of wealth, we talk in terms of $260 a month for the widow of the injured worker. We talk in terms of the ceilings that we have set for the men who have been hurt in the industrial warfare or the industrial process in the Province of Ontario. This is nothing more than a sheer disgrace.

Then we look at the picture of profits that are taken out of the productive process. In the Toronto Star of June 20, as has been mentioned already, it was reported: “Firm profits up 45 per cent in 1974,” and the Globe and Mail of March 30, 1974, said this:

“After-tax profits of manufacturing companies rose by an average of 42 per cent to $3.7 billion last year, following a 23 per cent gain in 1972, Statistics Canada has revealed.”

That means that in two years profits have doubled in this country, and probably have more than doubled in the Province of Ontario. Then we talk in terms of raising incomes for the pensioners by four per cent, or two per cent if we go back a little farther, or 10 per cent -- whatever the percentage is. At the same time that these profits have been taken out of the economy, inflation has accounted for 10 per cent per year -- and right now it is faster than that when we look at food, the basic cost for most pensioners.

Pensioners and people on workmen’s compensation have to spend the bulk of their incomes for food; and the index for food is much higher -- practically double now -- than the general cost-of-living index increase.

I was interested the other day to leaf through the report which came to my desk, and came to the desks of all of us, the report of Canada Packers Ltd., dealing largely in food. Canada Packers boasts of this: In 1971 its profit was $9.5 million --

Mr. Deacon: Why doesn’t the member talk about their percentage profit on dollars of sales per fiscal year?

Mr. Young: Dollars of sales have nothing to do with investment, and the member knows it.

Mr. Deacon: It does.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Young: Profits are based on the capital invested --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The member for York Centre is arguing against higher benefits to workmen.

Mr. Young: All right. This is the Liberal attitude: Rather than profits on investment, he’d like to talk about profits on sales.

Mr. Foulds: We’ll make our argument; let the member make his, in apologizing for the food industry.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, if I could get back to this $9.5 million in 1971 -- and I’ll skip the other figures, since the hon. member for York Centre doesn’t seem to like them -- in 1974 they say their profit is $19.1 million. That’s over three times in those years.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): What are they doing with the money?

Mr. Young: What are they doing with the money? Well, let’s not go into a lesson on economics right now.

Mr. Carruthers: No, we won’t go into that.

Mr. Foulds: They sure as hell aren’t helping their injured workmen.

Mr. Young: While the food processors triple their profits, we say we will give an extra 10 per cent, to be generous, to the recipients of Workmen’s Compensation, or four per cent or two per cent, as the case may be, keeping way behind the inflationary factor at the very time when the food processors’ profits -- and I have more figures here if you want them -- are sky-rocketing. And it is food these people will primarily spend their income upon.

Mr. Speaker, not to prolong this matter as far as I am concerned this afternoon because others want to speak, I again plead with the minister to think in human terms in this wealthy province where we are producing this kind of wealth, piling up the surpluses at the corporate level but denying the very mediocre gain we have been suggesting to the people who have been the victims of the industrial process.

Surely, the minister can see the kind of thing that is needed here. Surely, we don’t want to put the burden of suffering and then the burden of poverty on these people who came here -- in my case, largely the people who came from Italy -- to do our job for us, to do the hard, bone labour. Sometimes, I admit, through their own carelessness, sometimes because of employer carelessness, sometimes just because society has not been interested enough to set up the proper safeguards, these people have become casualties and we should not ask them to bear the pain and the poverty and the suffering, and to pass that on to their families as well.

Mr. Speaker, we ask the minister again to take this bill back; take another look at it; bring in a bill which does demonstrate compassion -- not only compassion -- but demonstrates justice, and I stress that word, justice, to these people who are casualties of our productive process.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I may, at this time, like to add a few comments to Bill 116 and I, too, feel it was brought in at a bad time, right at the end of the session when everyone seems to be interested, naturally, in getting the proper process of government finished up. The government brings in so many bills in the last week or two. This one, as members will recall was presented on June 21, one week ago today. Of course, to anyone in the opposition, including me, it seems that bill could easily have been presented a month earlier. It would have had time to go to the committee for representations from all segments of society, whether it was the injured workman or even the people who have to pay the premiums. They should also have been allowed to come in.

Mr. Haggerty: That will be changed when the speaker takes over.

Mr. Ruston: That’s what should have been done on a bill like this. I think that is a public forum we don’t use enough in this Legislature, especially since the present Premier has taken over, as many are aware, and as has been proved by statistics.

On the minister’s statement on June 21, it is rather interesting to read the statement and read some of the interjections. I wouldn’t want to imply that the minister was misleading anyone but the statement seems to have a tendency to get a little misleading. He was reading it out and we didn’t have copies of it, I don’t believe, right at the time; we may have had them shortly after.

It was interesting to note some of the comments of different members in the opposition parties, thinking this was maybe the answer to some of the needs of the injured workers. I noticed in one place that the pensions which are presently in existence would be increased by a maximum of 60 per cent but the trouble is, when one is looking at the partial disability pension, it might be so small that 60 per cent of nothing is not very much. That is the problem.

I heard somebody here say one day that eggs went up 60 or 70 per cent but the problem was that before then the man who was producing was losing 11 cents a dozen so it really wasn’t any increase. Percentages are very misleading.

If one reads into it, there was another comment from the minister’s statement.

“Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the House, I should indicate that the formula to which I refer will be applied to the original pension of the worker. Thus, if a person was injured in 1945 the maximum 60 per cent increase will apply. If that results in an amount in excess of the new minimum of $260 a month, the worker will get the increased amount, but if the figure is less than $260 the worker will get that $260.”

I recall at the time there were comments about time; I think the member for Scarborough West said, “Boy, it’s about time,” and when the minister said he would like to have it put through as soon as possible, one of the comments of the member for Kitchener was, “Sure, why not?”

We assumed from listening to his statement that the bill was a good bill and had some worthwhile benefits in it. I suppose if we had known what was in it we would probably have taken the same position we took when one of the ministers introduced the Act putting an energy tax of seven per cent on fuel and so forth. A year ago we would have opposed it on the first reading, but with the procedure the way it is, it is pretty difficult to do that on bills.

I have not had too many dealings with the Workmen’s Compensation Board but I can recall one very distinctly -- it was in my earlier years in the Legislature -- where a man had been through all the procedures that he thought he had to go through, he went to his union heads and they appealed his bene- fit decisions and they were turned down. He had a partial disability. He went to the former member, Mr. Reaume, who referred it to me and I made representations to the board.

I went down to the board. I guess it was a court of last appeal, so I understand. It was the last appeal possible, so we made arrangements for the man to come. He was only getting $38 a month. I went to visit him at his home and he had one leg in braces. I visited with him to discuss his injury and stayed there for a while and saw some of the problems he had. So we made arrangements and an appeal date was set up.

I had never been there before, so I walked in and the secretary came out and they were very kind. I said, “I am new here at this particular thing,” and not having any legal training or anything, and appearing before the board, I felt a little frustrated, I suppose, as to what I might do. So they asked me to come in first to meet the board and I went in and they discussed the case some with me and said they thought the man probably had some problems that went maybe a little bit beyond his injuries, and I said, “Well, I suppose that’s possible.”

The man was earning, at that time, around $5.50 an hour as a cabinet maker and he had a nice home in the city of Windsor. He had to turn that over to his son because he was losing it. He did have another home in another village or town so he moved out to it, but as his savings went down he had to rent the lower floor out, and then he rented the second floor out and he and his wife moved into the attic. When I visited him, you could stand up straight in the centre part of the house but you had to get down low because of the sloping roofs elsewhere, and these were the conditions they were living under. I said to the members of the board, “I think that if I was forced into those conditions I would probably have some problems that maybe would compound my injuries. I think that’s possible under those circumstances.” Then the man came in for the interview with the board and they made a decision in 15 minutes to allow my appeal.

I just wondered what I did -- I had no professional ability to tell them what was going on -- and why the board would make a decision so quickly when someone made a representation. I hope it wasn’t because I was a member of the Legislature. I hope it was because a man needed it and showed his need by being there, but I question that, because I didn’t think that we really had that much of a case. I just told them, as I thought, the way it was. This was in November, wintertime, when some work wasn’t too plentiful and I suggested that he be paid full benefits until June 1, if I remember correctly, or May 1, when there would be more openings for work. This is what they went along with.

But it concerns me, when I think about it at different times, as to how many people are maybe in a similar position and they are not sure where they should go. Some can go to their union heads, but if they are not in a union shop, who do they go to? Sometimes they don’t think of going to their local member.

What really concerned me was the way the system was working. It isn’t working the way it should be. The benefits that are allowed now are nowhere near what they should be.

I’ve talked to many employers about partial disability. If one is on a partial disability pension from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, they just don’t want to hire him. In the employment field of the federal government they have quite a practice of hiring people with partial disabilities. In their case, a lot of them are Legion members or members of the armed forces. Having worked in the civil service for some time I know a lot of people who were in the civil service in the federal government were returned veterans and some of these were on some form of pension because of wartime disabilities. They have quite a plan with their point system, and points are gained when taking exams because of these disabilities.

I can’t see where this government is doing anything in that line and I think this government should be spending a lot of time looking into and hiring these kinds of people. I’m sure there are a lot of positions in the civil service where these people can be placed.

Mr. Haggerty: There’s a lot of light duty around here.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, there’s a lot of light duty.

However, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make my point. I object very strongly to this bill and the inadequacy of it. We in our party intend to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on Bill 116. In almost all the difficult cases that come to my attention there seems to be one common factor. The workman becomes injured; he cannot do his regular job and there is no alternative work available. He tries a regular job and fails to last more than a short time -- less than 45 minutes in one case I’ve had recently. The company refuses to take him back unless he’s 100 per cent fit and able to do the job that he had been doing when injured. The man becomes discouraged. He goes to the rehab hospital and, in one case I have, the injury was aggravated through his efforts to do the prescribed exercises at the hospital. The injured workman often runs into doctors who refuse to treat him, either because of the paperwork involved in WCB cases or because the doctor knows from previous experience that he hasn’t the necessary skill to treat the workman successfully. The workman, often at an early stage, encounters the suspicion that he is malingering or that he has a psychosomatic problem or the famous functional overlay.

One of my constituents has gone to several doctors. The very first one insulted him by asking him why he did not want to work. The fact that he had an operation on his back a few months later proved that he had a back injury and that he was not just feigning some problem.

This man had come to Canada from southern Europe, because, like millions of others, he hoped to be able to have a home of his own and a good education for his children. He had just made a down payment on his own home, the first step in this dream, when the accident occurred which changed his life and cast a cloud over the whole future of his family.

The suggestion that he does not want to work has probably hurt this man’s spirit even worse than the spinal injury has hurt his body. He has run into this attitude, not only in doctors’ offices, but also with the Workmen’s Compensation Board representatives. He has reported these slights to me regularly and religiously. I might even have had doubts about such a consistent denigrating attitude had I not encountered it for myself when I made, by telephone, an appointment for him with a neurosurgeon in a distant city so that he could have a neutral, independent opinion. The doctor’s final words to me, after the appointment had been made, were: “I’m familiar with the southern European syndrome.” As you might expect, Mr. Speaker, my constituent was given only a perfunctory interview -- I can hardly call it an examination -- and was ad- vised to seek light work.

This man, about 35 years of age, a perfectly healthy specimen when he was accepted by our immigration authorities in Europe, who was able to do hard work in a factory for three or four years, is now unable to turn his neck. He has pains in his legs, his shoulders, his left jaw, his neck and his back. He has two or three hour long headaches each day and must lie down to recover. He cannot stay on his feet for an extended period. After sitting for half an hour or so, he has difficulty getting up. Yet he is suspected of malingering. It hurts him. His wife has had to leave their two small girls in the father’s care and go out to work.

Being an old-fashioned man who thinks that the place for a mother of young children is in the home, he finds this reversal of roles very hard to take. If only he could work; he wants to work; his pride is injured as well as his body.

It may be true that a few hundred people are content to become invalids. Unfortunately, the Workmen’s Compensation Board seems to regard every injured workman or woman as a potential malingerer and proceeds on that theory.

At the rehabilitation hospital my constituent discovered a talent for working in leathercraft. He is good at this; he enjoys it. He could work at this job, or a job of this kind, resting or lying down when necessary and he might possibly be able to put in a total of eight hours a day at such employment, but unfortunately there is no such employment available.

When this man has been at the rehabilitation hospital he has been given what appears to be full allowable compensation. Before he goes there and after he returns he is cut to half that rate. His disability is the same or worse when he returns, but the rate is cut in half. I suspect that this particular individual will be classified as permanently disabled, pensioned off at about five or 10 per cent, or if his discouragement over his future is called a functional overlay he may get 20 per cent.

What he gets doesn’t matter too much because whatever it is, he will have to go on welfare whenever his wife’s temporary jobs dry up.

I believe that the workmen’s compensation pensions should be not only adequate but also automatically escalated as the cost of living index moves up or down. This bill fails on both counts. There is however, one aspect or one principle of this bill that I should like to commend. I know the minister would like to hear something pleasant today and this is it. The minister has avoided an across-the-board percentage increase.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) recently announced an eight per cent increase for superannuated teachers. This means, of course, that a teacher already receiving $10,000 gets an extra $800. A teacher receiving $5,000 receives $400. A teacher receiving $3,000 gets only $240. Obviously the pensioned teacher getting $3,000 needs a greater increase, not a smaller one, than the pensioner getting the $10,000.

Although the increases to injured workmen outlined in this bill are quite inadequate, as my colleague from Windsor West so ably pointed out, nevertheless the minister has avoided the inequities of the across-the-board percentage increase. That much credit I should like to give him.

What we need in this province, and in this country, is a guaranteed income system which would enable injured workmen and all other unemployables to escape the welfare stigma which destroys the morale and the dignity of those who are compelled to receive it. We need a guaranteed income system that would replace all the present social benefits and pensions, probably combining or eliminating the old age pension, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and several other agencies. By continuing our efforts to improve the Workmen’s Compensation Board policies, we are probably delaying the introduction of a comprehensive social security and guaranteed income system. Therefore, there seems no purpose in speaking further and I shall oppose this inadequate bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon, member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I didn’t think we would have a member in public life expose himself to a description such as the former Finance minister of the federal government did when he got the name “Six-Buck.” Here we have a man who has earned the name “Ten-Buck,” but he really hasn’t earned the name “Ten-Buck MacBeth” because he has got nothing for the youngsters here.

I am really disappointed at the whole programme that this minister has brought forward because it obviously is not designed to fit the real needs that he and the rest of us know exist, but it has been designed to fit into an eight per cent or so adjustment in the costs of workmen’s compensation paid by the industry.

I didn’t realize until I became a member just how serious workmen’s compensation was, and the problems faced by those who are injured in the course of their employment. During the past six years I have come across many pathetic situations. Although maybe one or two out of 10 have at times been not deserving of a change in their compensation, the other eight or nine have definitely been really deserving and needy cases. Without our intervention on their behalf their cases would be desperate; as it is, they are still very serious.

I think of the ones, for example, who had medical problems and because of the lack of independent medical help weren’t getting any real attention to their cases. Because I was in a position, fortunately, to get independent medical examinations for them, I eventually was able to get them adjustments to their pensions.

There is the problem of getting light work, so-called, for them. I know one ex-employee of a construction company whose light work was so heavy that he had to have his young son, aged 14 or 15, do the work on his behalf because he just couldn’t do it. This young son was certainly not in a position to spend a lot of time helping his father carry out work that was necessary to bring home money for food and the necessities of life.

Time after time I have found serious problems and it is gratifying that now we are trying at least -- I am sure the new chairman of the board will be trying -- to bring a little more heart and compassion and understanding to the total needs of the injured man or woman affected, rather than just thinking of the medical side on a purely physical basis.

The alternative these people have faced is soul-destroying welfare assistance, and that really is soul-destroying. It is family-destroying so often too, because the person loses respect for himself and the family at the same time and relationships often break down. It is sad to see this happen and I have seen it happen on many occasions.

As my leader has said, we feel the only answer is that these changes in assistance be introduced on the basis that they are indexed to the cost of living. Indeed, we feel the basis of the pension should be adjusted to meet the actual new contracts that are negotiated in their particular former job categories, so that their pension base is an equitable one, taking into account the changing conditions that they would have benefitted from if they had continued to serve. It wasn’t their fault that they were injured. It was an accident. It’s a situation that is incurred because of their employment. We shouldn’t be penalizing them because the cost of living increases; we should be adjusting the base for their pension benefits in accordance with the employment agreements that are negotiated in their particular former work categories.

I would hope that the minister would see that what he has introduced here is really a distortion, a mirage; people hoped they were going to get something better, but they really aren’t. There is nothing significant in this legislation; and it disappoints me, as it disappoints others, that we have this $10 adjustment for a few and no help for many in a bill that we thought we could support when we first heard about it, but now find we must oppose it.

Unless this minister can bring in a major adjustment that looks after the indexing and recognizes the need to increase the pension basis to meet negotiated wage agreements, we see no way where we can support this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to oppose this bill.

I have a good deal of sympathy for the minister, not on this bill, but because I think he has tried to cope with his portfolio, having come in at a difficult time in the middle of a session. To some extent, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was a victim of the deception of his own initial statement on the bill. I think he must now be feeling some hurt, some bewilderment, because we on this side of the House applauded, by and large, the statement --

Mr. Burr: One of the few times we have.

Mr. Foulds: -- one of the few times that we have, my colleague from Sandwich-Riverside reminds me -- because we wish this minister well; we wish his portfolio well. But somehow that statement deceived us and, I believe, it deceived the minister.

It is a cruel and deceptive statement. It’s a bit like the Treasurer’s budget -- attractive at first sight, but it simply does not stand up to closer inspection or public scrutiny.

It’s cruel to raise the expectation of the injured workmen in the way that that announcement did, with the resultant headlines and news stories. It is cruel to the workmen and the families involved, but it is deceptive to the public who are not affected, because they will read those statements and they will say; “Well, what are the injured workmen complaining about now?”

It’s just the same kind of thing that has happened to these workmen time and time again, Mr. Speaker, because they have to fight every inch of the way to catch up on what should have been done for them decades ago.

Just as a year ago, we got the headlines in the press in the papers about the new humane, revamped Workmen’s Compensation Board under Michael Starr. And we had the same kind of sympathy for Michael Starr as we have for the minister. But members in the House have found, as the workmen throughout the province have found, and certainly as I personally have found, that the injured workmen who come to us for help have found that the bureaucracy in the Workmen’s Compensation Board is just as calcified as it ever was. It’s just as obstructive; it’s just as committed to the adversary procedure, for all they say to the contrary; and it is just as committed to protecting the companies’ interests and the companies’ money over the interests of the injured workman.

I want to talk very briefly about four particular cases that I have. By the way, this is the file that I have at the present time of current compensation cases. I come from an area, Mr. Speaker, where the union representatives in my area work damned hard and take a lot of those cases; and I get very few referrals from them. The ones in my file are largely from unorganized, un-unionized workers; and they are current cases. That’s how the board has been streamlined.

I want to talk about a few. I want to talk about Vittorio Pucci. Vittorio Pucci has a case, and I won’t go into the details on it. But I do want to indicate what this bill fails to do; what the revamping of the Workmen’s Compensation Board has failed to do.

Mr. Pucci was injured in 1964. He first got in touch with me a year ago February. He was allowed his claim in 1964, and benefits were paid until he returned to work in 1965. He had a recurrence of his trouble in 1968; the recurrence was allowed on his claim. Total benefits were paid from February to April, 1968. A further recurrence was allowed from September to December, 1972, and at that point the benefits were reduced to a partial rate of 25 per cent. In 1973 he was assessed for a permanent disability rating. They found no “significant disability,” and it was felt that no award could be made and that further payment of partial compensation benefits were also no longer justified. That’s in May 1973.

Mr. Pucci has been fighting that decision through the normal processes since that time without getting a penny. He’s appealed to the appeal tribunal; the hearing was held in January, 1974. A further report was obtained from the specialist and a further review was heard by the appeal tribunal. The decision was upheld and the appeal denied. He was advised of this decision on May 17.

I ask you, what does that tell us about the Workmen’s Compensation Board? Aside from whether or not the claim within its narrow confines is justified, what it tells us is there is a series of obstructionistic steps and that an ordinary workman, without some kind of expertise and without some kind of help, finds it very difficult to find his way through the maze. It is, in fact, a legalistic and an adversary system. In fact, he is not encouraged to take his appeal further. He is told in that indescribably bland and sterile prose of the Workmen’s Compensation Board that so-and-so is the next step. But is he given any encouragement; is he given any guidance? The answer is no.

I want to talk about a case of a man whose name I will not mention, but which has been on my conscience for a considerable length of time. Let’s call him Mr. R; Mr. Tom R. I don’t know how justified Mr. R’s claim is. He came to me several times. We appealed his decision; he lost the appeal. He didn’t want to take it to the full board. But in some way he got in touch with an action group in the Lakehead which wanted to consider the case further. He’s a young married man in his early 30s, he has three children. I happened to be walking in a park, which I am fortunate enough to have behind my house in Thunder Bay, with my wife and 18-month-old son when Mr. R and his family were also in the park. He came over to me and he said to me, “Mr. Foulds, you’ve got to help me; they think I’m crazy. I cannot let my children think that I’m crazy.”

Obviously he was emotionally upset; obviously he was suffering from that phrase “functional overlay.” But he did not want the stigma of having to go to a psychiatrist to get a rating. He wanted to work; he couldn’t work, but he wanted to. He didn’t under- stand, and nobody on the board and nobody in society took the time to explain to him in his language that it is not a disgrace and it is not a stigma to have to see a psychiatrist because you are emotionally upset by the rigmarole and the frustration of not being able to work and of not being able to get an adequate income.

Mr. Bounsall: Brought on by the board.

Mr. Foulds: Brought on by the board. I want to talk to you about a man called Mr. -- I’ll give him a pseudonym too -- I have his file right in front of me; let’s call him Mr. Simone, that’s not his name. He says:

“Re my correspondence with you in regard to claim No.” [such and such] “with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I want to take this opportunity to thank you very much for your untiring efforts on my part. Even though we were not successful, at least we tried.”

These next two sentences I think capture the essence of the attitude of the average working man to the compensation board, and therefore underline the failure of that board to do the job that it says it is doing and is set up to do to protect the interests of the workmen.

“I know from past experience with this outfit, they are hard to convince. They are supposed to help the injured worker, not hinder him. All you get from them is a shaft.”

Finally, I want to talk very briefly about a case that I do not have with me. My secretary has it down in the office this afternoon, hoping that we will get some answer today from the Workmen’s Compensation Board. He also is a young man, in his mid-30s, and he has seven children. He was injured in an industrial accident about 12 years ago. He has had two very brief claims -- once at the time of the original accident for being off work, once later for drugs for medication, both of which were looked after.

But this man, now in his mid-30s, who has been working as a painter for different organizations since his injury, can no longer work. He has for 12 years been living on pain-killers, tranquillizers, anything that would kill the pain and that would allow him to work, Mr. Speaker. I get just a little tired when I hear Tory back-benchers and people in the public and the Workmen’s Compensation Board talk about malingerers among the people unable to work. This society does not provide them with light work; this government does not provide them with adequate job substitutes; this government does not supply them with proper retraining.

The fourth and final case that I want to talk about specifically, Mr. S, has such pride, has been so imbued with the protestant work ethic that he was determined to work if it was going to kill him. And as I stand here, Mr. Speaker, it is going to kill him. He takes painkillers; he refuses to accept welfare, to which he is now entitled because he can no longer work, and he has no unemployment insurance benefits left. But he has asked me if I would take one last stab at seeing if we could get a compensation claim. But do you know what he asked me, Mr. Speaker? He said, “Can you just get them to agree to some medication claim for me so I can kill the pain again and get back to work?”

I refused to do that, Mr. Speaker. I said to him: “Mr. S, we have to fight like hell. I don’t think we will win, because we don’t have all the evidence that we need but we are going to fight like hell to get you a pension because you deserve it. Because you have contributed to this society. You have helped build this country in your working life of 15 years, and we are not doing you any favour by trying to get you a pension.”

Those are just four examples, Mr. Speaker, that in some way try to touch the four cornerstones of the weaknesses of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the workmen’s compensation policy and it is just one of the reasons that I support so strongly the suggestion made so brilliantly by my colleague from Windsor West and my friend from Nickel Belt and all of the speakers, about the necessity for a plan like the New Zealand plan which will not lead to abuse.

But you know Mr. Speaker, if this government introduced a plan like the New Zealand plan, they would put the whole charge on the public purse. They would discontinue the tithes from the companies. They would manage some way, to put it crudely, to screw it up and to benefit of the employers of this province.

There were two specific things in the minister’s statement that I want to take issue with. One of them is on page 2. The minimum total permanent disability pension and widow’s allowance will be increased by four per cent to $260 from $250.

Why is it that people like the widows in this province get a measly increase of four per cent? Surely to God, today in this society, we have come to the idea that the family is a unit, that their income is a unit, that the wife has contributed to the upbringing of the children, and to the consolidation of the savings of the family, yet the widow gets four per cent. Four lousy per cent.

The example that has already been used, and God help me, I just cannot forgive the executive assistant, or the speech writer or whoever the hell it was that drew up the statement, and who had the gall -- I don’t know how to categorize it, Mr. Speaker -- I get so angry. The statement says: “A pension of $200 per month awarded in 1952 will be increased by 46 per cent to $292.”

I would hope in his reply that the minister will read into the record the number of people who were receiving $200 a month in 1952. It will take him about 30 seconds. and I am almost incoherent, Mr. Speaker, with that kind of distortion.

I want to talk about a man -- and I am compelled to do this I suppose -- I want to talk about a man who had three compensation accidents during his life. I am compelled to speak about him and I hope not in an emotional way because I never said thank you to him. He was my father. My father had three compensation accidents during his life, none of which, Mr. Speaker, he had any difficulty with in the normal sense of the word.

And I suppose I am compelled to speak about him because he died in January and somehow I have never been able to express my thanks to that man for what he did for me, for our family and for my mother.

He worked for 47 years for the CNR; 47 years. One of the most vivid memories of my life is walking home from school -- and I had to walk about a mile and a half -- up a street called Tupper St. in Thunder Bay, and my mother was walking in the other direction, very hurriedly and very agitatedly, and we were both about a mile from home. I said, “What’s up? What’s wrong?” I suppose I was in grade 7 at the time, so that would make me about 12 or 13 years old; 12 years old, I think.

She said, “Your dad’s been hurt. Don’t worry about it, I’m going to the hospital.” I went home and prepared the supper for my elder brother, who was working and had to come back, and for my younger sister. I remember it very vividly because, by one of those little ironies of rate, it was the day I received my first bicycle. I had been working part-time as a newsboy and had saved up and been able to do that.

What happened in that accident was that my father had been working near a crane on the railway. The bucket -- one of those big crane buckets which are two, three or five tons themselves -- the cable had broken on the bucket; the bucket had hit his leg and the cable had cracked him over the skull. It’s a miracle he was alive. He’s alive; he’s fine. I don’t know how; he doesn’t know how; the medical authorities don’t know how. He had as far as we could tell, no permanent disability from that accident. He was in hospital for five or seven months -- I can’t quite remember.

Somehow, it was never brought home to us that we were in dire straits. We killed off a few extra chickens that we used to keep. We harvested the garden a little more fully. When dad came home from hospital he was cheerful. He played with my sister; it was probably the first time in his life he had an opportunity to play with his children for any length of time. He survived, he recovered, he went back to work.

He went back to work and about six years later he was working on realigning the railway tracks in the yard in Thunder Bay. Something happened and a piece of steel pierced his eye. He was rushed to one of the very good specialists in Thunder Bay, who sewed up his eyeball and he recovered part of the sight of that eye. He received compensation benefits. He received a permanent partial disability pension and he went back to work. He had no resentment over that. He had to wear glasses from then on and a film developed over his eye so it became harder and harder for him to see. It hadn’t thickened enough by the time he died so that it could be removed, but he felt no resentment over that.

That was part of having to work in Ontario and he continued to do his job. But do you know what he couldn’t do, Mr. Speaker? He could never get promoted. At that time he was a section foreman and he couldn’t get promoted to becoming a road master because for the CNR and CPR, a man had to pass certain visual tests which, at that point, he couldn’t. They didn’t demote him which, technically, I suppose they should have done to an ordinary labourer because the foreman has to pass more advanced tests. But he had no resentment over that and he continued to work.

About 1965 he was with a gang of men burning brush along the right of way of the railways, they do to keep it clear, and some jerk had left a gallon of gasoline by a post. They thought they had the fire out and just as he was leaving the gasoline caught fire, caught his clothes and burned his leg very badly. He recovered from that. He was hospitalized once again for three or four months while they grafted skin from the rest of his body onto that leg. He recovered but he limped slightly after that.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time that I had known him, he complained a little bit. He didn’t complain during the summer; he complained a little bit in the winter because the cold began to get to the leg and he couldn’t work, as he had always worked, outside. He was a track foreman and he used to actually love his work. He loved walking along the tracks, but he could no longer do that adequately. So what my father did was he retired early. He could take a relatively good pension, so he retired at 63 instead of retiring at 65.

In every single case that we had, those three cases, there was no question about it, he got his benefits, there was no red tape, and presumably there were no after-effects -- except I wonder; I wonder because my dad died of a massive heart attack in January, and I wonder about the toll those accidents took on his body, which we cannot gauge. I just wanted to take some time to pay tribute to the courage of that man and to call into question the kind of injustice that we have in our society, when men like that -- and there are, I am sure, many hundreds of thousands of them in this country -- who feel very strongly that they are contributing to society, give all they have to that contribution, which is their labour.

I suppose one aspect that has not really been emphasized strongly in this debate is that if there was a time to really revamp the Workmen’s Compensation Board and labour legislation in this province, this surely is it. And surely some attention should be paid to safety, to preventing accidents, more than the advertising programme, and there should be more insistence in every industry, in mining, in manufacturing and the service industries like the railways, on the training of the foremen and the supervisors and the workmen in the safety aspects.

The minister’s intentions are good. In fact, the officials’ intentions are good, because I don’t see a conspiracy, I don’t see a malevolent thing. I see stupidity. I see people looking at the wrong end of the telescope. I see them trying desperately to justify these increases to the companies which they have to tithe a little bit more.

But damn it all, Mr. Speaker, those companies would not have any wealth to tithe if people like my father and the people who I mentioned earlier didn’t labour for them. Interest, investment, money -- these would not exist without the labour of these men. The CNR, the grain elevators, the paper companies, the fruit processing plants, would not exist if these men did not labour for them.

And why do we not protect the labouring rights of the ordinary working man in this province? Why do we have to be so concerned -- and the minister shocked me, much as I have affection for him, much as I have respect for him, he shocked me when he said, “Well, it is other people’s money that we are dealing with here.” To hell with that, Mr. Speaker, it is the money produced by the people of the province, by the labouring people in this province; it is wealth that is generated in this province and it is wealth that deserves to be distributed to the injured workmen of this province for this production that they have put into the gross provincial product that my friend from York South talked about.

Mr. Speaker, there would be no profits, no investments, no stock market, no capital without the labour that helps to produce them. Our system uses these men, Mr. Speaker, it destroys them and, in this kind of grudging, gradual amendment, it humiliates them. Mr. Minister, this is indeed one small step for the ministry.

Mr. Martel: Backwards.

Mr. Foulds: It is not one giant step for the injured workmen of this province, as it should be. We refuse to support it because we are tired of the gradualism of this Tory government. We refuse as opposition members to support it because we are tired of being apologists for a government that doesn’t care about people. I think no one has spoken more eloquently than David Lewis when he was asked a few weeks ago what drives him to continue as a democratic socialist in this country. He said, “There is a great anger in me that a land as rich as Canada has so many people living in poverty. There is a great frustration in me that so many have to live with social and economic injustice in a land as rich as Canada.”

Mr. Speaker, I can only echo those remarks. There is a great anger and frustration in me that this government and this society in Ontario has not seen fit to come to terms with the social, the economic, the psychological and the physical injustice that the injured workmen in Ontario have to live with. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects I would like to direct some remarks to. First of all, the level of benefits received by injured workmen and, secondly, the matter of the partially recovered, or light work injured workmen or, as we call it, the Workmen’s Compensation Board syndrome which seems to develop in so many of that particular class.

As to the level of benefit, I am sure all members who do quite a lot of Workmen’s Compensation Board work with constituents find that when the injured workman is on 100 per cent compensation and in and out of hospital and under active care, he can in today’s level of wages get along by using some of his savings. By being more careful than when he is at work, he can manage on three-quarters of his wages, but it’s not very long before the family savings have disappeared.

In some cases of which I have had knowledge and in which I have worked, the wife has had to sell the little car she was driving around. Before we know it, the family is down, you might say, to the bottom of their savings. They are just scraping along on three-quarters of their former benefits received from working. This is not so bad as long as 100 per cent benefits are coming in, but I think where most members find that they are called in to the picture is when a letter arrives and says the person has now been cut back to 50 per cent benefits because medical reports say he is fit for light work.

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem we had thought was going to be solved when the minister made his first announcement. On the surface, it appeared that there was going to be some help but when we look at and examine the bill and the provisions of it more carefully, we find that there is only a temporary and partial and small solution offered in this bill for that Workmen’s Compensation Board syndrome into which so many injured workmen seem to fall. Once the benefits are cut to 50 per cent, there is no way in which a person can maintain a wife and family on those benefits.

The attitude of the Act and the board then has been that the worker must supplement his benefits by finding another job. We all know that, first and foremost, in the injured workman’s mind must be the wish to get back to his original job. In most cases, the injured workman has worked there for some time. He has been making a fairly decent salary and he knows that that is his first and prime consideration. In the meantime, the doctor will probably tell him that there is no way he can get back to his job for another six weeks or two months, and we can only imagine the problems that are facing this particular person.

Now even with the extension of six weeks extension of 100 per cent benefits that were brought in last year the problem still exists, but six weeks later than it used to exist. It is regarding these people that I think greater consideration has to be given.

Usually coupled with a lengthy period of temporary partial disability, quite often is a psychiatric overlay which seems to come into play after a certain length of time. The workman becomes anxious. He does not have sufficient funds to look after his family properly. He has to go down and supplement his income with some municipal welfare under the General Welfare Assistance Act.

This, to many people, is something which is very hard to accept. Perhaps by the time this has dragged on long enough, he’s used up his unemployment insurance benefits and everything will be done to try to provide for his family.

The injury, perhaps, has now even become secondary to the psychiatric overlay. We get statements from the medical reports that there is psychogenic magnification of the injury. In other words, it’s all in his mind. He’s not as badly off as he really thinks he is.

I told the appeal tribunal before which I’ve appeared, and I’ve told the board the same, if I had been through what that workman had been through I would be completely out of my mind. One cannot go on month after month, and month after month, trying to support a wife and family on 50 per cent benefits.

You say, “Well, he’s capable of driving his car. He’s capable of doing this. He should go out and try to get a job.” Unless this person is fortunate enough to work in an industry that has written into its union contract that there must be provided a certain number of light work jobs, he will find it almost impossible to try to find some light work of which he is capable to supplement his benefits from the compensation board.

Herein lie most of the problems of the cases that come before us on a short-term basis. Eventually, the man will perhaps be recognized to have developed a permanent partial disability and then, of course, he is eligible for a pension. But he still faces the same problem of trying to get a job.

I think there is a great deal of improvement needed in the rehabilitation section of the board. Their officers come and have great talks -- they’re great at promises, it seems, and building up the confidence of the injured workman -- but when it comes down to the crunch of retraining the man into something for which he is physically capable it just seems to fall by the wayside so often and nothing happens in the retraining programme.

Another aspect I’d like to talk about is the reason for the accident and the responsibility of industry in this whole matter. I think the responsibility is very great. It annoys me a great deal when I appear with workmen before the Workmen’s Compensation Board -- and I realize it is the right of the industry to have someone representing it at the hearings -- but the prime consideration has got to be justice for the injured workman, not how cheaply can industry get by on this accident.

Sure, their assessment is going to go up if their accident record is bad, but the provisions of -- I think it’s section 87 -- of the Act which show how assessments there or extra assessments are made, in my view are very lenient and quite often the appeal against those assessments can be upheld without too much trouble other than a promise to establish better safety controls, or to have a better safety programme installed in the industry. I think the answer to the problem must be to make industry realize its responsibilities toward the workmen in providing proper safety programmes.

I have been accused by industry of costing them a lot of money because of my emotional appeals before an appeal tribunal or before the board in getting an award. This, I think, is entirely unjust. Industry in no way seems to be aware of its responsibility to the workman. They say that because of my appeal on behalf of an injured workman I may cost them $5,000 in assessment the next year. If their accident record is that bad I say they deserve to have to pay.

But I think the prime consideration has got to be that industry be made more aware of what its responsibility is to have a good safety programme. We have some industries in our area that undoubtedly have a bad safety programme. One can tell this by the number of claims coming from them, the fact they send a lawyer to appeal every decision, and that they would even offer an appeal against the decision made by the board, which happens on occasion. I really feel, and I get very much annoyed, when industry takes that attitude. It’s not all industries, but there are isolated cases where this does happen.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the matters that have been mentioned here this afternoon dealing with the level of benefits and the problem which is still going to exist with the temporary partial disability, if it extends for any length of time and becomes a permanent partial disability, have not been properly dealt with in this bill. Therefore I join with my colleagues in voting against it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to add something to the comments that have been made during the course of the day. The minister knows, I think probably all of the members of the House know, that I have devoted a considerable amount of time to the representation of people who have been on compensation. Perhaps it is no more than many other members but, in my own view of my life, I seem to have spent a great deal of time involved with or around the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

I had the pleasure of sitting on a committee which investigated the board. It did a reasonably good job, I thought. We understood much more about the operation when we had finished than when we started. And I think it is fair to say that the board was more aware of the Legislature, if not the Legislature more aware of the board, when we had finished than they had been when we began.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has had an opportunity today to listen to the members of the Legislature explain to him what it is about, not only his bill but about the way in which the Workmen’s Compensation Board operates, that frustrates us, angers us and causes us to have grave concerns for the affairs of the workers of the province, whether they have had to use the Workmen’s Compensation Board or not.

I want to tell the minister that for many of us there is a great feeling of despair. There is a deep feeling of anger in what he has done. I feel as if I’ve been taken in, because for the last 16 months I’ve been asking, not this minister necessarily, but his predecessor most of the time, when was he going to make amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

When could we expect amendments to widows’ pensions? When could we expect changes in the pension levels for injured workers? And week after week, month after month, I was told: “We are working at it.” “It’s coming soon.” “It’s on my desk.” “I have recommendations to make to cabinet.” “I’ve made my recommendations to cabinet.” “I’m just waiting for an answer,” “It’s back on my desk again, because we’ve changed ministers.” And “I’m now going to cabinet.”

Finally, out come the recommendations. Sixteen months I waited. For me, the 16 months was okay. But as I waited 16 months, there were any number of widows, any number of children and any number of injured workers who were also waiting that 16 months and watching with bated breath to see what kinds of things were going to happen.

They saw the change in the Workmen’s Compensation Board. They saw the task force set up. They saw what appeared to be a new approach by the government and the board towards their affairs. They honestly believed that out of all of this would come some worthwhile amendments, reflecting a more adequate income level for them and for their families.

And then it came. Four per cent in 1973; four per cent in 1972; and two per cent in the preceding years back into the dark ages of workmen’s compensation.

My God, does that reflect the attitude of the government and the WCB toward those people whose pensions have been so inadequate, whether by way of a widow’s allowance or by way of a disability pension, total or partial? Does that reflect the degree of concern this government and the board, acting on behalf of the government, has for the affairs of people whose only wrong was to get hurt in an industrial accident?

Well, it doesn’t reflect it, Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you. That doesn’t reflect the attitude of the board. Because in the days when the member for Waterloo North and some others of us sat on that committee and looked into the affairs of the board, and we discovered the board is a damn sight more generous than that under different circumstances.

We discovered the board can be extremely generous under different circumstances. And just lately we discovered even more; that not only can the board be extremely generous, but the government can be extremely generous under different circumstances. Because we saw the magnitude of the payments that were made to Jack Cauley. We saw the size of the payments that have been made to other people who have been in the employ of the board and who have left. We more recently saw the size of the payment that was made to Bruce Legge.

And then the minister has the nerve to come into this House and to offer to the widows of this province -- the widows of the people who worked in the industries of the province and who lost their lives -- an increase from $250 to $260 a month.

Okay! I am personally bitterly disappointed. I am ashamed of what has happened here, to be quite frank with the minister. I can’t understand how he could have done this. I don’t understand it. I don’t understand how the cabinet could have approved in a time like this, with the cost of living like it is, increases that are so obviously inadequate.

I can’t understand why the government, in the 16 months that it has been reviewing the benefit levels of recipients, could not have come up with a reasonable standard based on the needs of 1974, upon which to base the payments that are going to be made to those people who have been injured in the past and to those people who are going to be left behind as a result of industrial accidents.

The disability pensions paid in this province are a disgrace. The pain, the suffering, the turmoil, the chaos that is felt by the workers who are forced to go before the board and to try to justify their disability level, is shameful.

When I think of at least two friends of mine, friends because they became Workmen’s Compensation Board recipients, and came to me for help; when I think of them and I think of the disruption of their lives; when I think of the deprivation that is forced upon their families; when I think of the pain and the suffering that they have gone through, simply because they were unlucky enough to be injured in an industrial accident; and when I think of the payment that they get to compensate them for the loss of earnings, I could cry for them.

Mr. Laughren: It’s outrageous.

Mr. Deans: It’s about time the minister faced reality. It’s about time he woke up, sleeping in the front row, and paid a little bit of attention to what in heaven’s name is going on in this province. It’s time he woke up and appreciated that what he has done is disgraceful and is an affront to the people who have devoted much of their lives to the building of the economy of this society.

I have one man -- I’ll talk about only one in the case of disability. His educational standing is very low. He has great difficulty because he has a language problem. He was a construction worker; he was a labourer in construction and it’s a damn tough job. He got hurt in an industrial accident to the ex- tent that he cannot go back to labouring in construction. Not that he wouldn’t go back to labouring in construction, he couldn’t physically do it, though he has tried. We have looked everywhere for a way to try to retrain him but the problems are immense. There aren’t enough jobs to go around for the people who are looking for them now.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Come on.

Mr. Deans: There are sufficient numbers of people unemployed at this particular point in time that it is extremely difficult to find jobs which will pay a person a decent wage and which he can do if he has a disability. On top of that, there are very few employers in the Province of Ontario who will employ a person who has a disability of any degree.

Mr. Foulds: That’s true.

Mr. Laughren: Not even the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow).

Mr. Deans: As my leader said when he spoke an hour and a half or two hours ago, when one looks at any of the ministries, how many does one find who are the recipients of workmen’s compensation benefits? What percentage of the jobs available in any ministry are made available to people who are on benefit from the WCB? What appraisal is ever done of all the jobs in the civil service to determine whether or not it might be possible to go through the very long lists of people who are eagerly seeking employment and who are receiving benefits and to determine whether or not they might be retrained to fit into some kind of job within the civil service?

Mr. Haggerty: The liquor stores would be a good starting point.

Mr. Deans: Maybe even at the board itself there could be greater emphasis placed on trying to find a way of retraining some of these recipients for jobs at the board. I know the board hires people; I know it does. But it could well be and I think it probably is, possible for it to hire even more and get a good day’s work for a decent day’s pay.

Anyhow, the man I am talking about isn’t going to be able to return to his job; nor is anyone going to want to hire him because be has tried and he has tried and he can’t get a job. He is now at the end of his six weeks. He will try. He will probably get put back on as a result of this bill and six weeks or a month or two months or three months from now he will be forced again into a position where he won’t have an adequate income.

Or take the case of the widow with children. I don’t know how the minister can possibly expect anyone to be appreciative of an increase from $250 to $260. I don’t know how he can expect anyone to be appreciative of a four per cent increase in benefit rate. I don’t understand how he could expect anyone to be thankful for an extra $10 a month -- although I’ll be quite honest; I suspect for many anything is better than what they had. Although the $10 they are going to get from the government is disgusting.

Then there is the old ploy. After a person has been on workmen’s compensation benefits for a while and has been reduced down and down and down, he is told to go to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, because maybe he could be retrained there and maybe he could get a job. They get there only to discover that they don’t qualify because it has been so long since they made contributions.

Let me just reorient it a moment. I want to talk about another group in society who could have been here, had the minister seen fit to hold reasonable hearings, to open the committee up and invite representation. It’s a group that we never hear from and yet it’s a group that could contribute significantly to change within the board. It’s a group that probably has as much knowledge of the Workmen’s Compensation Board recipient as any single group of people. They are the doctors of the Province of Ontario.

I’m sick and tired of doctors sending in letters saying the man is fit for light work. I’m fed up with doctors saying the man has improved and, therefore, would be able to return to some form of modified employment. I’m absolutely disgusted with letters from doctors, supposedly on behalf of their patients, saying they are getting better and if they could find some modified employment they would be able to return to it.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, why they say these things? Because they are so out of touch with industrial Ontario they don’t realize that there are very few light jobs.

Mr. Foulds: Absolutely right.

Mr. Deans: There are very few jobs that could fall into the category of being modified employment. For most small employers there are no light jobs. It is time that we as a Legislature had the doctors before us to explain to us what in heaven’s name they think these people are capable of doing. I know damn well that the majority of them are not capable of doing very much. If you ask the doctor point blank: “Could you tell me what do you think this man is really capable of?” He can’t tell you.

I appeared with a man before the board. Do you know that the doctor had a statement that the man couldn’t walk for long periods and he wasn’t able to stand for any length of time. He shouldn’t sit too long. He wasn’t to lift and was not to climb stairs. But he was fit to return to modified employment. Needless to say, I lost that one.

Anyway that’s the frustration of the board, and it bothers me some. Beyond that I’m tired of employers coming before the board or fighting against claims that they know full well are justified, simply to keep their rates down. I think it’s wrong.

Finally I think society has been hoodwinked. This is supposedly a reflection of society and I think that we have been hoodwinked. I don’t think there is going to be any major change to the benefit levels at the board. I’m now persuaded on the strength of what this government has done over the seven years that I’ve been involved, there will be no fundamental change to the way in which payments are made to the people who are injured in the Province of Ontario. This will always evolve into the government sitting down and deciding what is the minimum we can give in order to shut them up and to keep them away from the front door a little longer.

The minister can’t tell me that he sat down and worked out a reasonable formula to compensate these people. He can’t honestly tell me that on the strength of some reasonable calculation and input which included cost of living and changes in living standards he came up with four per cent for the year of 1973 or four per cent for the year 1972. He can’t tell me on the basis of that example in his statement that there are any appreciable number of people in the province who are going to benefit to the extent the example shows. He can’t tell me there were many people in 1952 who received $200 a month in pension from the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I suspect he could count them on his digits if he took his shoes off. This is a fraud, and it’s wrong.

I want to ask the minister to consider something. Obviously he is not going to withdraw the bill; and he is obviously not going to go on into next week as he should in order to allow for adequate opportunities for discussion. He obviously is not going to amend it here, today, to reflect the needs of the people in the province who have the misfortune of having to go to the board in order to receive their income.

What I am going to ask the minister to do is to make a commitment to us, that over the course of this summer, by God, he’ll sit down and establish once and for all pension and benefit levels in the Province of Ontario, applicable to all persons in receipt of benefit from the board, which will adequately reflect the cost of living in the year 1974.

Beyond that, I would ask that he will bring in, along with that, an indexing that will reflect changes in the cost of living in order that people won’t forever be behind in their needs.

Third, I am going to ask that he sit down and develop a retraining programme, in conjunction both with industry and with government, that will clearly show both the trends with regard to job availability and the numbers of persons presently in receipt of workmen’s compensation benefits who can be absorbed into worthwhile jobs in industry and in government.

Finally, I would ask that, over the course of the summer, the minister set about to bring into Ontario a programme of social security that will provide for people, whether they are hurt on the floor of the shop, in the mine, on the farm or whether they simply take ill, a benefit level that will enable them to meet their obligations, that will adequately reflect what it costs to live in Tory Ontario with its high cost of living.

If the minister does those things, then when we come back in September we will be able to stand in the House and talk with him about the worthwhile things that are being done on behalf of the people of this province who are unable to do anything on their own behalf. And if he doesn’t I want to assure him that every single day until he leaves this place, I will bug him and bug him and bug him.

Mr. Drea: Wow. Oh, wow.

Mr. Deans: I know the member for Scarborough Centre thinks that’s amusing, but I know that the minister doesn’t.

Mr. Drea: No, I don’t. I think it’s rather deadly.

Mr. Deans: I think the minister knows it isn’t that way --

Mr. Drea: I think it’s rather deadly.

Mr. Deans: Because I am sick and tired of having idle promises, either in regard to the kind of things which come about --

Mr. Drea: There’s nothing like extortion in the House.

Mr. Deans: I am not distorting it.

Mr. Drea: Extortion.

Mr. Deans: Extortion? I am going to tell the member for Scarborough Centre something --

Mr. Martel: Well, the member for Scarborough Centre --

Mr. Foulds: He is an expert on distortion.

Mr. Deans: If I thought for one minute that extortion would work and bring up the levels of those people who need it, I would run the risk and I would do it.

Mr. Drea: Well, that’s the member’s epitaph.

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t be like that member; I wouldn’t sit in the back row and keep my mouth shut and nod my head just to hold my seat.

Mr. Drea: The member has written his own epitaph.

Mr. Deans: I am telling the hon. member that when he was elected here, he was elected to try to represent the people of this province who cannot be represented on their own.

Mr. Drea: And I represent them a lot better than the member opposite -- and he shouldn’t ever forget it.

Mr. Deans: And until such time as he is able to stand up and speak on behalf of those people, and speak about them as they really exist and about their needs, and convince his colleagues to support him, then he should resign his seat.

Mr. Drea: I don’t have to be an extortionist.

Mr. Deans: We won’t support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Any member from the Liberal Party? The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Yes, sir. I won’t be long. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill. I am, of course, grateful there is some improvement coming in the moneys that are being given to people who are on pensions and receiving workmen’s compensation, but the amount that is being received at the present time is totally inadequate. I was deceived, as many in this House and outside were, when the minister first rose to speak and talked of giving 60 per cent improvement in pensions. As we look in detail at the legislation it isn’t, of course, 60 per cent. It is 60 per cent if you had your injury in 1940 something --

Mr. Young: And 60 per cent of the amount at that time.

Mr. Shulman: And 60 per cent of the amount at that time. There has been no consideration given to inflation since that time. It seems that on every bill I get up to speak about in the House, I have to talk about inflation. But that is the crying economic fact in the world today, and to ignore it in reference to the very people who need it the most is not a suitable act for this minister or for this government.

I give the government full credit, it has made great strides forward in recent years. This is not the place where it should stumble.

I just want to say a word about the people who are receiving workmen’s compensation pensions. These are not the type of people who are getting unemployment insurance. We are all well aware of the ripoffs and the way that some people have taken advantage of unemployment insurance. But I have never yet heard of a single case of any individual taking advantage of workmen’s compensation. It’s always the other way around.

An hon. member: Right on; exactly so.

Mr. Shulman: There are many places where the government perhaps shouldn’t be spending money, or there are places where it should cut back. This is not one of them.

I think perhaps I have as much right as anyone else to speak in the House on this bill because I have had the privilege, and I consider it a privilege, of having gone to the board on some hundreds of cases now and I have been reasonably successful. But each and every one of those cases is heart-rending.

Perhaps the minister hasn’t been here quite as long as some of us -- and perhaps some of us have been here too long -- but I am sure by this time he must have had a few cases himself that he has taken down to the board. Each and every one of these cases, whether it is a back case or an amputation or someone who is good only for hard labour and now can only do light work and can’t get light work, is an individual tragedy and a person would have to be made of stone not to feel it.

One case that comes to my mind now -- and the reason I think of it is because this 60 per cent that the minister talks about exemplifies the horrors of this piece of legislation -- is a woman by the name of Rose Szego.

I fought the board back in the bad old days of 1968 when they would give her nothing. This is a woman who developed an allergy from working in furs to a point that she was unable to work again. She developed asthma and literally her whole life was ruined. They said; “Well, we don’t cover that sort of thing.”

We fought and we fought and we fought. She finally got a pension which was barely adequate for her to exist on then. She has come to my office several times this past year and said, “Please, Dr. Shulman, can something be done about this?” -- I’m sorry.

“Can something be done about the size of the pensions?” Now the minister is doing something but he is not doing enough. This woman still is not going to be able to manage, and to give her the 15 per cent increase, which is what he is doing -- I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I have never done this before. But these are the tragedies that come into my office.

I say to the minister, this is not the place to skimp. Please go back and reconsider this. It doesn’t matter where the money comes from. If it has to be an added cost of doing business in this province then we should put it on to our manufacturers, our companies. If they are not going to be able to compete with other provinces as a result of that, then part of it should come out of the public purse.

This is the one thing that breaks me up as an MPP, these individual cases. They are all tragedies and they can break your heart if you look at any one of them because it isn’t just the individual. Invariably they are immigrants with families and they come and they say: “How am I to feed my family? What am I to do? Am I to go on welfare? Am I to send them back to Italy or to Poland or wherever we came from? I came here and I worked hard in this country and I did the best I could and I had an accident -- and now I’m being punished for it.”

It isn’t right! Well, I don’t want to belabour it.

I want to ask the minister something, because I know him to be a kindly man and I know he would like to do the best he can. Now in his rush to bring this in, let us hope this is an interim measure. And I appeal to him. I’m not going to bug him, as my colleague says. Perhaps that’s the way to get things done; but I’m appealing to him as a fellow human being. This is the place where government should intervene.

We don’t have to worry about the fat cats. I don’t worry too much about the oil companies or what the taxation rate is, or the speculative land tax, or what the front bench does -- because they affect people who can fend for themselves.

There’s really only one minister in this House who is in the same position as the Minister of Labour, and that’s the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter). They are the only two ministers who affect people who cannot protect themselves; and this responsibility should lie heavily on their shoulders.

I appeal to the Minister of Labour to go back and over the summer to decide whether it has to come out of public funds, or whether it has to come from an added levy on industry -- but give them more. They can’t exist as it stands.

By September or October, when we come back, inflation is going to have taken another five or 10 per cent out of these pensions. They just can’t live on it. Please, do something.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, it seems to fall to me to wind up this debate on behalf of the opposition parties. And I think that I can say that on the basis that we have been consistent an both sides here in attempting to bring to the minister the problems, the concerns, the great depth of feeling which we all have about this bill.

The minister has now been in his chair for the last six hours. He’s listened to 19 other speakers before me and all but one have recited to him cases, problems, attitudes and developments which they see in constituencies that are spread right across this province.

My riding happens to be an urban one. That of the hon. member for Sudbury East contains a large number of mines. That of the hon. member for St. George is a downtown city riding. The hon. member for Essex-Kent represents a rural area; and so it goes.

All of us have seen examples of hardship, of sorrow, of people who have come in to us so badly crippled that they could hardly walk.

And in, usually, an accented English, but with goodwill, sometimes with tears streaming down their faces, they’ve said: “Mister or Mrs. Member of the Legislature, what can you do to help?” And after a while, you know, after a while it becomes almost too much to return that phone call when you see that name -- because there’s nothing you can say.

When you try to feel open and aware and wanting to help people, when you try to take on your responsibilities as a member of this Legislature, to represent not just those who voted for you, but everyone in your constituency that brings you a problem, you look at those numbers of phone calls that we all have to return and you keep shuffling that one or two down to the bottom of the list, but eventually you’ve got to call them and you’ve got to say: “I’m sorry, you’ll need new medical evidence if you’re going to go anywhere. You must remember that this is the last step. And if you don’t make it, there isn’t anything else. If your pension can’t be adjusted now you’ll have to wait a year or so before there’s a review.”

These are the kinds of things that we have to say when we turn off that person for a month or a year, or perhaps forever.

As my leader led off, as the leader of the NDP and all of us have said, we’re going to oppose this bill. We believe the pensions should be indexed, so that when cost of living changes hit these persons who have the least ability to fend for themselves, we at least attempt to keep them in balance.

Most of us can take care of ourselves. Frankly, looking around this chamber, most of us, whatever our background, have done pretty well. We like to think that we have worked hard. We like to think that some of it may be deserved -- I do not know whether it is or not; I guess there is a good measure of luck involved -- but we have all done pretty well. We are not bothered with the same kinds of problems as these unfortunate people are, and their misfortune, really, is perhaps something over which they had no absolutely no control. Unfortunately, they happened to be involved in an accident.

Certainly the increase in pensions for those injured some years ago has been covered by all those who have spoken. We have all reviewed the situation of percentages. We have all played this percentage game, I suppose you might call it. We have looked at the increases in the cost of living, we have looked at the increases that are now going to be involved in the pension benefits and we have found that they just don’t match up.

We have also found a great deal of disappointment, because when we heard the statement when this bill received first reading, I really think that every one of us on this side of the House felt that a breakthrough had been made. I really think that we looked at each other and we commented and some of us pounded our desks, because we thought that at long last there was going to be some way of catching up, there was going to be some way of helping persons who couldn’t cope any longer, and that of any group within our society we at least were going to be able to leave here for two or three months on light duties -- because we can find light work when we are not here -- and we were going to be able to perhaps have a good summer, or vacation, and feel that at least we had done one good damn thing in this session; we had helped injured workmen.

Well, the matter of light work has been talked about, the matter of partial disability and permanent total disability has been talked about, and these two things seem to be the curses of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I hope the minister is able to resolve them. We haven’t really seen it done very well as yet, but perhaps hope springs eternal.

We feel, of course, that the lower income of $4,000 is too low and should be raised, probably to $6,000. We feel that the clothing allowances are inadequate, that the problems oi paraplegics and others who need particular prosthetic devices are inadequately handled, we feel that when a person is on a temporary disability and certainly on a permanent disability, this government should take care of OHIP and arrangements should be made with the federal government so that the contributions to the Canada Pension Plan should be maintained.

Surely this is possible in the wealthiest Province of Canada, in the province that from some of those vacant chairs, when they are occupied, we hear the phrase, “We lead North America,” “We lead the western world,” “We lead the galaxy.” I suppose, on occasion, in some of the things we do, we do.

When the government does things like that it will be praised for it, but when it does things like this, it can surely not expect to receive very much praise.

The rehabilitation branch needs strengthening and improvement. We must make it clear that the injured workman is entitled to have an outside doctor or a specialist examine the evidence, so that there is a clear approach that can be given, so that persons know whether this functional overlay with which we are all familiar is real or not. If there is outside medical evidence available this might go a long way to solving the problems -- many of them no doubt psychological -- which the injured workman finds such a burden, because at least he has “his” doctor, which might allow him to have the balance that is needed when the other doctors all say: “No, there is nothing we can do.”

I realize the staff at the compensation board is under great difficulty because of the volume of work. I realize at the end of a day a doctor who has seen a number of patients might be a little short. We all get a little short as the days go by at times when we are trying to complete a volume of work or when we have other things on our minds. Surely it’s not too much to ask to have a stronger independent medical point of view which will benefit the persons who can’t benefit themselves.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the minister has sat here now for six hours. He has listened to 20 members from around the province speak on the bill as they see it; one in favour, 19 against. However, I still hope that in years to come the minister will look back on this day as a highlight in his career. He will be able to do so if he will have learned from the members who have spoken what the real situations in this province are.

Mr. Worton: Temper justice with mercy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Bounsall: Wind up.

Mr. Drea: Pardon? Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief. As a matter of fact, provided I am not interrupted, I am not going to take more than a couple of minutes. I would like to talk in terms of the concept of workmen’s compensation in this province.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, as everyone here is aware, although I certainly haven’t heard it this afternoon, we were the pioneer in workmen’s compensation.

Mr. Haggerty: Tell us something new.

Mr. Drea: All right, fine. We just went to three minutes. Let the member open his mouth and he is going to get it.

We were the pioneer in workmen’s compensation.

Mr. Martel: Is that a promise or a threat?

Mr. Good: Don’t threaten us.

Mr. Drea: No, that is the game of the member for Wentworth, not mine.

Mr. MacDonald: Why doesn’t the member deliver his speech?

Mr. Drea: I am certainly prepared to deliver it in two minutes provided I am not interrupted.

Mr. Speaker, this province pioneered a unique concept in the protection of the worker, in that it was an insurance plan entirely funded by the employer. It was an insurance plan that was and is totally without any liability in that the employer is always presumed to have been at fault because the workman was injured. I subscribe very much to those two concepts of workmen’s compensation in this province.

Until the last four or five years, workmen’s compensation in this province has been universally considered to be a model for the world. I think it is still considered to be a model for the world despite the fact that in the past four or five years there have been criticisms. Quite frankly, as one who has criticized, I think they were very legitimate criticisms, but approximately a year ago there was a decision-making process which I think changed the very nature of the board. One of my regrets this afternoon, and I certainly haven’t been here throughout the whole afternoon --

Mr. Roy: That’s obvious.

Mr. Drea: If I was here as little as the member for Ottawa East, I wouldn’t open my mouth. I don’t know why he comes at me because he gets it back twice as hard from me.

Mr. Roy: It is not being here or not being here, it is --

Mr. Drea: I have always suspected that one of his problems is he is a masochist. He likes to get punched. If that is his problem, he is certainly going to get it this afternoon.

Mr. Roy: Is the member going to punch me?

Mr. Drea: Only verbally.

Mr. Roy: That is what I thought.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to document some of the improvements I have found in the last year. I will be quite frank with you; I was very moved by my colleague from High Park this afternoon and I can understand his feelings. Particularly, I can understand his feelings because, I think in the terms of workmen’s compensation, he occupies two roles.

He is somewhat different from me in that he is a medical practitioner so he knows the root cause as well as the feelings people like me and the other members of this House have for someone who goes to work in the morning and is hale and hearty; he is making a good income and is self-sufficient, but something happens within a period of hours whereby he becomes something less than self-sufficient and it winds up into seemingly an endless situation where technicalities are being used against him and so forth.

I, for one, like to go back to the fact that on a certain morning he was absolutely hale and hearty until a certain event took place. It’s always been my feeling that one looks at the event rather than the physical person, so I can understand his feelings on this. I give him full credit for it.

In the last year, there is more accessibility to the board. Last year when I spoke I talked about the fact that I didn’t think there should be special assistants in the Workmen’s Compensation Board to deal with members. I thought that was kind of loading the deck. It seems to me, and I had this feeling, that as long as one is a member of the Legislature he had somebody special to deal with him at the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I, for one, preferred to go through the normal channels just the same as the injured worker or his wife has to.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, in the past year I have found, at least in my case, there is no longer anybody there who deals with me. I deal through the board. I find that the accessibility to the board is excellent. I think it’s about a 300 per cent improvement in one year. I think they deserve full marks for it. I think they also deserve credit for the fact that they don’t close at 5 o’clock any more. They don’t close after what is known as normal business hours. They are open at night, so that people can phone in there and can get details of their claim.

Mr. Martel: In Toronto.

Mr. Laughren: Not in Sudbury.

Mr. Martel: Why doesn’t the member try Sudbury?

Mr. Drea: Unfortunately, the Workmen’s Compensation Board claimants that I have usually come from Scarborough. I must say one of the things that really bothers me is when I get them on the second round from members of the opposition. This always bothers me.

Mr. Laughren: The member is a real apologist.

Mr. Drea: I wonder if the job was done properly the first time or whether it’s because I’m a government member. However, in any event, there is much greater accessibility to the board. I give the present minister credit, although it certainly wasn’t his programme --

Mr. Deans: Is the member saying because he is a government member he gets better service?

Mr. Drea: -- but that of his predecessor, who is now retired from this Legislature. I certainly give him a great deal of marks for it.

Mr. Speaker, on a more pertinent point, I would like to talk about the concept of insurance. Today, we have heard a lot of things about the increase. For example, it doesn’t really meet the standards of 1974. It doesn’t meet the standards of inflation. It certainly can’t keep up with great many changes in society. To a very large degree, I accept that criticism. I think that the board must and I also think the minister must. But I would like to know what insurance programme in the Dominion of Canada where the premiums have already been paid has adjusted itself to inflation. I really think this is the first one. I think there is a principle involved. Just because one has paid into an insurance fund and because the premiums have already been paid and the payments have begun to start there cannot be an adjustment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh rot!

Mr. Drea: I think that this principle is very pertinent.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: All right. The Leader of the Opposition walked into it. What about the federal government and its perpetual bonds? Has his party raised them? Will it redeem them? No, it won’t, and that is his party.

Mr. Breithaupt: What about the old age pension?

Mr. Drea: And that is just as much a point of social insurance as the item that we’re talking about now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is ridiculous.

Mr. Drea: It’s ridiculous, is it? To the people who invested in this country through the federal government and had a perpetual bond, the government now says: “We think they’re held by speculators. We won’t raise the interest.”

Mr. Breithaupt: The member knows so little about economics.

Mr. Drea: They have lost whatever they had.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How many ways can the member put that idiotic point across?

Mr. MacDonald: It’s a pity that the member does not recognize that the debate was finished long before he got up.

Mr. Drea: If I was the leader of a defunct party I don’t really think I would criticize me as waiting all day to put forward an idea.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member hasn’t been sitting here all day like I have.

Mr. Laughren: He is an embarrassment to the minister.

Mr. Drea: He used to share an office next to me. I think he’d still like to share an office next to me. I don’t think he’s very embarrassed.

Mr. Breithaupt: No, but the member would like to share an office next to him.

Mr. Drea: The members opposite don’t like it because what I am pointing out to them is a very significant principle. I am not debating the amount of the money.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member is not even debating the bill. When he is debating the principle, let me know.

Mr. Drea: Well, my friend, I may not be debating the bill in his words, but I listened very carefully to him and I found little semblance between what he was saying and anything in that bill. So just let him calm himself down.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member obviously hasn’t read the bill, then.

Mr. Drea: Well, that is by the member’s admission, not mine.

Mr. Speaker, I know of no other insurance programme where the premiums have been paid and the payments scheduled, where it is now account taken of the fact that living standards have changed, that inflation has been with us and plaguing us for some period of time --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is not insurance, it is compensation.

Mr. Drea: -- and that the payments --

Mr. Breithaupt: Why doesn’t the government raise the teachers’ pension?

Mr. Drea: -- are no longer valid in terms of today’s society. We have established that principle.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: That is not the principle of compensation. That is not the principle of workmen’s compensation; it never was, it never was intended to be, and it never will be.

An hon. member: How many speakers do we have to listen to at the same time?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Deans: It is not an insurance policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it disturbs me no end to find out that the Workmen’s Compensation Board and its activities are not considered to be a social insurance fund. Of course it is insurance.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is not insurance.

Mr. Drea: It is insurance. It is insurance for the worker in case there is an accident.

It is funded entirely on a premium system.

It is paid for entirely by the employer.

Mr. Deans: It is not insurance.

Mr. Martel: It is protection for industry, that is what it is.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: The member for Scarborough Centre is getting through to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order.

Mr. Drea: All right, I’ll tell you. If it’s only protection for industry, as the member for Sudbury East says, then why don’t the members opposite scrap it? I have never heard one of them --

Mr. Martel: We would. The member is bloody well right, we would.

Mr. Laughren: The board is not worth retaining. Abolish the board entirely.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Scarborough West has the floor.

An hon. member: Scarborough East.

Mr. Drea: Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Speaker: Scarborough Centre -- it’s Scarborough anyway.

Mr. Breithaupt: He is provoking the opposition.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre may proceed.

Mr. Good: He is repetitious.

An hon. member: Well, he certainly copied from the member for Waterloo North if he has been repetitious.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to provoke the mordant.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that bothers me this afternoon, quite frankly --

Mr. Laughren: The reason is that he is so sensitive.

Mr. Drea: -- is that we have concentrated -- and I give the people full measure for it -- we have concentrated upon those who have not been successful in a system that was designed, quite frankly, to protect them against the economic and social hazards of being injured on the job.

Mr. Laughren: All recipients --

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it bothers me that people would bring up the names of people. It bothers me that people would concentrate upon this --

Mr. Laughren: He is so sensitive.

Mr. Drea: -- because I think there is a universal admission that over the years tens of thousands upon thousands of workers not only have been helped but have been restored back to the job and they haven’t had to prove their employer was negligent -- and I can just see the member looking with his legal eye; he would love to have negligence established; oh, I can see that one. I can see the fees encountered in looking at that.

Mr. Deans: That is not his legal eye.

Mr. Breithaupt: His legal eye is the other one.

Mr. Drea: But Mr. Speaker, over the years tens of thousands of injured workmen have not had to prove that their employer was liable.

Mr. Laughren: They’ve had inadequate benefits too.

Mr. Drea: They have received their compensation. Their families have been protected. I think this is a tribute to the work of the board. I think this is a tribute to the principle of workmen’s compensation in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the whole concept of retraining or readjustment -- I prefer readjustment, because really when you get to a man in his middle 40s, who for reasons beyond his control really hasn’t had the opportunity for much education, I realize that it is very difficult within the existing programmes; and I look at all of the programmes, the federal-provincial one -- right on down.

Mr. Laughren: The member is crying crocodile tears.

Mr. Drea: Don’t ever say on a matter of workmen’s compensation that I have crocodile tears; don’t ever say it.

Mr. Laughren: That’s what he is doing right now.

Mr. Drea: I was into workmen’s compensation and I was fighting for reform long before the member for Nickel Belt ever got the bright idea that it would get him a salary. So he can just keep quiet. I have just about had enough; sit down and keep quiet.

Mr. Laughren: Why doesn’t the member help abolish the board if he has any integrity at all? If those are not crocodile tears, then what are they?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Then tell him to abolish the board and implement a new system.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Drea: While the member was trying to mooch off the backs of the workers, there were people on this side of the House who were doing something about it.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Scarborough Centre is here, but the workers are not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Nickel Belt will please be seated. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the concept and the problem of retraining is a very, very difficult thing. I think one of the problems we have in this province particularly is the problem of immigration. Because, unfortunately, not all of the workmen in this province have had the opportunity to participate in the Canadian school system. Therefore, when they come here they tend to go into the raw labour jobs where the strength of their back and the strength of their shoulders is what determines their income. If something happens, there are usually problems. Perhaps it is because they have not had educational opportunities; or because of their age; and because, maybe -- I don’t really like to go this far -- but in some cases that I have encountered there certainly are psychological overtones because of the pain and the suffering involved in an industrial accident. These people are very difficult to retrain -- and it is not their fault. I don’t think it is the fault of the compensation board in this province, Mr. Speaker, or the other compensation boards, I don’t think it is their fault, because precisely the same thing happens to somebody who is injured outside of their hours of work -- the person who falls on the street on the way home, and this kind of thing. Exactly the same thing happens to them.

Mr. Speaker, I would be begging the question if I said that this was really a federal responsibility because of the Manpower Department; I am not going to say that.

Mr. Roy: Oh no, no.

Mr. Drea: No, I am not. I say that most sincerely.

Mr. Deans: Oh heavens; nothing else.

Mr. Drea: I think the onus is on the federal government; the onus is upon the provincial government. I think the onus is upon the various components of both of those governments who deal with the person who is less than self-sufficient.

Mr. Roy: It is the fault of the world.

Mr. Laughren: It is a cosmological fault.

Mr. Drea: I think the difficulty in the area of retraining -- and I think this is the main difficulty -- is I think the time has come when we have come to a realization in this country that not all the people in it are the beautiful, self-sufficient people. That there are people who cannot cope under the ordinary circumstances of industry, or of the service industry, indeed, even of the civil service, because of technology, the amount of education, the amount of skill that is now required.

I don’t think it is a place where you can castigate the Workmen’s Compensation Board of Ontario as the only one in this; that somehow they are responsible. I think all of us are responsible for the situation.

I think the time has come -- and I certainly would submit it to my colleague, the Minister of Labour -- that we begin to look into the problem of this two or three per cent of the people who are eligible by age and by education for the work force, but who simply cannot be employed because we have technology that has wiped out the light work. And who cannot be retrained because we want those from grades 8, 9 or 10; and they are in their middle 50s and they have grade 2. Or they don’t speak the language; or perhaps they are not the kind of person that an employer really trusts on the job -- they have an arm off and he is afraid. I am not discussing the economic motive. I think an employer, when he looks at someone who has an arm off or a leg off and they are working around a machine, that he has some real concern about safety. What happens if they slip? I don’t think it is the economic question all of the time. I realize there are butcher shops in this province; I’ve seen enough of them. But also there is a concern by the employer as to whether he is really doing the person a favour because he is putting him into a position of danger.

I think the time has come -- and I accept many of the ideas from the two opposition parties today -- for us to really sit down and take an inventory of what these people can do. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is not the role of the Workmen’s Compensation Board of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: It certainly is.

Mr. Drea: That is the role of the government of Ontario, of the members of this Legislature, of the Civil Service Commission and the same equivalents in Ottawa and in every municipality across the province --

Mr. Laughren: We have given them up a long time ago.

Mr. Roy: What have they been doing for 30 years?

Mr. Laughren: The last thing the injured workmen of the province need is another apologist.

Mr. Drea: The last thing the injured workmen of this province need is another member like the one who just interjected.

Mr. Laughren: I’d abolish the Workmen’s Compensation Board; they would all be better off.

Mr. Drea: I see.

Mr. Roy: The member for Scarborough Centre should have stuck with two minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether a person is an injured workman or has been injured in his own home -- there are far more disabling accidents in the home, quite frankly, than there are in industry --

Mr. Laughren: That’s why it should be universal.

Mr. Drea: The point is that society in general, through its governments and through various other institutions, has to take a long look at the person who has been injured --

Mr. Deans: Not for too long.

Mr. Drea: -- and his ability to contribute to the fullest in society and to reap to the fullest the rewards that come from that full contribution --

Mr. Laughren: How much longer does the government want to look at it?

Mr. Drea: -- I think that the time has come when we have to measure that; indeed, if they are denied the opportunity to employment at their fullest -- and I suspect they are -- perhaps the time has come that we have to adopt the procedures of New Zealand, Sweden and Great Britain where an employer has to assume --

Mr. Laughren: Well, what do you know, a white cloud.

Mr. Martel: The member has finally come full circle.

Mr. Drea: What?

Mr. Laughren: After apologizing for it, he admits that it is all wrong. That is very interesting.

Mr. Drea: When the member says that I have come full circle, I have a great deal of difficulty in following his logic. I have always subscribed to the idea --

Mr. Laughren: He apologizes for it one minute; then he wants to do away with it the next minute.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: That’s what is called full circle.

Mr. Drea: Let’s put it squarely on the record. I am not for abolishing the Workmen’s Compensation Board of Ontario. I think it’s the finest in the world.

Mr. Bounsall: Then don’t mention the New Zealand plan then.

Mr. Drea: And I have had more to do with it than you have.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Mattel: The member can’t have it both ways. With one breath he is saying don’t abolish it; in the next he is saying the New Zealand plan --

Mr. Drea: I don’t think that the Workmen’s Compensation Board of Ontario deserves to be pilloried in this House for six hours for all the ills of society, nine-tenths of which it has no responsibility nor concern over.

Mr. Drea: If the government --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: I would have been much more impressed by the statements I heard in the debate if they had zeroed in on the particular problem that faced the Minister of Labour and the people from the Workmen’s Compensation Board in the very changing times of 1974. I am not impressed that somehow the Workmen’s Compensation Board is the author of all the misfortunes that come to people in economic society in Ontario.

Mr. Bounsall: The member hasn’t even listened to the debates.

Mr. Martel: Nor have his Tory friends.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: The very fact that the members opposite are yelping and yowling obviously means I have hit a sore nerve. It is very easy to blame somebody for everything that goes on.

Mr. Deans: It seems to me that when I was speaking the hon. member was yelping and yowling.

Mr. Drea: No, I didn’t yelp and yowl at the hon. member for Wentworth. I was just appalled --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: -- that he would say in this House that he was proud to be an extortionist --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Scarborough Centre --

Mr. Deans: The member for Scarborough Centre was yelping and yowling and squealing --

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Scarborough Centre get back on the principle of the Bill 116?

Mr. Deans: Yes, pay attention to the Speaker. Get back to the principle of the bill.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): The member for Wentworth should keep quiet too and pay attention to the Speaker.

Mr. Roy: The member for Scarborough Centre is right. He didn’t go full circle; he is only going backwards.

An hon. member: When did he get here?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, having dealt with the retraining aspect --

Mr. Deans: Does the member mean he has finished?

Mr. Drea: -- and I think I have been as critical in general terms as most -- I would like to talk about one last aspect of this Act --

Mr. Laughren: We were urging the Premier to appoint the member for Scarborough Centre as Minister of Labour. I can t understand that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let the member for Scarborough Centre --

Mr. Evans: The members opposite should pay attention to the Speaker. Let this member speak. Be quiet.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, to come to the last point --

Mr. Bounsall: That will take 20 minutes,

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, look, I am trying to obey your injunctions, you know; I am trying very manfully, but somehow --

Mr. Speaker: Just proceed.

Mr. Deans: He is trying all right.

Mr. Roy: The member has the floor.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be the very essence of diatribe to try to blame the Workmen’s Compensation Board for the fact the people who were insured against accidents some years ago no longer get payments in the form of pensions which will meet an inflationary day which was never dreamed of at the time the premiums were collected.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I admire the Minister of Labour very much.

Mr. Deans: We were blaming the government.

Mr. Drea: I admire his political courage in bringing in a bill --

Mr. Laughren: Yes, bringing in something like that takes courage.

Mr. Drea: -- that does begin to meet -- I don’t suggest this bill is going to meet all of the economic needs of people who were unfortunately injured a long time ago.

Mr. Deans: Just falls marginally short.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I admire the political courage and the moral courage of not only the Minister of Labour but of the Workmen’s Compensation Board itself. If I can just digress for just a few short words.

Mr. Bounsall: The member hasn’t all along?

Mr. Drea: It pains me no end that the people who represent the Workmen’s Compensation Board, who don’t have a voice in this assembly, have had to sit here for six hours and listen to some of the diatribe that has taken place today.

Mr. Breithaupt: Builds character.

Mr. Drea: I admire my colleague the Minister of Labour. I think he has stood up; he has accepted his moral challenge.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Never mind, they get a cost of living bonus.

Mr. Breithaupt: They are paid to do that and paid well.

Mr. Martel: That is why the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) is out; he’s embarrassed.

Mr. Drea: He has, within the terms of reference of the compensation programme of this province, begun to bring up the worker who was injured some time ago. He hasn’t said the worker who was injured a long time ago is now the responsibility of society; that if the pension is so low, obviously it is supplemented through social assistance. I think that would be the easy way out. He hasn’t done that. He has said to industry that even if the very employer who was responsible for the --

Mr. Martel: There are 1,000 cases on FBA now.

Mr. Drea: -- accident is no longer there, industry has to bear a significant part of the cost.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He raised their payment 1/10 of one per cent.

Mr. Martel: There are 1,000 cases on FBA now.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, he has stood up and he has said that industry must bear a significant part of that cost.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s nonsense.

Mr. Drea: I think he and the people who administer the workmen’s compensation programme in this province deserve, certainly not the brick-bats which have been thrown this afternoon, they deserve full credit for what they have done. I certainly hope the other provinces, particularly those where those members who have an inward view lake to look, will not only follow the lead of my colleague, the Minister of Labour, I would even hope they would surpass it.

Mr. Bounsall: Saskatchewan has passed it.

Mr. Drea: If they surpass it --

Mr. Bounsall: Saskatchewan already passed it.

Mr. Laughren: They already have, on May 9 of this year.

Mr. Drea: -- once again we can follow them.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I think this bill does not meet all of the problems of all of the people who are affected. I would be the last to say that it did.

Mr. Deans: It doesn’t even meet the problems of the people it was designed to help.

Mr. Drea: It goes an awful long way to meeting most of those problems and I give full marks to my colleague, the Minister of Labour, for having the courage to bring it in.

Mr. Laughren: He’s glad to hear the member say that.

Mr. Bounsall: Listen to the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member before the minister? The hon. minister.

Mr. Roy: The Premier missed a good speech. It was tremendous.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): I heard it.

Mr. Martel: That is why he left.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member could learn a lot from him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Speak, man.

Mr. Martel: The Premier went to throw up his cookies, did he?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have listened long this afternoon and this morning. I’ve listened carefully and I have listened not insensitively to the points all sides of the House have made today. Despite what abuse I may have taken and my ministry may have taken --

Mr. Deans: The minister took no abuse personally.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I maintain that this is a good bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Not much enthusiasm there.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I want to say and I do say that the Workmen’s Compensation Board is doing a good job.

Mr. Laughren: Stop that nonsense.

Mr. Bounsall: The minister mustn’t insult his corporate friends.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have not boasted about this statement. I may have been a little surprised that it was welcomed as it seemed to have been by the House the day I read it. I have not claimed it was generous. It is difficult, as I have said on several occasions, to come up with what is fair. I don’t think we can be generous with funds that are not our own. I think we can only be fair with them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I say “funds that are not our own” and I realized that that was going to bring rebuke.

Mr. Laughren: So it should.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, should it?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, it should.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The people of this province, whether they collect it through industry or whether they collect it through taxes, are the ones who pay workmen’s compensation benefits. I saw some remarks the other day about this where the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) was implying that if industry paid it, it was all right because it wasn’t costing us anything. I believe that was it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He said industry should pay it all and it should pay more. The minister raised it by one-tenth of one per cent.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Industry is paying this and industry is paying all of it. Whether it should be paying more or not is something that certainly I will be continuing to consider. But the point I want to make is that we must be fair.

Mr. Deans: To whom?

Mr. Martel: Tell it to the workers.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Whether it comes from industry’s pocket or government’s pocket, the members and I know, it comes out of the same pocket eventually, and that’s the people of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Injured workmen are paying.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre did make a point about plans that try to look after people of one sort or another, and I do not know any industry that has sweetened its plan as time went on. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it here; we are doing it here. But there are many people in this province who are on sick pensions and they do not have their pension updated from time to time as the workmen’s compensation people do, and I think should have done for them. But they are the ones who are helping to pay for these increases, and I ask the members to keep that in mind.

These are some of the things that have been a problem to me in the short time I have been here, and these are some of the things that I have been considering and will continue to consider.

I haven’t boasted about this and don’t intend to. But what I do say is that it troubles me a little when the members say that we haven’t complied with the statement, or that the statement was misleading. I looked it over and I think everything I read that day we are doing.

Mr. Deans: How about that 1952 example?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, I am not so sure whether that is a good example or not. Frankly, I don’t know. And if it is an unfair, unreasonable example, I shouldn’t have put it forward.

Mr. Deans: What does the minister think of it? Does he know the average wage in 1952 was $1.30?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m not trying to avoid responsibility for it. It was attached to the statement that I read, but I honestly don’t know whether that’s a reasonable example or not. It’s a correct example, but how representative it is I’m not sure.

Let me just look at a few things here. I said the pension would be increased by a maximum of 60 per cent, and I read how that was done, and I certainly didn’t indicate that there would be any more than four per cent for 1973. People have asked how I arrived at the 10 per cent -- $2.50 to $2.60 -- that’s simply that four per cent factor applied. I understand that’s how we get the $10; someone was asking about that earlier. As to the amounts to widows, the members say $10 is not very much. Some of them may remember that they were raised for widows, last year about this time, from $175 to $250.

Mr. Martel: Thank God they got more than two per cent last year.

Mr. Bounsall: Based on a formula.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: This is the formula I am talking about. Whether the members think it is a reasonable formula or not, that is the four per cent.

Let me look at some of the other things we are talking about. The earning ceiling from $10,000 to $12,000, certainly that is good. These are some of the things that the task force recommended, and some of the things that we are trying now to put into effect. The minimum total permanent disability pension and widow’s allowance to $260 from $250; I question that.

Mr. Laughren: The minister must be proud of that one.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But let me say this in regard to that amount. I think there is always an assumption that for the people who are getting this, this is all they are getting. There are many widows, particularly widows without families, who have been out working for many years in the work field. We apply this to perhaps the most dire cases and we have to regulate and make laws for them all. There are many widows who are getting the $260 and they have been out working and making probably full salaries for themselves and those salaries have been kept up-to-date; so this is something additional.

Mr. Laughren: That is what the minister should be concerned about.

Mr. Martel: What percentage of the total?

The minister says there are many.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think that is factual. I am not trying to enter into any argument with the member. I am not sure what percentage of widows are out working, but I am saying there are some.

Mr. Martel: Some, right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: A reasonable amount of them. Then we went on about the light work that some of my colleagues on the opposite side of the House have taken exception to. They feel we are going to abuse that. I don’t think it is wrong to have a safety clause in there for the board. It is certainly not put in there with the intent that some members are suggesting.

Mr. Martel: I have dealt with the board for seven years.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think the member hasn’t dealt with it in recent years to find them abusing that sort of thing. That is put in there with the intent that I said it was put there and I hope and expect it to be used in that way. Then we talked about people who were permanently disabled dying from heart-attacks or things of that nature. The section covering this is a good one and there are other good things in here as well. The bill, for those reasons, should be supported.

Members opposite complain that it is not great enough and talk about tying it in with the cost of living and things of that nature.

Mr. Martel: That’s what this government asked the federal government to do in the Canada Pension Plan. It won’t do it itself when it is responsible. The Minister of Community and Social Services went to Ottawa last year and asked for it and approved it in Ottawa.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, order. Give the minister a chance to speak. He didn’t interfere.

Mr. Martel: This government keeps asking Ottawa to do something but it won’t do it itself.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I thought, Mr. Speaker, I listened rather attentively.

An hon. member: He sure did.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think I asked one question of the hon. member for Welland East for clarification at one point. Apart from that, I didn’t make any interjections and I was here for most of the time. I want to approach this from a reasonable basis. Members have given me good arguments today. I want to be factual and I want to be reasonable. I think there are other sides to the story which in reason perhaps we should listen to also.

Mr. Laughren: Accept our amendments then.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Let me read this, Mr. Speaker. In his 1950 royal commission report Mr. Justice Roach stated:

“This Act should be considered for what it is and was originally intended to be. Namely, a scheme by which compensation is provided in respect of injuries to workmen in industry. It is not a system for dispensing charity. It is not unemployment insurance.”

[Interjections by hon. members.]

“It is not social legislation for the purpose of elevating the standard of one group in society at the expense of another.”

That is the end of the quotation.

Mr. Laughren: It sure doesn’t do that.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It goes on:

“The payment of additional compensation benefits on the basis of need would cause the system to become a welfare or unemployment programme which it was never intended to be.”

I think many of the opposition’s complaints have come today, sir, on the basis that these are days of inflation. It may be inflation is upsetting the whole scheme of business and making it tough to administer and bringing out the cases of hardship that many members have brought out. I am saying inflation does cause the board problems to live within the kind of guidelines that I think this Act was originally intended to live within. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that I will have to, and the government will have to, review this Act in light of today’s situation. I am very much concerned about the kinds of cases that members bring forward, but I would again suggest that generally the examples they bring forward are the hardship cases. Perhaps these are the ones members are expecting this Act to look after on a charitable basis.

Mr. Martel: Charitable, my eye!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is not the basis of this Act.

Mr. Martel: When a man’s ability to earn is destroyed, the system should compensate him.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m saying that this Act was never set up for that purpose. It was set up as an insurance matter.

Mr. Laughren: Why are there so many on welfare, then?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: As members all know, it was based on the old master-and-servant law and the responsibilities of that. The ideal is to get those cases out of the courts and to speed up those compensation cases without the problems of litigation.

Now, today, because of inflation we are getting all of these unreasonable extremes which the members have brought out.

Mr. Speaker, let me assure all members here that it is my hope that I can look at these things and look at the hardship cases -- reminding the House that most of the cases are not hardship cases. The board is looking after many people whose payments are quite reasonable and quite adequate.

Because of the things I have mentioned and the hon. members have mentioned caused by inflation for the most part, we are into this type of trouble and this type of concern. Mr. Speaker, I certainly will undertake to do my best to look at it with that in mind during the summer months and into the fall.

I would hope that the good things which are in here could be done now. I could have sat on this and made further examination well on into the fall but I have been urged by many, as well as in the fairness and justice that I was trying to talk about, to get this into effect as quickly as possible. That is the reason the government and I pushed for it prior to the end of this month so it could become effective on July 1.

There is much good in this Act. It may not be as good as opposition members would like it to be, but I ask for support when we go into committee and finally in third reading.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 116.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 116, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes	Nays
Auld Bales Beckett Brunelle Carruthers Davis Downer Drea Evans Ewen Gilbertson Handleman Hodgson (York North) Irvine Kennedy Kerr Leluk MacBeth Maeck McNeil Meen Morrow Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Parrott Potter Reilly Root Rowe Scrivener Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Stewart Timbrell Villeneuve Wardle Wells Winkler Yaremko -- 39.	Bounsall Braithwaite Breithaupt Burr Campbell Davison Deacon Deans Dukszta Foulds Good Haggerty Laughren MacDonald Martel Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon (Brant) Roy Ruston Shulman Singer Worton Young -- 23.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 39, the “nays” 23.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT

House in committee on Bill 116, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 116, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Any comments, questions or amendments on sections 1 or 2?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Yes, section 1.

Mr. Chairman: Section 1.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Section 1(1)(c).

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Section 1(1)(d).

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West. Hold it please. Section 1(1)(b) first of all.

An hon. member: No, 1(1)(c) is the first one.

Mr. Chairman: Yours is (c)? The member for St. George, was yours (c)? The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: I was interested in the minister’s comments dealing with this particular section, where he thought that there were a number of widows who were working and he couldn’t indicate to the House just how many widows would be working to earn the extra income, whether it would be one per cent or two per cent.

When I look at raising the benefits to $12,000, I suppose if we take the 75 per cent factor that means that there’s $9,000 maximum that would be payable under workmen’s compensation. When one looks at the raising of the survivor’s benefit here, I would say that $260 is far too low. I think there’s no consideration here of what a widow would have to go through if she happened to be a young person paying for a home. Purchasing a home would absorb all of that amount that’s suggested in here, the $260, in monthly mortgage payments alone. Then again, considering the high cost of rent in the Province of Ontario, there are many communities where the $260 would perhaps be just enough to cover the rent.

So I say there’s nothing in here at all to supply a sufficient means of income to support the proper maintenance that it would take for a widow to keep the existing home environment, and I would hope the minister would bring in an amendment here to suggest that it shouldn’t fall below a 60 per cent rating for survivor’s benefits. I believe this is what should be included in the bill, at least 60 per cent survivor benefit in this particular case.

I don’t know whether we can move an amendment to this section or not. I understand it deals with money and we in the opposition have no right to make an amendment that includes the expenditure of money, so I hope --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): It’s not government money.

Mr. Haggerty: Someone says it is not government money. Maybe I have interpreted it wrongly then. In this case, I would hope that the minister would bring in an amendment to cover this section so that at least the survivor benefits should not fall below 60 per cent of the total maximum pension there, dealing with the $12,000.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to place on section 1(1)(c) at this time. I would place it on section 1(1)(c) but, at the same time, because the figure involved in 1(1)(c) appears elsewhere in the bill I will place the amendment for those other sections at the same time. I would hope that you would rule, Mr. Chairman, that that doesn’t rule out further discussion on 1(1)(d), for example.

Mr. Bounsall moves that sections 1(1)(c), 1(1)(d), 1(1)(f) and 4(1)(i) be amended by replacing “$260” with “$455 adjusted semi-annually by the same percentage as the change in wages and salaries in Ontario.”

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): A good amendment.

Mr. Chairman: There was some question as to whether it’s in order. I rule it is in order because it’s not money coming from the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. Foulds: A good ruling, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any comment on it?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to indicate exactly how this is arrived at. This is a very similar amendment, except for the actual dollar amount, as I placed a year ago on June 5. At that time it was clear that the basis by which the amount was set in this section and repeated in various other sections of this bill was by the ministry following a particular formula, or the Workmen’s Compensation Board following a particular formula; and that is, taking the minimum wage in the Province of Ontario, being $1.80 at that time, to reach the $250, multiplying it by a 40-hour week and taking 75 per cent of it. That worked out to $250.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal that I have is higher than multiplying it by the new minimum wage that one has, or the new one that we are about to have, because it’s based on what the minimum wage should be. Just briefly, I would indicate what that minimum wage should be.

I have held, as have people in our party, that we should follow the Manitoba formula in determining what the minimum wage in this province should be, which is 60 per cent of the average industrial composite for wages and salaries. In the Province of Ontario, in the month of May, 1974, on a per-hour basis, 60 per cent of the average of wages and salaries -- the latest month for which I can determine figures -- would be $2.65. So the minimum wage right now in the Province of Ontario, based on Manitoba’s method of arriving at it, would be $2.65. That’s what would be a proper minimum wage in this province.

Following the ministry’s own formula of June 5, 1973, multiply 40 by that minimum wage of $2.65, multiplied by 4.3 to put it on a monthly basis -- that being the factor of conversion that is used in government circles or in any circle for conversion from weekly to monthly -- and multiply that by 100 per cent because we do not believe that it should be 75 per cent as well, one arrives at a proper minimum being $455 a month.

This is the basis on which that figure is arrived at. There are a couple of comments that can be made -- I think made right at this section and I won’t repeat myself in further sections of the bill. We see no justification, Mr. Chairman, for paying anything less than 100 per cent of one’s wages and have that amount taxable. Paying 75 per cent non-taxable does not make any sense. Certainly the difference in income tax does not amount to 25 per cent of his full wages. We should be paying 100 per cent.

Mr. Minister, I would like to hear what your arguments are for continuing to pay 75 per cent of one’s earnings. The only argument that the former Minister of Labour made when we debated over a year ago was that they don’t pay income tax. Anyone knows that at the level of pensions paid, a worker does not pay 25 per cent of his total income in income tax. So the argument made by the former minister was fallacious. I would be interested to hear by what means the present minister justifies that 75 per cent.

I feel it should be 100 per cent and fully taxable. There is no reason for it being one iota less, no reason whatsoever -- unless the minister is going to admit in public terms another equally fallacious argument and a very discriminatory one, that somehow he doesn’t trust these injured workmen. Somehow he feels that unless he gives them a little bit of a cut, they are going to sit on their rears. Is that the minister’s attitude, really? I would be interested in hearing him explain and clear up just why he is content to leave it at 75 per cent and state is explicitly.

And so, based on the 100 per cent times 4.3 a week, times a 40-hour week by what should be the proper minimum wage, using the Manitoba formula, you arrive at that figure of $455 per month as the proper minimum; that formula having been basically derived by the board itself in the amendments it placed a year ago this month.

Just to digress on the minimum wage, the Manitoba formula is 60 per cent of the industrial composite for that province. At the current level, using the month of May figures for the minimum wage in the Province of Ontario, we are paying 46 per cent. The minimum wage is 46 per cent of the average of salaries and wages in this province. And by the time next October comes and we raise that minimum to $2.25, we will have just reached -- taking a guestimate; using the percentages that have been accruing over the last few months on increases in salaries and wages -- we will have just reached 50 per cent. The minimum wage then will equal 50 per cent of the average of salaries and wages in the province.

It will continue then to fall rapidly behind. I don’t think this province can hold its head up in terms of its minimum wage level when it is paying that kind of a percentage -- currently less than 50, managing to just make 50 next October, and continuing to slide behind.

A minimum wage and the pensions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board are two items that should be adjusted, not by the consumer price index changes or the cost of living changes but by the change that occurs in the average salaries and wages in the province. And that includes as well all those workers on the minimum wage.

That is the proper basis on which to put it; not on cost of living. There are other things which are best placed on the cost of living, as opposed to averages of wages and salaries. And all through the Fifties, Sixties and early Seventies the percentage increase in salaries and wages in Ontario was double what the cost of living was.

In this past year it has had one blazes of a time keeping up, and lately it’s fallen a bit behind. By the same token, the pension of an injured workman and the minimum wage should not be based on the consumer price index or consumer cost of living, as I’ve said, but the increase in the average of the salaries and wages in the province.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments? The hon. minister.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, as I’ve said before, I think we are getting a welfare matter mixed up here with a pension matter.

There are some 4,657 widows receiving pension from the Workmen’s Compensation Board. If we tied these widows, or in some cases widowers, into a cost of living index, they would be getting something that most widows of this province do not receive. They would be getting special treatment and they are not all cases of need.

If we are talking about special cases of need -- and there may be many --

Mr. Bounsall: That is what makes it a welfare case, if you talk about need.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, if they were cases of need they should be getting some other sort of assistance. I do not know why you want to treat the widows of Workmen’s Compensation Board people differently from other widows. I don’t know of any other pensions automatically tied in to a cost of living index and things of that nature as you are suggesting. You want these some 4,000 widows to get special treatment which I don’t think any other widows in this province get -- or widowers -- or at least very few.

You asked me to comment on the 75 per cent. I think the answer my predecessor gave last year was the main reason -- income tax. I think there is also the matter of the cost of getting to work and things of that nature. In other words, the man who is going to work every day has certain transportation expenses, certain clothing expenses and certain food expenses which the man who stays at home doesn’t have. Those are at least two items which I think account for that.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, on this, just very briefly; when you do not tie Workmen’s Compensation Board pensions to the loss of earnings and the increases in salaries and wages which occur in this province, you are making a welfare case out of it. By so doing, you are not making it a welfare case. The whole point here is that through this Legislature, on a bill like this dealing with compensation only, you raise the funds from industry to pay the amount you decide to pay. There is no welfare involved here.

This very point is the way in which you decide exactly what it is you are going to pay. If you don’t relate it to salaries and wages, and you don’t relate it to increased earnings in the position as that job progresses, you are then making it a welfare case.

Mr. Foulds: Good point.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it. Shall we stack this with any possible future ones?

The hon. member for St. George was on (d), was it?

Mrs. Campbell moves that clause (d) of section 1 of the Act be amended by adding at the end thereof the words “or under the age of 18 years and in full-time attendance at a regular institute of education.”

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, this province has seen fit to enact this legislation to provide that a young person may be supported by a parent if the child is over the age of 16 years and in full-time attendance at an institution of education.

It would seem to me at least that it would be a travesty if we enforced that through the family courts of this province in cases when the parents are alive, yet we would not enforce it for the benefit of those unfortunate children whose parents are not alive or whose father is not alive. It would bring the total picture into line with all of the other legislation and I would hope that the minister would view that at least kindly and accept it as a proper amendment to this legislation.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Very good point.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Last June, I put an amendment very similar to this. I don’t want to help the minister out but he pointed out -- and I can’t quickly pick it out -- there was a section of the Act that relates to maintaining a child in school. If the child is in full-time, the benefits continue. Although the age left in the Act was 16 and your change to 18 would certainly be a beneficial one -- and I would like to see it in, that’s for sure -- it seems to run against the current practice of other factors in the province where we have been dropping the age to 16 from 18.

Mrs. Campbell: No, Mr. Chairman, if I may explain this amendment.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: To cut this short, I think this has already been taken care of.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): You are extending it up, aren’t you?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: No, no.

Mr. Bounsall: The trend has gone the other way. The Children’s Aid Society -- out at 16.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Section 36(4) says:

“Where in the opinion of the board the furnishing of further or better education to a child appears advisable, the board in its discretion may on application extend the period to which compensation shall be paid in respect of the child for such additional period as is spent by the child in the furthering or bettering of its education.”

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, if I might. I could see that being useful after the age of 18, but why would we not bring this statute into line with the other statutes which clearly -- they were amended; when was the amendment? About a year ago last fall there was an amendment brought in by the Hon. Allan Lawrence in order to provide that parents had an ongoing responsibility to any child who was in full-time attendance at a regular institution of education up to the age of 18 years.

I see no reason, with the greatest respect, why that should be a matter of discretion for the board in those circumstances and up to 18, when there is no discretion in the parents and where the parent is no longer available to take that responsibility. If I could, I would ask the minister to direct himself to that position, and then over the age of 18 if the Act is available that would be splendid.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I am reading here, “No case for extension of education has ever been refused.” I’ll be pleased to look at that. I think there is great merit in having similarity in all of the Acts. You have put some pressure on me today, at least I have felt you have. We’ll be looking at this Act again in the near future. Since I am taking our officials’ word that no case has ever been refused, I would hope that you would leave it there and that we can try to bring them into similarity in the next go-round.

Mr. Good: Not very satisfactory.

Mr. Bounsall: On the same section, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: On the amendment?

Mr. Bounsall: On the same section. Yes. I believe one can move an amendment to the amendment in committee.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 1(1)(d) be amended by deleting the words “$70 to be increased upon the death of the widow or widower to $80 for each child under the age of 16 years” and substituting therefor “$120 adjusted semi-annually by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index for each child under the age of 18 and upon the death of the widow or widower payment to be made to whomever is in loco parentis.”

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: As this amendment is in an entirely different vein than the amendment submitted by the member for St. George, what would be the proper procedure so that she does not lose her amendment in the subamendment, which appears to me to be an entirely different amendment?

Mr. Chairman: I think the proper procedure is we vote on the subamendment and then, if it is lost, we vote on the amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: If it is lost, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that since they are two different subjects, we would in any event vote on both amendments, but in order.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, the subamendment comes first, then the amendment. There is a similarity; the way I read Mr. Bounsall’s amendment to the amendment, he wants to increase the fee.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on my amendment, which also takes the age to 18.

We’ve had the assurance that there has been no one in school turned down. In the Act at the present time, $70 is to be paid to each child of a widow or widower and $80 should that widow or widower die and the child have to live somewhere else. Where is the justification for there being any difference between a child living with a widow or widower and, when that widow or widower then dies, a different sum being paid to somebody else, whoever is appointed through the Children’s Aid Society or otherwise, whoever that person is?

There should be no different cost in the bringing up of that child through pensions. Again, you are making it sort of a different scheme when you fool around like this. I have chosen the figure $120 because at the moment that is the most common payment by the Children’s Aid Societies in the Province of Ontario for a foster child or any other child into which, over which or around which the Children’s Aid Societies involves themselves.

Again, we have one segment of our society with which this present government is involved and to which they say $120 is the appropriate amount. Yet in another Act you find $70 is the appropriate amount or $80 if they live with somebody else. How ridiculous can this continue to get? I’m firmly of the opinion that it should be the same amount whether they live with their natural parent or with someone else. That is the reason I have made this payable to whoever acts in loco parentis, and that the amount should be $120, the amount paid by the Children’s Aid Societies.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak? Does the minister want to reply to that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think I can say very much. It’s substituting one figure for another figure; and, as I say, we want the figure we put in there. It is easy to say it should be more -- maybe it should be $120; maybe it should be $240 -- but I think ours is a reasonable figure.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Chairman, if I may speak to that for a moment, the minister’s logic is really something to behold. How do we justify in this province, if a child is placed in a home because he has lost both parents or for other reasons, the payment of roughly $120, plus a clothing allowance, plus a spending allowance, plus a variety of other things such as vacation allowances and so on; and, if that child doesn’t happen to be placed through the Children’s Aid Society, that $80 is sufficient in a different situation?

Surely there must be some rationale for your choice of that figure, as there is a rationale for the Children’s Aid Societies having adopted a figure of approximately $120 to look after the needs of a child who might be in a foster home for any reason. If you have a child, as in the instance my colleague has spoken about, who has lost one of his parents through an industrial accident and possibly the other for some other reason, and if it costs $120 to raise a child in a foster home placed through the Children’s Aid Society, perhaps the minister could explain why it costs $40, $45 or $50 less to raise a child placed with a relative or a stranger than it is for a child placed through the Children’s Aid Society, which is really a tool of this government as well.

There must be some rationale. It’s not enough to get up and say: “Well, it*s a figure this government chose.” How did you arrive at that figure? To simply hand us that kind of nonsensical answer is not good enough.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m not proposing any change here to the figure for children. It was already there. The figure we are changing or proposing to change is the $250 figure.

Mr. Deans: Sure, we know it is. We are saying you should change it.

Mr. Martel: Surely to God, if the Children’s Aid Society, which deals in the well-being of kids every day of the week, sees fit to pay up to $120 plus, how can you say that for a child who becomes an orphan as a result of an industrial accident and later, on the death of a mother or father, it only takes $70 or $80 to raise that child in a similar foster home? Where is the rationale behind it?

We argued this with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle). If the same child is placed through another Act there is yet another amount that is different. Let’s try to get some rationale in what we are doing in this province. Otherwise, one never knows what benefits a child is entitled to when he’s left in this type of position.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, again I can see some advantage in having similar amounts for similar services or similar provisions. I am not so sure that foster homes are exactly the same as we are talking about here. Certainly at this time I don’t propose to change this amount or recommend that we change this amount from the $70 to $120. I’m not sure which one is right. I would agree that maybe they should be looked at and studied, and all of the Acts brought into some sort of co-relationship. You are asking me now to explain why two different Acts, passed at two different times, don’t have the same figure and I’m afraid I can’t do it.

Mr. Bounsall: Further to the point, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the present Minister of Labour does have an organized, logical mind. I would be very pleased, therefore, if, before the time comes for the next change to this Act, the next amendment to be brought in by the government to this Workmen’s Compensation Act -- I would hope it wouldn’t be too long, like six months -- that in the interim he investigate amounts like this and bring back into this Act an amount that is reasonable and in line with what is paid to children in other but very similar circumstances.

Mr. Chairman: Are you ready for the amendment to the amendment?

All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment to the amendment, please say aye.

All opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Stack this one?

All in favour of Mrs. Campbell’s amendment to the same clause please say “aye.”

All opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Stack this one?

No more on section 1?

On section 2:

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I have one on the 41(1)(a) portion.

I will put the amendment I have and then speak to it.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 2 of the bill be amended so that section 41(1)(a) of the Act be amended by deleting all the words after “employment” in the first line and substituting therefor “a taxable weekly payment, equal to the total difference between the average weekly earnings after the accident, and the actual or estimated average earnings, including as it may change, of the employee’s position before the accident.”

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I think this is fairly self-explanatory. Again I have included in this the concept that all of these pensions should be taxable and at the 100 per cent level. By deleting what I have deleted, it removes the 75 per cent figure.

We talk about a taxable weekly payment equal to the difference between the average weekly rate in his new job -- which is presumably some light work in many cases -- and the old job that he had before the accident. However, as the old job rate changes, or estimated rate changes if that job should disappear in the particular plant that he worked in or in the particular community, then he should get the entirety of that difference. As the job rate increases his difference will likely increase and he should be getting the whole amount of that difference.

If you look at some of the figures here, they are quite revealing. If a person was injured right now, and the old job paid $160 and the new, lesser job that he could find being injured paid $120, he would at the present time get three-quarters of that difference. He would then be getting a salary of $150.

Let’s say that both jobs go up according to the cost of living, or whatever is negotiated in the contracts, and the new job goes up $20 to $140 and the old job by the same $20 to $180. The worker finds himself getting 15 per cent of that difference still, but the difference now being $140 and the amount of the old job at $160 -- not the new position -- the new rate for that old job. And he finds that it is $15 added onto the $140 and he gets $155. So his new job classification has gone up by a full $20, yet he sees only $5 more and the other old job position is still advancing out of sight.

You can go on and take another example if you want, but you arrive at some point where, of course, there is no difference between his new job and his old job rating, because that new job rating is caught up some maybe four, five or six years later on. However, the old job that he had now pays considerably higher. There is still a real difference in terms of his earning capacity and because of his reduced employability due to the injury, yet he is not receiving any of that benefit of that particular difference.

I know the minister at this particular time is inclined to do something with respect to this particular change. But he should be looking at the Act closely in the future, having seen some of these anomalies. This is an area where workmen’s compensation benefits are supposed to compensate for loss of earnings. Tying the difference to the old job rating, as that old job rating has increased in its wage, is an area in which the minister should be taking some action.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I congratulate the hon. member for a valiant attempt to put forward in a specific formula a method to relate the compensation payments with the changes in the salaries of the job at which the original accident occurred. There is no doubt that the changes in the compensation payments must be related to the cost of living, which we have discussed this afternoon, and also to the changes in the wages paid to the job concern, which is a good reasonable approach.

I can see real difficulties in relating both of these factors, which presumably would both be rising at perhaps different levels and different rates, particularly when we are talking about an instance of a permanent injury and, over many years, the rationale for associating the payment for the injured workman to a job which may or may not exist in the same terms as it was perhaps 10 or 15 years before.

We intend to support the concept, but I think a good deal of thought must go into it -- possibly even the establishment of some sort of a wage index as well as a price index so that the two are not always at odds and the one pushing the other in the inflationary spiral. I can see that it would be a very Solomon-like decision indeed to come up with a formula that would be fair and satisfactory. But one could strive for the best possible under the circumstances and, in attempting to use it, see where there might be inequities which could be removed.

As I said at the beginning, I admire the hon. member’s attempt to use wage increases to relate to the benefits paid to the workmen. For want of something better on the horizon, we would support it if it is put forward to a vote.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I endorse what has been said here. I say, this is one of the problems that’s caused by inflation and one of the things we’ve been grappling with today. I’m not prepared to try to look after that in this time. I think, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, it’s a formula that perhaps can and should be worked out and certainly thought given to it.

Just one comment about tying it in with the taxable weekly payments. I don’t think we can do that at this level. This is an income tax consideration and we’d have to ask the federal people to review their Act. I’m not so sure we want to. I think it’s reasonable that it should be exempt from income tax payments. There is a possibility that some of them may be paying greater than 25 per cent because many of them can go out and get other employment and it may be working hardship on Ontario citizens. In other words, just because a man loses an arm, it doesn’t mean he can’t go out and make full wages as an accountant or something else.

Mr. Deans: He won’t get a job as a bus driver.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: He certainly can’t work as a bus driver. I’m not suggesting that at all. But he could go back to school or do something, and some of them do.

Mr. Martel: He can’t work underground.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: He might be in a field that’s paying more than 25 per cent.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Deans: We will stack that one too.

Mr. Chairman: Stack that one?

The hon. member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, this is the nub of the whole problem with respect to what has been discussed all day. Therefore, I’d like to move the following then explain the reason why.

Mr. Martel moves that in section 2 of the bill 41(1)(b) be deleted and a new section 41(1)(b) be included as follows: “Where the employee is unable to return to regular work a weekly payment in the same amount as would be payable if he were temporarily totally disabled.”

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, that’s the nub of the problem that has been discussed all afternoon. It’s the real issue and what makes the Act so bad. I am firmly convinced that we have to start looking at a man’s inability to earn as opposed to a man’s physical disability, and I think in the process we have to make industry somewhat more responsive to the needs of those workmen who are injured in their operations. Let me cite an example.

International Nickel Co. would not give light duty for about two years, and as the board moved to have more and more men retrained. International Nickel, being under schedule 2, had to pay the full shot for these people being retrained. International Nickel Co. had a whole group of contracts for cleaning offices and so on. It didn’t have its own employees doing this work. It was contracting it. At the same time, it had maybe 50 or 60 men who were being retrained in Canada Manpower and so on, and the company found it was rather expensive to have all these people being retrained, with Inco paying the shot, so it moved then to take these handicapped people into doing the work, the cleaning of the offices and so on.

It was a kind of a pressure tactic. I think that industry, when confronted with paying the full shot until the man can resume regular work -- the other clause in this, of course, the first clause would alleviate it.

If the company is willing to provide light duty then you have the clause, which we have moved an amendment on but it has the same effect, that using the two principles, in fact, industry would find it convenient to find light duty work and those people would fall then under the schedule A portion. But if they couldn’t and wouldn’t do this, then we would have it so that we wouldn’t have the problem that confronted us here last week, of men who have 50 per cent disabilities, who can’t be retrained, who, in fact, are living on a $200 or $150 pension and the rest is made up by welfare. In fact, they would remain on full benefits until such time as work was found for them.

I know the minister is going to say: “Well, that’s really what we are doing.” Well, I don’t have that much faith, Mr. Minister. I happen to be convinced that in the rehabilitation department -- and I know many of them and they do excellent work -- they are actually discouraged. They take a look at a man. They will give him the first round. They will try to help him. He has got to prove he is trying to help himself, but after that they’ll take him from the rolls if it doesn’t work the first time around. Rehabilitation does not really play a role. There is very little counselling for a guy who’s injured, very little counselling, very little psychological help if that’s necessary, very little to bridge the gap to get him back in.

I am saying that this will force the board to look at it and if they are sincere on retraining the men and getting them back into the work force they will have to do it and they are going to have to persist in attempting to achieve that.

They simply won’t be able to use what in this Act bothers me -- that discretion, “fails to co-operate or is not available.” As I pointed out this morning, there were 138 industrially deaf men in the city of Sudbury last year. I don’t know what you are going to do for them. I don’t know how you are going to retrain them. I don’t know who is going to hire them. But what I do know is that they have gone deaf, and that they have families at home, and they have kids that they want to see finish school.

What, in fact, is happening to some of these men is that they know if they stay in the place they will go totally deaf. At the same time, they know full well that if they leave the work place they are not going to get another job. They have that great choice and they make it. They stay in there and they go stone deaf and, in the final analysis, they are destroyed.

I have met with one of the leading specialists in this province on the deaf problem. He elaborated at great length on this problem during the Ministry of Natural Resources estimates. But you know, that’s what we’re doing, Mr. Minister. We give them the choice of staying on the job and going completely deaf so that they can finish educating their children, or leaving the workplace and going on welfare with a small amount of pension from the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the rest made up from family benefits or general welfare.

Any man looks at himself -- and these are tough, hardworking individuals; they are fine people -- and those men will take that rotten choice knowing they are condemning themselves to total deafness. It’s not a choice; there’s no option, but for the benefits.

Let’s take a look at the silicotic miner at Elliot Lake. There are now 114 cases and they’re getting 15, 20 and 25 per cent. And if Denison Mines doesn’t offer them a job out on the surface, in other than the mine itself where they are exposed to silica dust, those men have the option then to remain in the silica dust -- some option, mind you -- to continue to support their families and to educate their children, or they can leave, as many of them have done, and there isn’t another mining company in this province that will hire them. Not another company will hire those men who have worked in the Elliot Lake area.

So we have no option. This is the group we spoke about all afternoon. This is the group that makes up the workers’ union as they call themselves. They’re in that bind -- that 25, 30, 35, 40, 50 per cent; call it what you want, or the percentage that you want. They’re in the bind. They can’t get out of work and if they leave the place of work that they’re in, they’re out. If they stay in they go totally deaf. They know that ultimately it’s silicosis to a degree that could turn to cancer. And we sit by in this Act and we don’t change a thing.

There are other industrial diseases coming on. My colleague, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta), this morning talked about asbestosis. Who hires someone with asbestosis? We are talking about it; this is the only way. I know part of the answer will be, “Industry can’t afford that much. It will really be costly.” I suggest it will be costly only for the length of time it takes industry to make some light meaningful work available.

In the case of International Nickel, for two or three years they wouldn’t take back a man on light duty. They said “No.” But under schedule 2, having to pay it all, they soon found ways of employing many of those men. With them it was because of the economics. It wasn’t because of the great conscience of Inco. It was because of the economic situation of men drawing full salaries, or $129 a week compensation and going to school, and Inco paying for that; and at the same time, paying the contractors who were hired to clean the offices. After about two years, with 60 men or so being retrained, it was to their economic advantage to use some of those men rather than have them in school.

I suggest industry, confronted with that type of situation, will find many light jobs. At the same time, I’m saying there are cases we will never be able to help in terms of retraining them -- those men who have silicosis and who ultimately develop cancer; they can’t go back to work.

Again, I say to you, we cannot slough it off by saying, “It’s only one lung so therefore he is 20 per cent disabled,” or, “It’s just his hearing so therefore he is only 20 per cent disabled.” He’s not. He’s totally disabled from earning a living to support his family. He became that way in his efforts to support his family, and he was doing a job for that company which in turn, was paying taxes to this province which makes this economy viable.

As I said this morning, we can’t dump them in the garbage can. And that’s what we continue to do.

Surely to God, that’s the area we have to move in and I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that one change -- although difficult it might be at first -- will see the end of the men hobbling up here on crutches and in wheelchairs. We will see the end of people going on the welfare rolls. I know for certain that on the rolls of the Minister of Community and Social Services there are 936 cases of injured workmen who are on family benefits.

I checked with the Sudbury office of general welfare and they average 15 cases a month of injured workmen who are drawing welfare. That isn’t the responsibility of the province in terms of using tax dollars, but we do it every month. If the Sudbury area is any indication with its 15 cases a month who draw general welfare what is it across the province? We are picking up an enormous tab for industry.

We are humiliating and degrading a lot of hardworking people who have never been on welfare, who find it absolutely destructive of them, as people, to go on the welfare roll. Let me give you some examples.

Have you ever suggested to a Finn he should be on welfare? If you want to start a minor revolution, suggest it to him. It’s everything that is alien to him. I could go right down a whole variety of groups of people. Suggest to a hardrock miner that he go and apply for welfare. It just destroys the man.

There is only one way out of this, Mr. Minister. Whether you do it now, six months from now, six years from now, you will eventually have to come to this amendment. Eventually, whether it be today or six months hence, you will have to come to it if you are ever going to resolve the problem of the partial allowance that is so destructive. You will eventually have to come to it from that point of view and I suggest to you if you do it now, you will see your rehabilitation staff very quickly improved. You will see industry start to make a lot of jobs available although they won’t make them available now.

I suggest, for the injured workmen, it would be the best thing that ever happened to them. I would urge you to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry, I thought you were looking past me. One thing bothers me. I appear before the Unemployment Insurance Commission very frequently on unemployment insurance claims. I see, in these two sections, the development of the very same kinds of arguments that I have before the Unemployment Insurance Commission.

Mr. Haggerty: You are right on. Just pick up a newspaper.

Mr. Deans: This is what bothers me. You are going to develop an entirely new type of claims procedure. You are going to have an entirely new appeal procedure before you. No longer will it be on the basis of medical evidence. No longer will it be on the basis of trying to prove that the individual is not able to go back to work.

We are going to have a new procedure in claiming that the job was suitable; or that there were jobs in the area that this individual could have applied for. We are going to have people going around -- they are going to have to maintain lists as they now do for unemployment insurance. You are going to have to show you have been to 20 places this week looking for work. That you’ve applied; that you’ve gone through the newspaper every morning and you’ve been to every single place or you’ve called, and you’ve got a running account of everywhere you’ve been. You are going to have people cut off and they are going to be in the same position they were in before except, in all fairness, at least as it now is with the medical disability you can go to a doctor, you can get a certificate and it may well say that the man is disabled. Where do you go when you are trying to develop an argument to back up a claim for a person who has been out looking for work and who hasn’t been able to find anything that is suitable?

I think you are going to face some very serious problems. People who previously weren’t even in -- you are going to be faced with all different kinds of claims; all different kinds of appeals. You are setting up a procedure almost identical to the UIC procedure. It is wrong, it is difficult to fight and there are delays which cause people all kinds of financial embarrassment. I would suggest to you that the argument that my colleague makes probably makes sense. There are lots of ways around getting people to be motivated. I don’t think that one of them is to hang a threat over them.

When you say, “fails to accept or is not available for employment,” who is going to determine that? The “fails to accept” part might be fine. That’s put the onus on the board to explain to the individual that there is a job some place that he has to go and apply for. The job has to be offered to him, and if it is offered to him and he doesn’t take it, then he has failed to accept the job. But the bit “is not available for employment which is available” is going to be the part of that clause which is going to cause us immeasurable difficulties.

We are going to have arguments till the end of time over whether the person was available, and whether the job was available and whether the person knew the job was available. I think this is where I am saying that this clause is a very bad clause. That clause shouldn’t be in this bill; that clause has no place in a Workmen’s Compensation Act. Aside from the amendment which my colleague made, which is valid right down the line, I see some very difficult technical problems arising out of trying to make that clause applicable.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the amendment. We do support it on this side. Looking at the two sections there that the member has suggested be deleted from section 41(b)(1) and (2), those are two arbitrary clauses that I think should be deleted from the bill.

I can recall a number of cases in which I appeared before the Unemployment Insurance Commission. One of the very first things they pull on you is to pick up the Globe and Mail and tell you there are all kinds of jobs available here in Toronto. Many persons in my area and in other areas of the province would never see a Globe and Mail. When I look at it further I can see where you can have a company doctor step into the picture and say in his opinion, without even looking at perhaps some of the reports before him, the person is capable of employment. As soon as you get this side of the story then the board will probably go along and say he is capable of going back to work and as he hasn’t gone back he is going to be deprived of all benefits.

Again when I look at this section what you are actually doing in a sense is putting the job security of the injured worker on the line. Why I indicate this to the minister is there are many workmen that have had maybe 10 or 15 years of full and continuous employment for that period of time. Through this particular section his job could be in jeopardy by the clause saying he is able to go back to work. Perhaps there is no job available in that plant. Do you know what is going to happen there? He is going to be left out in the street and he loses all his job security.

I suggest to the minister that he should take this seriously. That section should be dropped. It definitely will set up a new appeal procedure and perhaps, as I said before, it is going to be too arbitrary to police and to enforce. It is going to cause a very undue hardship to the injured worker. Hopefully the minister will drop these two sections.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the same concern too as the previous speakers do on this section. If it is left in you are going to have a real problem in a different type of review and appeal procedure on behalf of an injured workman. Certainly there is too much discretion here. If I could be sure that the board were going to take the viewpoint -- and when I say “the board,” I know that the top people on the board do -- but if those people who call themselves claim officers were going to take the view that a person is and should remain on temporary partial disability until employment is found unless there is a very easily proven case that he wouldn’t co-operate, and it’s a blatant case, then I might feel fairly happy about this. But from my experience with some of the claims officers on some of the cases, I do not feel this could happen.

For example, I want to give one quick case here -- well, there are a couple. I have one case with a pinched nerve and shattered vertebrae in her back who is a nurse and who for over two years now has not been able to work at that job. They have given her a 10 per cent rating. She is completely unemployable as far as getting a job goes, and she has been two years in that position.

My question is, will this person now, because she has not been able to find a job -- I won’t go into all of the details but there is not a job that is suitable for her to take because of the particular injury -- even though the rating for a pension is very low, will this type of person come under this temporary partial disability category starting as of July 1, and will she be returned to the level, or that you call the 100 per cent, from which she went some years ago, I guess more than two years ago?

The second case I have is a chap who sustained a broken back in the construction industry. His name is Cuthbert Caldwell, 985 Church, Claim No. C8769071, who received an interesting letter on May 15 saying, “You are no longer totally disabled.” He was on his 100 per cent or 75 per cent of wages for the accident which occurred to him on Aug. 19, 1971. “You now have six weeks to find a job or to make yourself available for rehabilitation or you’ll drop to 50 per cent.”

I won’t read his letter, which he gave me a photocopy of, which he wrote back to the board. I’ll just read the first paragraph. It is addressed to the claims officer: “Dear Sir: I was astounded to receive your letter of May 15, or rather I should say, astounded to read the contents of same” -- that being the reference that he is no longer totally disabled and that July 1 is the time when he drops from 75 per cent of his former wages to half of that because he is no longer totally disabled.

There is no way he can get his job. He has filled out the rehab form and one of the questions is, “Have you registered with the Canada Manpower Centre for employment?” Before he returned the rehab he checked off “No,” writing in, “What kind of a job am I supposed to be applying for?” The guy can’t sit in a chair without having to get up and move after five minutes. He can’t even sit in a car, let alone drive a car; he can’t bend over.

On the form it says, “What kind of work can you do?” He answered that, as far as I could see, completely honestly: “A desk job that I couldn’t come to work to on my bad days -- about one day in every three -- provided there is at that job an easy chair or a hard bed on which I could lie down three or four times a day for as long as perhaps one hour at a time.”

He has described his position as best he can. It doesn’t look as if he’s very employable. At any rate, he is going to be cut off because he is now not totally disabled. He can’t get a job. He is going to go off this rate on July 1. Does this section of this bill cover this particular man, because he has no job, and will the 75 per cent be continued rather than being cut off on July 1?

Those are two specific instances for which I’d like the answers, even though I share the identical concerns with the other speakers on the overall operation of this whole section.

Mr. Chairman: The member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, if I may just address myself first to the second of the two clauses. I think I have made my position clear in the example which I quoted in my remarks on the matter of second reading.

It seems to me that the difficulty with these two sections is the discretion which is in the board. I don’t think anyone would object here if there were some objective procedure to give consideration to such matters as medical or vocational rehabilitation. I think most of us feel very strongly that we want to see this for the injured workmen.

The difficulty in clause 1, of course, is that the programme would be, in the opinion of the board, an aid in getting them back to work. I can say without any fear of contradiction, Mr. Chairman, that this is not always the best way to view these cases. Quite often the decision of the board appears to be arbitrary when it comes to a suggestion of medical rehabilitation programmes. As I have said, I am waiting for the day when I will have one case personally known to me of a person who has benefitted as a result of vocational rehabilitation.

I really wouldn’t have too much worry about leaving that section in because, as I say, notwithstanding the fact that I have sent people to the board with the request that they be given rehabilitation, not one of them has qualified; so it wouldn’t bother me too much. But certainly, when you have someone sitting in a comfortable office deciding on the suitability of employment, and when in the case I cited of the man on crutches with fused bones in both feet, the board decides that suitable employment for that man is to put him in a quarry to work, I have grave misgivings about the advisability of retaining that section.

I am going to support the amendment which, as 1 understand it, moves the deletion of both of those clauses. I would have hoped that the minister, with his draftsmen available to him, might have come in with some solution to this problem. I think we would like to see that a person in this position has some onus to co-operate but not within the terms that are set out here.

Mr. Martel: He must go back. No one is suggesting he should not.

Mrs. Campbell: Just a moment. The thing that bothers me, as I say, is that in all of these matters everything is left to the discretion of the board. It goes back to what one of my colleagues said in the question of the full right of examination by his or her own medical practitioner. I’m sure the minister knows from the complaints that have been openly voiced, particularly by the Italian group, that they feel very strongly that there is at least one doctor who is a consultant that was detrimental to the Italians as a whole, should not be available to ex- amine any Italian going before that board. For these reasons I am prepared to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, this section has been put in in an attempt to ease the problem. I think the members opposite would like this to rest at the discretion of the employee rather than at the discretion of the board --

Mr. Martel: No, not at all.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, I am just reading the proposed amendment; it says: “where the employee is unable to return to regular work.” Regular work, I suppose that would destroy the whole percentage basis entirely.

Mr. Martel: That is what I am attempting to do. That is exactly the problem.

Mr. Deans: Exactly.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is a whole new scheme of an Act you’re considering, where there is no percentage injury at all. I know that was brought up earlier and I think that’s worth looking at but I am certainly not prepared to recommend today that such a drastic change as that take place by way of this amendment without some further long-range view of where we are going.

I think you are harder on the board than you should be. I don’t think the board is that bad. You have raised the deafness problem. That’s a policy matter rather than an individual application. And, as I say, the discretion has to remain with the board rather than with the employee.

The member for Windsor West raised two specific cases. I would hope, really, that he didn’t expect me to pass judgement on those from the little evidence I have here in regard to them. I am certain the board can give him a quick ruling on those if he will apply after this Act has been passed.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, might I say I am not suggesting for a moment that the employee will determine, “I don’t feel like going back to work so I am not going back to work.”

I have been before the board as often, I would suspect, as any member of this Legislature and I can honestly say that every time I have gone and every representation I have made has been with respect to rehabilitating the man as near as possible to the type of existence he had prior to the time of his injury. I feel it is in the best interest of the man to be occupied, not necessarily in exactly the same line of work; but for his family, for himself as an individual, I feel it’s much better.

It doesn’t change a thing; it still will be that if the doctor says the man is ready to resume work the man will go back to work. But if the man isn’t ready for work and, taking into consideration clause (a), if the company is not willing to see him or provide him with alternative employment, what it does do is guarantee him a decent income with which to support his family.

I ask the minister -- I made the point this afternoon. I have at least five cases on file, very recent, in which the Canada Pension Board has ruled that the man is totally disabled. That means they have gone through a variety of doctors, including being brought to Toronto and examined by the physicians or specialists employed by the Canada Pension Board.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board gives him 20 per cent. How do you do that? How do you have a whole series of doctors saying, “The man is totally disabled,” yet you have the Workmen’s Compensation Board saying, “But he’s not; he’s only entitled to 20 per cent.” You can’t have it both ways.

Even more significant is that we would get rid of what is happening which is why you have these groups demonstrating and why you have people end up on welfare. Management will either find them a job or we will rehabilitate them and in the process they will have sufficient income.

First of all, it takes us too long to start to rehabilitate a man with a bad back; we take way too long. We are six, eight, 10 months too late. It is six or eight months before we operate on him and then it is six or eight months before we start to rehabilitate him. The board knows and I know that for a man who’s off one year it is difficult to get back to work; two years, it is much more difficult; three years out of the work force and he is virtually finished. That has been documented by the board when it has come before the minister’s estimates on many an occasion. Our rehabilitation programme is bad. That takes time; the incomes are reduced.

The family problems start; there is insufficient income; he doesn’t know how he is going to pay the rent; he doesn’t know how he is going to pay the mortgage; he doesn’t know how he is going to send the kids to school. The functional overlay starts. He is depressed because of lack of money; because of inability to return to work. The whole thing starts.

What I am saying is if we really want to rehabilitate people, if we want to give them a chance to readjust after the severity of an injury, we have to be able to counsel them. He has to have adequate income, and the only way you are going to do it is to eliminate no-nonsense stuff on 50 per cent and 60 per cent or ultimately a pension.

As I look at this wording, Mr. Chairman, I am horrified. You might say, “Well, I trust the board.” I don’t want to run anybody down at the board. As I say, I have been before the board at all levels as much as anyone in this Legislature; and on every occasion that I have spoken in this Legislature I have made the point that the people I have dealt with have been first-rate. I don’t blame them. It is the legislation that is bad; and they have to interpret the legislation.

These are two bad clauses. They throw the whole thing wide open, and they don’t resolve the problem. That is what you seem to be shying away from. That is the real problem. The minister himself said: “We are talking about a small group. In the over- whelming majority of cases the guy gets his money and he gets back to work. We are indeed talking about a small number. But give them the adequate income; give them the rehabilitation; give them the counselling and so on that is necessary to bring them through this trying time, and we won’t find as many as are destitute today.

But you have to change the Act. And you have got to reinforce the rehabilitation. But the first change has to be that they are assured of income, so that it doesn’t cause all of the related problems that arise when there is an industrial problem, such as in- adequate income. I could stand up here -- and I haven’t used cases because I won’t -- and recite cases where people have lost their homes, their cars and their furniture; their wives and kids have left them, and the family is totally destroyed. I could stand here tonight and recite 50 such cases, chapter and verse.

We have to make a fundamental break, Mr. Chairman; and this is the clause, because it deals with all the hard cases, the tough cases, the ones where all of the factors come into play. If you don’t change that, as I said when I introduced this, whether it is six weeks, six months or six years, eventually you will have to come back and change that, because that is where you are going to be dealing with the hard cases, the tough cases.

I don’t mean hard in the sense that the men are obstinate. I mean difficulties in terms of the type of injury, the educational background, the income, the whole thing. That’s where it has to change, right there.

I say to the minister, as I stand here, if he does that, he is going to find industry finding a lot more jobs than they presently have. I have talked to some of his people who have gone into various plants and so on. They say: “Look, we could pick out a dozen jobs in there that an injured workman could do. But the company won’t designate them as that.” You would find dozens of them. I am sure in all plants you could find two or three such jobs.

But it won’t happen as long as that clause is there, and we are paying men only 20 per cent.

They pay an assessment, and the lower that assessment based on the amount expended, the more advantage it is to them to have them dumped into the garbage can. But if they had to find work or pay the shot, I will tell you most companies could come up with a number of jobs that would be good for the men and for this province, and we would get rid of the problem.

Right there is where you have to change it. And if you haven’t the heart to change it, then we aren’t getting at the problem confronting those injured workmen today.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Martel’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it. Shall we stack this one with the others?

Agreed.

Mr. Martel: That was very weak, Mr. Chairman. Your hearing aid was off again. You must have worked in the mines.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Anything further on section 2? Anything up to section 3(8)? If not, the minister has an amendment to section 3(8).

Mr. Martel: I just want to ask the minister one question, if I may. Could the minister tell us how many people are on 100 per cent disability pension?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There are 1,059.

Mr. Martel: That is how many will be affected by this bill? In this great bill and this great announcement under which we were going to help those people who were totally disabled, and we are talking about 1,059 cases.

Mr. Bounsall: Out of 33,000.

Mr. Martel: You ought to be ashamed of yourself! And you should have advised your backbenchers that in fact you were talking about three per cent of those on pension as those you are going to benefit by this bloody Act.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has an amendment on this.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No. You asked me how many were on 100 per cent total disability.

Mr. Martel: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: One thousand and fifty-nine. But this bill affects many more people than that. It affects people far beyond that. I don’t know why you’re suggesting that’s all it does.

Mr. Martel: What I’m suggesting is that the overwhelming majority of the problems are in those 33,000 cases. I don’t know how many cases are handled in a year with no problem. The men who are demonstrating, that’s the 33,000 we’re talking about. And this is the sort of place where we should have fixed it up. That’s where we get at the hard, long-term cases who are getting partial pensions.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right. I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman, that many of the people that we are looking at -- and this is a figure that I have taken note of too -- that really some of these concerns that you’re looking at today in the long-term cases are in those 1,000 cases.

Mr. Martel: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But don’t suggest to the House that that’s all this bill is.

Mr. Martel: What in fact the bill is doing is giving 60 per cent based on income way back, which means to many workers very little money. It has nothing to do with an escalator clause or with the actual costs of living these people have encountered.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There are 1,059.

Mr. Martel: One thousand and fifty-nine will get the benefits outlined in page 4 of your examples. You’ve tried to let on that there were a lot of people who were going to get tremendous benefits from this legislation. We’re saying -- and that’s why we’re opposing it -- there’s very little in there for the injured workers.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I disagree with that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martel: Well, 60 per cent for some, provided they’ve been out since 1945 on injury, and in the next clause you exclude all those who’ve got commutations over the years. In fact, you’ve done nothing. You’re doing nothing but window dressing.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Come on now, that’s not fair.

Mr. Martel: You weren’t even here! You haven’t even read the bill so don’t come in here and give us your garbage!

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Go back to where you came from. Just go back to where you came from.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Martel: Go back to where you came from. You don’t know what’s in the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: And that’s obvious.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment to this.

Mr. Martel: And you can grunt and groan all you want over there!

Mr. Foulds: He doesn’t know what’s in his own bills.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether you’re down to subsection 8, that’s the one I wish to make an amendment to.

Mrs. Campbell: Section 3, subsection 8?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves that subsection 8 of section 42 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as proposed by section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Amendment Act, 1974, be amended by striking out the word “product” in the fourth line and substituting the word “sum.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: That was significant.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments or questions on a later section?

Mr. Bounsall: Hold it. You’ve carried that amendment. I also have an amendment on subsection 8, okay? This is very self-explanatory.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 3, subsection 8, be amended (a) by replacing “two per cent” by “six per cent”, “four per cent” by “12 per cent,” and by deleting the words “provided that in no case the sum of such factors exceeds 60 per cent,” and substituting therefor “and adjusted thereafter semi- annually by the same percentage as the change in wages and salaries in Ontario.”

Mr. Martel: That’s a good amendment.

Mr. Bounsall: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s pretty obvious that the cost of living has gone up 180 per cent since 1945. This bill proposes to give 50 in steps of mainly twos with a couple of fours. It is one-third of that by which the cost of living has gone up. If one adjusted it by wages and salaries, which is how you should be adjusting it, that would be a factor of seven, making an adjustment of one-seventh of what it should be.

If one is being half-way responsible in this section, one recognizes that one can’t increase it by a factor of seven. Oh, I suppose you could. One could simply assess industry now for what they haven’t been paying in the past. I have taken the rational approach and said increase it by what the cost of living has gone up, but thereafter increase it by the per cent increase in salaries and wages, a factor which over that period has been a factor of seven over and above what has been proposed here.

Mr. Martel: A positive amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Stacked.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): How can seven people outvote one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 -- ?

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments on a later section of the bill?

Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, let the record show that seven people somehow outvoted 11 on your last vote.

Mr. Chairman: Section 4?

Mr. Bounsall: No, subsection 9 as set out in section 3 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Do you mean 3(9)?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, 3(9).

Mr. Bounsall moves the portion of section 3 of the bill related to subsection 9 of section 42 of the Act be deleted.

Mr. Martel: Anybody on commutation doesn’t get paid.

Mr. Bounsall: This is a very despicable part of this bill. Let’s not worry about whether we should be increasing them from 1945 by 420 per cent, which is the real amount it should be done or by the 180 per cent which is the cost of living factor instead of your 60 per cent. Whatever you increase the percentage by, there is no justice in exempting those people who have to take a commutation or who took a commutation. Many of them had to take a commutation under section 42, subsection 4, of the Act, if by your meat rating through the loss of three fingers and something else they happened to fall below 10 per cent. I don’t know quite what your meat ratings are now with the board, whether an eye is less than 10 per cent or not.

If the meat rating for the losses of various parts of the body was rated at less than 10 per cent, you had to take a commutation. Now that you have given these increases you are going to exempt all those commutations that have ever been made, most of which you have forced yourself. There is absolutely no justice in that end in the other parts of this bill where you have made a lump sum award because of a facial or head disfigurement. That is not going to be counted. It has been a payment for injury suffered. Whether it is commuted or not, they should all be affected by these percentages.

Mr. Martel: You are stealing from them.

Mr. Deans: That’s true. Surely you will accept that.

Mr. Martel: Surely to God you can’t deny these people that which they are legitimately entitled to. They had an injury whether it be 1956 or 1948, and you are starting at the 1945 figure. They lost a hand or a leg or had some type of physical disability. For some reason -- either under the direction of the Act because it is less than 10 per cent; or a commutation which they applied for, maybe to get re-established -- they obtained that commutation. Now you are saying to them, even though they would have been entitled to it had they not obtained a commutation, “We are not paying for that amount over these years.” In other words, that 60 per cent you brag about, which is peanuts anyway, you are going to take away from them.

That’s robbery. That’s the entitlement that they have. You simply can’t come in here and pass an Act and say, “We will give it to everyone else.” How do you make the division? Somebody who had nine per cent disability whom you paid off doesn’t get it. Somebody who has got 12 per cent disability gets the increase.

What gives you the right to do that? You are legalizing robbery. I am not even trying to put it subtly. You are stealing from them. I realize that you have to pay homage to your corporate friends but, in God’s name, do you have to do it that deliberately?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, whether we should force commutation or not is certainly a question in my mind, but I know of no place where a person accepts a lump sum payment. I agree I question whether it should be forced but having accepted a lump sum payment he does what he wishes with that. He can spend it or he can invest it or he can do anything else.

In some other type of accident, such as an automobile accident where you get a lump sum payment, nobody will come around sometime later and say, “I’m sorry, we should have paid you more because the cost of living has gone up.” Not that this should be an important factor but the management problems in connection with it would be pretty astronomical, but that could be overcome.

It’s just the principle of it. I would agree I would be quite happy to look at whether or not it should be done, particularly if it’s forced on them. If they agree to it, what they do with it -- as in a motor accident or anything else -- is up to them. I question whether we should have the right to force commutation.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Minister, you have to agree that if you are getting a commutation, it is under 10 per cent over the years that we have been talking about; they wouldn’t have a heck of a lot to have invested. Most of them wouldn’t have been investing that type of money.

They would be using it for their everyday needs because they would have gone through the whole gamut of down to 50 per cent and so on over the years. When you finally gave them the commutation I would suspect that the overwhelming commutation was probably not more -- if they were under 10 per cent -- there would be a very few over $1,500. The commutations would have been very few over $1,500.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Martel: Six thousand? I find that hard to believe. I accept what’s coming out from under the gallery over there but I’m saying that I think if you force commutations on people -- it’s different if somebody took out $8,000 or $10,000 and invested it in a business. He’s able to rehabilitate himself or he’s making money work for him but to those under the 10 per cent, you just said: “Take the commutation and go home.” How do you say to them, they are not entitled to the increases that have accrued since then? I don’t think you can do that, Mr. Minister.

If you don’t do anything else, would you stand down that section and not bring it in until you’ve had a good look at it? You can always reintroduce it in the fall, but I don’t think you should include that section at this time until you’ve looked at it very carefully. Once it’s in the Act you and I both know that you won’t move an amendment to delete it. You can always move a new Act this fall to reintroduce it once you’ve looked at it. I would ask the minister to stand that section down.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, if I took out subsection 9, I would have to take out the whole section.

Mr. Martel: Why? You would only have to take out subsection 9. Why would you have to take out the rest?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Then they might receive it, and I know that’s what you want them to do.

Mr. Martel: They might what?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Then, I think, they might be entitled to it. I know that’s what you want them to do. The section is in there for a purpose and you’re suggesting that I take it out now. That would accomplish the very thing you’re after.

Mr. Martel: No.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I say it’s not right.

Mr. Martel: All I’m asking the minister to do is stand it down for the time being and once he examines it, even though he realizes it’s wrong, if he determines to go ahead then he can introduce a bill this fall with that in.

But if he puts it in now he knows it’s the death knell. No investigation is going to lead him into giving that money to those workers.

Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, on this point, before the member for High Park speaks: I think my colleague the member for Sudbury East is quite correct here. If you remove this now -- you have Mr. MacDonald sitting in the wings here, he’s heard the discussion, he will have heard the reasons for you so doing and he simply doesn’t pay out a pension based on that commutation part until he hears from you that you have decided one way or another.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I can’t change them all.

Mr. Bounsall: If you decide not to pay it out in a commutation -- look they are in a different set of files, particularly that group that has been forced to take them, those people who came under section 42(4) of the Act receiving a pension of less than 10 per cent and who had to take it. Their files are closed; a different set of buttons on the computer activates that. They don’t have to activate the darn situation in terms of paying it out until you, in a week or two or a month or two, have come to your decision. If the decision is it shouldn’t be paid out, you bring in a bill this fall. But if you do leave this in here --

Mr. Martel: You have written it off.

Mr. Bounsall: -- then you know what is going to happen: People get busy. You might have the best intentions in the world having decided that they should be paid and not bring it in next fall. It would be better for the recipients of this if you took it out now, and gave notice to the administration at the board to just hold off payment on that until you’ve made up your mind, with a determination to bring it in on Sept. 17 or Sept. 23, whenever it is we meet.

Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: I think possibly there is a basic misunderstanding here. Does the minister not understand what a commutated pension is?

All it is, is receiving what the actuary works out the person would receive over a period of time. For the minister to get up and suggest when you get a lump sum that you can do with it as you will and we must come back after and say we will give more because of inflation, that’s exactly what he is doing with this bill. He is coming to all of the people who are on a pension and who presumably this government and its people don’t think should stay on the same pension, and he is saying, “Look, things have changed, therefore we are giving you more.”

That is what you are doing to everybody. That is what this bill is for. That is the good part of this bill.

But what you are doing here with this subsection is dividing all the people who had an accident in the past into two classes -- those who are taking the money week by week and those who got it in one hunk.

I want you to realize the implication of what you are doing. Just two weeks ago I did a horrible thing. I went to the board and I got a man’s pension commutated. What I have done in effect is cut down the receipts that man will receive by 50 per cent. Two weeks before you brought this bill in I did this. Surely there is no justice there.

This man wanted the money to start a business. The board considered it. They said yes, that’s a proper thing for it. They gave him this amount. We had no way of reading your mind and knowing you were going to bring in this bill and bring in a subsection like this.

Mr. Martel: It’s his money, though.

Mr. Shulman: If we hadn’t done that and if I had just let him sit for another few weeks, he would have received -- well, his pension goes back to the Fifties -- he would have received approximately 40 per cent more if we had asked for a commutation at the beginning of July.

Surely, Mr. Minister, you are not going to discriminate against those who either through need or through compulsion --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Shulman: -- were forced to have their pension commuted. I think you’ve made your decision on the basis of a basic misunderstanding, of what these pensions are about.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, I am not prepared to do that. That is my understanding of commutation, where you decide to do just as you have suggested. I notice that you said 40 per cent more. Now that figure intrigues me. That’s the first time I’ve heard any figure that high today. I’ve heard much smaller figures than that mentioned.

Mr. Shulman: It depends on the date. I am prepared to accept the figure whether it’s 20 per cent or 40 per cent or your 60 per cent, what difference does it make? The man is being robbed.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Was it your advice?

Mr. Shulman: The man is being robbed.

An hon. member: I am surprised to hear anything that high.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s the point I am making.

Mr. Shulman: I am not going to debate the percentage with you at the moment. What I am trying to debate is this subsection in which any man who has had his pension commuted, whether voluntarily or otherwise, whether through need or otherwise, is not to receive any benefit. Could the minister explain his thinking on it? I just don’t understand.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The member for High Park doesn’t need to explain commutation to me. I know what it means and I think he knows what it means too.

Mr. Shulman: Well, if you know what it means, on what basis? Take my man, and I’ll give you his name and address if you like, and his compensation number -- I can’t give the exact number -- who just some weeks ago commuted his pension. Does the minister see nothing improper or unfair in that man receiving some considerable amount less last month than he would receive next month if he had known the bill was coming in?

Mr. W. Hodgson: Who advised him -- you?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): How far back do you go?

Mr. Shulman: All the way back, all the way back.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Shulman: The Solicitor General asked how far back. Of course you go all the way back, and the farther back you go the more discrepancy there is.

Mr. Haggerty: To 1971, let’s say.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: For one year?

Mr. Shulman: In this Act you go back to everyone who is getting a pension. Why dis- criminate between them?

Mr. Martel: He has that choice.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park has the floor.

Mr. Shulman: Obviously the Solicitor General is not aware that in many of these cases they were forced to take the commutation. They were written a letter saying: “Your pension will not be continued in this way. We want to give you, we insist -- ”

Mr. Martel: That’s why we are asking you to stand it down.

Mr. Shulman: That’s what we told him, but he won’t listen. Most of those whose pensions have been commuted were done in a compulsory way, and the rest of them were done through need. But the majority were done in compulsion.

How can you possible say that’s proper? Whether it was done three weeks or 30 years ago they should receive the same amount of increase as everyone else. What you are doing is making two classes, those who are gaining the percentage you are giving them and those who are to get nothing. It just isn’t fair. It just isn’t proper.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. --

Mr. Shulman: No. Would the minister consider standing it down?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I am very disturbed at the minister’s attitude. He is showing in this that he is being extremely hardheaded and stubborn. For the benefit of the Solicitor General, who is in the House, I can’t see much difference between the case in which there was compulsion -- that is, where a person who got less than 10 per cent of a disability rating was forced to take it in a lump sum -- and the case that I’ll relate to you, the fellow who was awarded it must have been more than 10 per cent, in 1965, a pension of $49 a month. He was able to buy a house at a very reasonable price a couple of years ago and took a commutation of part of that, which brought him down to $21.

According to this scale, he would now get a 22 per cent increase in his pension. We are saying that 22 per cent increase should be based on the original $49 amount, not just on the $21 which is left. I don’t see any difference in the two, in terms of justice of payment.

Mr. Shulman: Just one other point: Does the minister not realize that as recently as two weeks ago some of these people have been forced to commute their pensions? Does he see no injustice there? Having someone receive a letter in May saying, “Your pension has been commuted;” and then today reading in the newspaper where good John MacBeth has raised everybody’s pension except those we screwed last month. Does the minister not see anything wrong with that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, you always see this difficulty when the time comes along. You set a date, whether it is a taxation problem or whether it is a benefit of this nature and you are either before or after the date. It is unfortunate, but that’s it.

Mr. Shulman: That answer is going to go down in history. Oh, I give up on you.

Mr. Chairman: The member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if there is not some way that we could appeal to the minister on this particular matter? When we look at those who are forced into this position, surely that is a decision made by a body which has the right under the Act to make that kind of decision. But if one has the right of the decision-making, surely one has an obligation to ensure that what is being done is equitable.

If a person is choosing to take this sum, I could see a somewhat different situation, but where they are on the lowest possible scale and taking the sum because they have no alternative, I would appeal to the minister to at least eliminate that portion which would be referable to those who have no choice.

The minister, I am sure, is not the person he appears to be as we are putting this through, and I recognize the difficulty of the minister in this position. But there must surely be some tempering of mercy in this kind of a clause for those who are told un- equivocally that this is precisely what this position is, you take it and that’s it.

I would urge the minister to give thought to that particular group. Perhaps there is a justification for saying to a person who makes that choice today, this is what I want for my purposes to better my position, to make an investment or something of that nature. I could see that there might be a difference. Would the minister comment on that, please?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, as I say I have some questions myself in connection with those who were forced into it. Voluntary is something different. I say there is a tremendous administration problem. How far back do you go? Some suggest you go back right to the start. Then you might get involved with the estates and all sorts of problems there.

Mr. Martel: You go back to where this goes back, back to 1945.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If I take it out now, as you know, that becomes the law without it. I am certainly not prepared to do that, but I am certainly prepared to look at it again; not to the point of deleting it now but to the point of maybe making some change later on if it’s thought advisable and wise.

In the cases there are today that at our insistence accepted, and maybe tomorrow the amount goes up, I will agree there is some degree of unfairness there. I am prepared to look at it, but I am certainly not prepared to take it out of there now.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, just a further point; I think the minister is perhaps overstating the problems. We have his answer and we are not going to be able to quarrel with his answer. We can quarrel with his answer, but I gather we are not going to make any headway.

I think you are overstressing the problem. You say that you are going to get involved with estates. This bill says it isn’t going to start until July 1. It isn’t going to become effective until that date for these people, so you are not going to get involved with payments of these back percentages to people who have already died. That’s clear in the other part of the bill. You are not getting involved in estates.

Mr. Martel: That dies.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not so sure of that.

Mr. Martel: When a man dies, as I understand, the pension scheme --

Mr. Bounsall: It usually stops.

Mr. Martel: -- his own pension scheme dies with him. If he is getting 20 per cent for himself at the time of his death, under the legislation as I understand it, the 20 per cent dies. It doesn’t pass on to his wife. I don’t think you can use that as an excuse.

As far as being complicated, one goes back to where you are picking up the pieces in the bill. You are going back to 1945. That’s where you start to pick up the pieces. If you are going to raise it for someone who from 1945 to the present day is at 60 per cent, then in fact that’s where you start to calculate it from.

I say if you pass it now, you won’t do a thing about it. You’ll simply chisel those people out of their entitlement.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on section 3?

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 3(9) be deleted.

Those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s motion please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

It is stacked. Any questions or comments on any further sections of this bill?

Mr. Bounsall: Section 4, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Shulman: Let the record show 10 Tories outvoted 12 “nays.”

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Let the record show there is one socialist here.

On section 4:

Mr. Bounsall: This is right at the start of section 4, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 4 be amended as follows: (a) by adding a new subclause (1) to read:

Subclause (a)(i) and (ii) of section 43 be amended by replacing “$55” with “$106, adjusted semi-annually by the same percentage as the change in wages and salaries in Ontario”; and (b) by renumbering the subsequent subclauses in the bill.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, before I talk to this could I ask the minister one question to which I hope he has the answer? You must know this: How much money is this actually costing the industry in Ontario -- this entire Act?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Are you talking about bringing up the back or --

Mr. Bounsall: I’m talking about the whole programme which has to be approved by cabinet. The board must know the cost of it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, what it costs, of course, depends on many things, such as the future payrolls and where rates go and all the rest. To bring up the back to the present is $6.61 million per year, for 10 years to catch up. Now things being as they are, it looks as though it is going to cost us $13 million per year from here on. Of course, that figure will escalate or go down as the economy goes up or down.

Mr. Bounsall: Okay, I asked that question because apart from subsection 8 of section 3, which we’ve already discussed -- and the percentages we feel are too low -- apart from that, I can find very little other expenditure of money in this bill.

Further on in subsection 4, what you have is the permanent total disability, those 1,059 cases only, those three per cent of the cases which the board has on pensions only. According to this Act they will get an additional $70 per child adjustment to the minimum which heretofore they haven’t been getting. You have a widow who will get that slight $10 per month increase on her amount and that’s all there is.

What my amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is to bring back into this Act -- having been completely left out of this Act -- a benefit for the temporary totally disabled. On June 5, a year ago, when the Act was amended, it amended the permanent disability to $250 from $175 a month; this Act takes the picayune step from $250 to $260. It also increased the average earnings -- the minimums for the temporary totally disabled from $40 to $55 a week. This is completely left out in this section.

These are, of course, the large group of recipients; almost all of the rest of them minus this 1,059 which the permanent total disability section refers to. What this does is build it back in again. I won’t run through the whole course of the argument as to why one picked $106, except to say it was the same basis one used for the $455 rather than the $260 for those who were totally permanently disabled.

Taking the minimum wage, what it should be in the Province of Ontario right now, based on the Manitoba formula of $265, multiplying it by 40, taking 100 per cent of it, multiplying it by 4.3 weeks to a month and it comes out -- don’t multiply it by 4.3 weeks; leave it at that -- it comes out of $106 a month, which should be the minimum payment for the temporarily totally disabled. It’s been completely ignored in this bill. That’s why there isn’t very much expenditure of money in this bill.

A year ago this June the total amount of expenditure for that bill, which again wasn’t very generous, was at least $14.6 million, because they adjusted the minimums of both. Here you have only adjusted the minimum for the permanently totally disabled -- only 1,059 cases -- and it is only a meaningful increase if they happen to have children.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this section is so that the man, when he’s temporarily disabled, will not get less than $55 per week, even though 75 per cent of his salary might take him below that. But he still gets 75 per cent of what he was otherwise making if he was above that.

Mr. Bounsall: Sure, that is recognized. What I am saying, though, is that is the one category which you didn’t even bother to increase in this bill.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But $55 is a minimum; he won’t get less than that, but he can get more than that.

Mr. Bounsall: Of course. We are concerned about someone getting less than the minimum, and what those reasonable minimums should be. What you have done in this bill is you haven’t bothered to increase that minimum, which you did a year ago, from $40 to $55. If you did it this year, using the formula you used then, but using my minimum wage rather than your minimum wage, it would come out to the minimum figure I’m suggesting, $106, and not the present $55.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think if you did it on the present $55 a week, it would come out to more than $240, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bounsall: Lower than the $260, right. Always show it on the low side.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on section 4?

Those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment, please say “aye.”

Those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Haggerty moves that section 5 be amended by deleting the figure “$12,000” in the last line and inserting therefor “the present earnings within the last year.”

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to remove the $12,000 ceiling. In other words, there would be no ceilings at all. When you look at the $12,000, 75 per cent of $12,000 amounts to about $9,000 of compensation that would be paid to an injured worker.

I know of a number of cases in industry today where the worker works 40 hours a week and earns anywhere from $12,000 to $17,000 a year. If he were to be injured, I feel that under those conditions he would be penalized to a large degree and, again, the family would suffer. By having no ceiling, they would be protected both ways. There are policemen and firemen who are earning more than $12,000 a year; there are a number of employees in this Province of Ontario earning well above $12,000. I think that limit should be removed.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, we on this side support that amendment. I also had a similar one written out on that section; the last words of mine would have been “with no maximum ceiling imposed”. We are talking about identical amendments, and they are certainly reasonable ones.

I have never been able to understand why there was a ceiling placed on this. Perhaps this Minister of Labour could explain why he feels one should have to retain a ceiling. What one is doing by keeping the ceiling on it is penalizing all those employees who work in a high-risk job, the very type of job for which they should have the protection of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. You are penalizing every worker in this province who has a high-skill job.

In other words, it is okay for someone to go out and dig coal out of a mine in Sudbury, because he is not going to make $12,000 a year out of it. But if he goes and takes some extensive training, or takes an apprentice programme and becomes a tool and die maker, and makes $14,000 a year but gets injured, no sir, you are not going to let him have his pensionable earnings based on that skill which he has gathered around himself.

I could never understand that, and I think it is abominable that there is a ceiling still left in this bill. Sure, you have increased it from $10,000 to $12,000, but it shouldn’t be there at all. What is your explanation for a ceiling at all?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know the original theory in connection with the ceiling. It has been in the Act. Let me read one or two things I have here --

Mr. Haggerty: Of $9,000 he is only going to get 75 per cent of it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The earnings ceiling has been raised periodically and usually covers the full earnings of 75 to 80 per cent of the work force. While the original ceilings on earnings in 1915 of $2,000 probably covered the full earnings of a greater percentage of the work force, earnings were not taxable in that era and compensation was paid on 55 per cent of earnings, rather than today’s 75 per cent. Wage levels have changed substantially since last July 1 and approximately 34 per cent of workers going on compensation now earn $10,000 or more.

An hon. member: Or more.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Or more; yes. Less than 20 per cent earn in excess of $12,000.

The proposed new ceiling in this figure is considered with past adjustments.

Mr. Haggerty: That is with the higher --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The change in the ceiling will raise the maximum compensation payable to $144.23 per week, et cetera, and then it goes on to $173.08 per week. Compensation benefits are tax free. Now, I don’t really know what the original purpose was. I suppose originally the idea was that people over this bracket could provide their own insurance. Maybe they could make other provisions. I am at a loss to know, but it’s worth doing some research to find out. In the meantime, this is a 20 per cent increase and I am not prepared to suggest that it should be more than that at the present time. This is one place where there has been a sizable movement.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, just a word to the minister, we know you have been in the job less than six weeks now --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, it is not quite a month.

Mr. Bounsall: About a month? Okay.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Have you got your first cheque?

Mr. Bounsall: In this particular bill, I am sure you have heard a lot from us as to what changes need to be effected here. I think this is one of them. Your very thoughtful reading and comments there on it, would cause me to believe that you yourself will take a look at this now and get rid of some of these anachronisms. I would hope that the hon. minister might feel very much in the position which I feel about this whole Act, that somehow wouldn’t it be great if we just took the whole thing and threw it away and started again.

I think, maybe, in some of these sections you have been inquiring in your own mind as to why it is there and how it got there, such as this one. I think it is very appropriate that you, in fact, take that sort of fresh look yourself, with your abilities to be objective; have a look at this Act and come back, hopefully next fall, and say, “Look, we have tossed out all these sections of it and here are their replacements.” This is one that that could be done with very easily.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on section 5? We have the amendment of Mr. Haggerty, that section 5 be amended by deleting the figure “$12,000” in the last line and inserting therefor, “the present earnings within the last year.”

Those in favour of Mr. Haggerty ‘s amendment please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

This is stacked also.

On section 6:

Mr. Bounsall moves that a new section 6 be inserted, with subsequent renumbering, as follows:

“Section 44 of the Act: The board shall pay all OHIP payments for injured workers and their family and the entirety of their Canada Pension Plan contributions.”

Mr. Bounsall: I think it is self-explanatory. We could go on and each of us here talk for another 15 minutes about how very good this particular amendment is, that he should have his OHIP paid, and that he should reach a stage at normal retirement age by which he should go on normal Canada Pension. This pension from the board is to replace the earnings lost in the work place or supplement that loss of employ ability, that loss of earnings. It also says that the Workmen’s Compensation Board should pay that portion of Canada Pension on that portion of pension which they give to him. I understand from my colleagues on the right that a workman loses his unemployment insurance if he’s out of work for six months.

Mr. Good: Entitlement.

Mr. Bounsall: He loses his entitlement, and in that respect maybe one should consider adding unemployment insurance in here because, for the moment, for the first bit at least, when he’s on compensation but before he’s on pension, he really can best be viewed as an employee of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Stacked as well.

Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We have several amendments to this bill, various sections, moved by Mr. Bounsall, Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Martel. I shall read the first amendment placed.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Those have all been read.

Mr. Chairman: Right.

The committee divided on Mr. Bounsall’s to amend section 1(1)C which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 16, the “nays” are 32.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we take the same vote on the other amendments?

Agreed.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Bill 116, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with one amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves third reading of Bill 116, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of Bill 116 please say “aye.”

Those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, Her Honour awaits to give assent to certain bills.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder, before the House leader leaves, if I could just take a moment to inform the House that we have three pages who have stayed with us right to the very end and I want these names to appear in the record -- Mr. Jim Collins, John Hoddinott and Doug Keyes.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might inquire whether you intend to pay them time and a half for over-time?

Mr. Speaker: I’ll take it under consideration.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the legislative assembly and took her seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. P. M. McGibbon (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the legislative assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said legislative assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

The Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 21, An Act to amend the Agricultural Societies Act.

Bill 22, the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

Bill 73, An Act to provide for the regulation of Private Vocational Schools.

Bill 83, An Act respecting the City of Port Colborne.

Bill 84, An Act to amend the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Bill 85, An Act to amend the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Bill 86, An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Bill 88, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Bill 90, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, 1972.

Bill 92, An Act respecting Fruits and Vegetables Produce-for-Processing.

Bill 93, An Act respecting the Marketing of Wool.

Bill 95, An Act to restructure the County of Oxford.

Bill 96, An Act to ensure a Guaranteed Annual Income to Ontario Residents Sixty-five Years of Age and over.

Bill 97, An Act to amend the Municipal Franchises Act.

Bill 100, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Bill 101, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Bill 103, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Bill 105, the Juries Act, 1974.

Bill 106, An Act to provide for the Inspection of Public Institutions by Public Visitation.

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Ontario School Trustees’ Council Act.

Bill 108, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 109, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

Bill 110, An Act to amend the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act.

Bill 115, An Act to establish the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority.

Bill 116, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege before the adjournment. I and several other members of this Legislature had delivered to them today a letter which very seriously impugns the motives of members of this Legislature. It is under the letterhead of Browndale.

I want to raise a couple of points in here as a matter of privilege because it suggests that members of the Legislature are in collusion with members of the medical profession to fund them to perform experimental operations or other experiments upon human beings.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention a paragraph on page 2, and I quote the paragraph:

“There has been deliberate collusion among the professional community in psychiatry, psychology and social work in the Toronto area against any encroachment on the medical model of service to children. There has been gross experimentation in areas that have no facility for experimentation. There has been collusion to pass experiments off as services.”

Mr. Speaker, I would like further on the point of privilege to quote from a paragraph on page 3:

“At the time that I am writing there is a group of people at Queen’s Park who are trying to abuse community treatment and re-establish the need for institutional services. They include a number of my former colleagues in the back benches on the Tory side of the House and a few of the unstable, irrational members of the Liberal caucus. They include such people as the Hon. Mrs. M. Scrivener, the Hon. Mrs. M. Birch, the Hon. Matt Dymond, Mr. Westcott of the Prime Minister’s office, and a few others who are too honourable to be mentioned, but happily they do not include other members of the cabinet or the leadership of the opposition parties.”

Mr. Speaker, this letter is signed -- and I have every reason to believe it was signed. It is a true copy of a letter signed by a Mr. John L. Brown, along with a notation that copies have been sent to all members of the provincial Parliament at Queen’s Park, all members of the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and as well to the press.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I, as a member of this Legislature, have now been accused of voting funds so that medical practitioners may perform experiments upon humans, I frankly regard this as a gross breach of the privileges of this House. I have no reason to believe that this is correct but, nonetheless, I raise it because when a person who has some stature in the community decides to take this particular route of an accusation against all the members of the Legislature, regardless of their party, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the time has come that we draw the line.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the charges outlined in this letter, since to me they violate every privilege I have as a member, at the very least a select committee be struck off to investigate the charges and the person who made them. Quite frankly, at the very most it might be a more practical suggestion that there be a judicial inquiry, not only into the charges that have been made about experimentation upon human beings who are wards of the Crown, but a judicial inquiry into the person and the operations who are making them.

Mr. Speaker: I must say that I have not been able to determine just what parliamentary privilege has been breached. Perhaps the letter may contain some accusations. Of course, it is not within my authority or responsibility to set up any such inquiry as has been suggested. However, I will be pleased to look into the letter a little further to determine whether or not there has, in fact, been any parliamentary privilege that has been breached.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until a date to be named by Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

The House adjourned at 8:40 o’clock, p.m.