The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock, we were considering Bill 106, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was mentioning claim No. C6723779 and the length of time, as I see it anyway, that it has been without a proper solution; it is rather frustrating.

We passed a new bill here the other day, the Ombudsman’s bill, and although I don’t suppose he would be involved in workmen’s compensation claims until the appeal procedure has gone through all three stages, I suppose a number of people will be contacting him in some cases where they feel they’ve been aggrieved against.

Another problem that I’ve noticed is that the time from when claims are accepted until payment is made can run into a number of weeks and people can find themselves in pretty bad situations.

I was in one of the towns in my riding a week ago last Saturday --

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I don’t believe we have a quorum. I’d like to determine that.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): How can the member be so stupid?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): We surely have enough members here in the Legislature and in the committees.

Mr. Bounsall: Not so.

Clerk of the House: There is not a quorum.

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): One short.

Mr. McIlveen: The member for Windsor West hasn’t changed.

Mr. Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent may continue.

Mr. Ruston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, if I have many more interruptions I think I’ll call it a day.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Do that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): He got a reaction.

Mr. Ruston: That woke up the backbenchers over there, the ones they bring out of the wall and so forth. Out of the woodwork they call it, I guess.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Meanwhile, back on the bill.

Mr. Ruston: I think there was one other time, not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, when we had someone call a quorum when I was speaking. I’m beginning to have an inferiority complex, if I can’t maintain a quorum when I’m speaking. I’m not sure if it’s just the time but it makes one wonder.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): We come running when we know the member is speaking.

Mr. Ruston: What I was saying, Mr. Speaker, was about the length of time it takes to get payments. I recall a week ago being in one of the towns in the riding on a Saturday. A person had been collecting workmen’s compensation and apparently something went wrong with his payments. He said he had waited for two weeks past the date they were due and rather than call me he put a direct call through to the Workmen’s Compensation Board office and told them that if they didn’t get his cheque down here pronto he was going to see his local MPP. I’m quoting his words. They said, “Whatever you do, don’t do that. We’ll get it right out for you.” Apparently he got it the next day. Anyway, that is just one of the things we run across and it kind of frustrates not only us but also those who are waiting for the payments.

I would think the worst feature of the new legislation is the 10 per cent increase in pensions paid to dependent widows. The dependent widow’s pension will be raised to $286 a month or $3,400 a year which seems totally inadequate. There were 376 fatal claims in 1974 and it would appear to me that to bring it up to a more respectable amount would not be all that expensive and it would be much better for those receiving it, of course.

The burial allowance has been raised from $500 to $600, which seems a little on the modest side and perhaps should be a little higher, also.

I’m interested, Mr. Speaker, and have been interested for some time -- I recall a number of years ago when the then member for Niagara Falls, Mr. Bukator, brought in a private member’s bill which would have had coverage for a person injured while at work or off the job. I have often thought that was a good principle because sometimes the line between getting hurt at work or having a minor accident in the home which causes sickness or the inability of the workman to go to work -- who do you assess the charge to, whether it was actually on the job or off the job? If we could combine this I think it would be a great asset for our workers and would give them a great sense of relief to know that they were covered at all times. I think that is something which should be looked into.

Of course, we do have benefits. Many contracts have them and the payments are quite adequate; they have sickness and accident insurance. But many people do not have that at their place of employment and if anything happens and they are not able to work, through sickness or an accident which takes place off the job, of course they could be in bad straits financially.

Mr. Speaker, that’s about all I have to say. I think the board hasn’t responded as well as we would have liked in the last couple of years. I am sure there have been some improvements but it hasn’t improved the way it should have and there is no doubt it needs a complete overhaul. If we had a combined benefit for off-the-job and on-the-job protection, I think that would be the best thing I can think of to solve this whole problem. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief in my reply. The arguments put forward by the opposition tonight are similar to the arguments put forward last year. I understood what they were saying last year and I think I understand what they are saying again tonight.

Of course, my arguments in reply would be much the same as those I made last year with the exception that during this past year some of the suggestions, as I said earlier, made by all sides of the House -- by the official opposition and the members of the New Democratic Party, as well as our own party and our staff -- have been taken into consideration. What members see is the bill. I know the members of the opposition have all taken the stand that is doesn’t go far enough. This is one of the difficulties and responsibilities which lie with being the government. It’s easy to say give more but there is a responsibility to be reasonable and just to the people who are paying the bill. We think we have come up with a reasonable and just bill considering all of the factors involved.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board of the Province of Ontario, despite what some members have said, is doing a good job. The bill and the Act we are working under with these amendments will be again the leaders in Canada. I know I have been criticized for saying this and I am not saying it beating my chest in any way; I don’t ask that it be generous; I just ask that it be fair. To suggest this bill and the Workmen’s Compensation Board payments are substandard in any way, I point out to members they are as good as they will find anywhere in Canada. There are two possible exceptions to that and those are British Columbia and Alberta where they do have some greater benefits, depending on the wages the person is making, in regard to dependents’ allowances. When I say they are greater, they are not greater in all cases and they are not greater by any large amount. They have quite a complicated system, particularly in Alberta, for working that out.

I couldn’t help but be impressed by the force and sincerity of the argument from the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis). I know he is sincere when he says what he was saying this evening and he has been in touch with me about some of the cases he mentioned. Some of the cases are new to me this evening. As I say, I couldn’t help but be impressed with the sincerity of what he had to say. Naturally, because of his position he has brought to him many difficult cases.

The trouble is we can’t draw the law on the worst of the hardship cases. We have to come out with some kind of average. He asked me, when I announced the amendments to the bill, what about the amount for widows, and I suggested to him at that time that it wasn’t generous; that in some cases it would be quite sufficient, but there would be hardship cases. I can’t, nor can the government, draw the law around the hardship cases. It must come to some sort of average position and that’s what we have tried to do.

There are some 443,000 injuries reported per year to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. These injury reports of, as I say, almost half a million, are dealt with by people. Since they are dealt with by people it is not surprising that some of them go astray and that some wrong decisions are made. It is the work of the board to try and straighten some of those out. I would point out to members that some 40 per cent of the claims -- the cheques in settlement of them -- are sent out within four days after the papers are received.

As I say, that is a pretty good record, I think. Naturally we get some in the other 60 per cent which take somewhat longer and some longer than they should. As I say, the board has come a long way, I think, under the leadership of the hon. Michael Starr and in its new quarters is getting its procedures down to the point where it is handling these claims more expeditiously. It has an enlarged staff who, I think, are able to handle them in a more efficient manner.

As I say, we can’t let the difficult cases be the guide and the criterion on which we make all the payments. I could wish, as the member for Scarborough West suggested, in some cases that the board should have more discretion; that perhaps it could look at difficult cases and cases of hardship and decide that in this case we should increase the allowances.

That is a wish I put aside a little bit lightly for the simple reason I am not so sure members would want the board to have that kind of discretion. There are a few places in the Act tonight where already members have suggested that “may” should read “shall.” There are some cases where members argue it should have discretion and in the next breath they say it shouldn’t have discretion.

I don’t think it would be advisable that the board -- certainly not the minister -- should have discretion to decide what payments should be. I think it is right that the legislation sets the standard for that, but there are times when I could wish that claims such as the one the member for Scarborough West mentioned should have received a little more flexibility and the board would be able to say, “In this case, we will pay a little bit more.”

Most of the criticism has been that we don’t go far enough. I ask the members, what are the right amounts? I am sure when the amendments come along they will all have some suggestions as to what the right amounts will be. I would like the members to consider for a minute some of the cases they have already discussed today.

Here is a person the member says has died of cancer caused by the work place prior to the realization that it was a cancer claim. This woman was receiving only the Canada Pension.

There are many people who die of heart attacks in automobiles and from many other causes who do not have the benefits of workmen’s compensation. I ask the members, what is the difference between a widow whose husband, having the same employment, dies of a heart attack and the one who dies as a result of some injury suffered in that place? We will all agree there is an unfairness there.

I was impressed, as I was last year during the estimates, when we discussed the estimates of the Workmen’s Compensation Board -- or discussed the annual report -- and the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Gisborn) has made the suggestion again tonight, as have some others, that perhaps we should have some national sickness claim. I think that is the only way we will get around the problems of the two widows living side by side and trying to decide what is right for one and what is right for the other. Remember the widow whose husband dies of a heart attack and the widow whose husband dies in the normal course of his life at the end of a work period when he is on pension from a company and the pension cuts off at his death -- maybe he was not even on a pension -- these widows and dependants are the ones who, through the products they buy, are helping to pay for the compensation the widow living side by side with them, whose husband died as a result of a work accident, is receiving.

It is hard to decide what is the right amount a widow or any dependant should receive. I would remind members that they do receive the Canada Pension if they have been working a reasonable time and that can depend on their earnings. It can depend on the number of children. Remember, too, when we are talking about the amounts we are suggesting for a widow in addition to that she is entitled to $77 for each child and if that child is still in school that can go for a considerable time. So it’s not just the one sum she receives from the board; she has possible additional income as well from one source or another from the various levels of government. So it’s hard to decide which is the right amount.

The member has been critical of the 75 per cent and says that’s not acceptable. All I can do is repeat the argument that I’ve repeated before and, although he says they are not valid arguments, I suggest to him that they are quite valid and reasonable arguments.

First of all, it is non-taxable. The member for Windsor West points out that, again, using the exceptional cases rather than the average case, there are cases when the person would be better to be taxed. I agree; but again, we can’t make all of the cases and all our payments based -- if we’re going to have a general law -- on the worst example. And that’s what, with reason, the opposition is asking us to do; not base them on the average, but base them on the worst.

Mr. Bounsall: Those weren’t the worst examples. I will go through them step by step; table by table if the minister wants.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, I’m not suggesting the member do that. All I’m saying is there are many cases where the person is, particularly on the increased proposal from $12,000 to $15,000, far better off not being taxable. One of the other reasons we say the 75 per cent is reasonable is that there are, for the most part, no expenses as in going to work. If a person is going to work, they have to dress a certain way; they have automobile expenses; they may have parking expenses; they may have to buy their lunches, which they can generally get at home at a more reasonable price. That is just one minor point.

I think that one of the major points, and the point I want to emphasize tonight is that these pensions, sir, are payable for a lifetime. They don’t stop when you retire from work, or when you’re fired, or anything else, as the ordinary man’s pension does. They go on day after day as long as the person lives. And, as I say, in some cases there is a Canada Pension as well.

We’ve also been criticized for not indexing these. I think our position on that is that indexing is a source of inflation in itself. And I would also remind you, in connection with this, that these are statutory payments that are put up by legislation and they don’t go down if, as and when there is some drop in the cost of living. These payments stay where they are until some government decides to put them down.

It was my understanding that during the depression years there was very little adjustment made in connection with the Workmen’s Compensation pensions, and that those pensions stayed up at that time. I’m not trying to suggest to the opposition, or any member of the House, that I think we’re about to see the cost of living coming down. But, at the same time, over the length of years, I’m sure that it will drop back from time to time. I’m sure that these pensions will not be lowered by the government of the day unless there is some drastic decrease in the cost of living.

So, there is more than one side in this business of indexing. I think we are taking the right stand in connection with it; that it becomes a matter of government discretion, government policy; that it’s not adding to inflation. The chances are that it is more secure not being indexed than it would be if it was indexed.

Mr. Speaker, those are just a few of the points that are covered. Many of the arguments were given last year, and my replies were given last year. I’m sure that some of these points will arise again as we move into committee of the whole to discuss them at that point. Thank you, sir.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 106, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Beckett Belanger Bernier Breithaupt Brunelle Carruthers Clement Downer Eaton Edighoffer Evans Ewen Gilbertson Good Haggerty Havrot Henderson Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Irvine Kennedy Kerr Lane MacBeth Maeck McIlveen McNeil McNie Meen Morningstar Morrow Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Parrott Potter Root Roy Ruston Scrivener Smith (Nipissing) Snow Spence Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle Welch Winkler Wiseman Worton -- 52.

Bounsall Burr Deans Dukszta Foulds Germa Lewis Martel Renwick Samis Shulman Stokes Young -- 13.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 52; the “nays” 13.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that the bill is to go to committee of the whole House? So ordered.

Clerk of the House: Order for committee of the whole House.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 106, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments, or amendments to section 1?

Shall section 1 carry?

On section 1:

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would like to ask the minister a question on section 1 which says “A member of a volunteer fire brigade or a member of municipal volunteer fire ambulance.” If I interpret that right, it means that any person taken in the fire department, perhaps for instructions as a future volunteer fireman or paid fireman, will be covered. He only acts as a volunteer -- is that right, in section 1?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, in section 1 --

Mr. Haggerty: He’s a learner.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The fact is the volunteer ambulance brigade is already in there, but it was put in later on and you will see where it is deleted. The new part we are adding, and we are bringing it all under a new subsection (ha) to make it alphabetical, covers the auxiliary members of a police force and those people who assist in any search and rescue operation at the request of and under the direction of a member of the Ontario Provincial Police force. The ambulance people were in before.

Mr. Haggerty: Aren’t the Ontario Provincial Police auxiliary policemen covered in it now? I thought they were.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Some are and some aren’t, as I understand it. This allows them to bring in municipal auxiliary forces.

Mr. Haggerty: The words I am questioning are “and includes a learner and a member of a municipal volunteer fire brigade.” Why not put the word “apprentice” there?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I really can’t give an answer to that, Mr. Chairman. I think maybe the word “learner” is broader than apprentice. Apprentice might have some narrower meaning, I would suggest, with the trade unions. I think a learner is a broader word. I may get some information on it if you will just hold on a minute. I gather that what I have said is right; they regard learner as broader than apprentice.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 carry?

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question on subsection 2, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Subsection 2.

Mr. Bounsall: The question relates to the dependent common-law wife or husband. I think it’s due to the wording of the Act when, in committee, in December, 1973, I think it was, in frying to clear up the “in loco parentis” in subsection 6 of section 36 of the original Act, we perhaps should have made these sections a little clearer.

I just want to ascertain from the minister that if there is a dependent common-law wife or husband receiving a compensation under this section -- that would be, of course, the common-law wife or husband who qualifies under the Act to receive the widows’ or widowers’ pension -- if there is someone receiving that, does he or she receive the monthly payments for the children as well? That’s basically my question. Can the minister answer that quickly?

In section 6, it seems to take out the “in loco parentis” which refers to children, and I can see that they can’t be both common-law wife or husband and someone acting in loco parentis. I’m afraid that the children might get lost in the shuffle and it doesn’t seem reasonable. I just wanted an assurance from the minister and from the board that the children of the common-law widow or the common-law widower would, in fact, continue to be covered.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I understand they will be covered.

Section 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Bounsall: I have some comments on section 5, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment I’d like to place to section 5, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps I could place that amendment and then speak to it.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 5, subsection 41a(1) be amended by (1) deleting in line three the number “2” and substituting therefor the number “6”; and, (2), by deleting in line five the number “4” and substituting therefor the number “12”; and (3), adding after “1974” in line eight the words: “and thereafter adjusted annually by the same percentage as the per cent change in the consumer price index.”

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour --

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, can I speak to that? This was one of our four major objections to the bill -- that when the revalorization principle was brought in by the board last year and they affixed the valorization of the pensions as two per cent from the years 1946 up to and including 1971, with four per cent for the years 1972-1973, that percentage increase in those pensions totalled 60 per cent and was exactly one-third of the consumer price index increase over those same years. The consumer price index increased by 180 per cent over those years, and the total adjustment to the pensions amounted to only 60 per cent.

For years, this party has fought for an adjustment to those pensions so that a worker who was injured in 1952 would not still be receiving the same pension he received in 1952 and so through those years.

When the Workmen’s Compensation Board decided they could make an adjustment to those pensions, they did not adjust it by an equitable factor at all. The sum total of the cost of making that adjustment to employers only, was equal to 0.01 per cent of their payroll, a negligible adjustment and a negligible cost to the employers in this province on the average.

To have adjusted those pensions to the amount that would fully index them to the cost of living, it should have been done by a factor three times what it was, which would have resulted in a total increase of only 0.30 per cent in the employers’ payroll on the average. The charge to the employers was so minuscule as to be almost unbelievable that the board would worry about the cost and not have made the proper adjustment.

We then have this bill, Mr. Chairman, which comes along and purports to add the full, correct consumer price index for the year 1974 to increase the pensions by the same percentage increase as the consumer price index has increased. However, if we accept that, which is reasonable for the year 1974, it is obviously tacked on to a base that is unrealistically low -- a base which should have been adjusted -- by only one third the proper amount.

Bearing in mind that it would cost the employers so little to have that correct adjustment made, this is the time that we should make that correct adjustment. This amendment would make that correct adjustment by changing each number there by a factor of three -- two per cent to six per cent for the years prior to and including 1971 and from four per cent to 12 per cent for the years 1972 and 1973. In the clause itself you have 10 per cent for 1974.

In order that there be no doubt about the fact that these pensions will be increased regularly in the future, I’ve also added, after 1974, the words, “and thereafter adjusted semi-annually by the same percentage as the per cent change in the consumer price index.”

In respect to how the pensions should have increased over the years, that would make them correct in the sense of keeping in step with the consumer price index. We would accept that as a start, even I though we feel that the Workmen’s Compensation Board pensions should not be viewed as a charity or as any sort of a handout but as a replacement for their earnings lost because of the injury; therefore, they should reflect not just the consumer price index but the better factor by which it should be adjusted, the per cent increase in salaries and wages.

However, that has taken a tremendous jump over those 30 years. In fact, the percentage increase in salaries and wages in Ontario is 453 per cent. Philosophically, I feel that should be the percentage by which those pensions should be adjusted because it is a pension which should be geared to take into account the lost earnings because of the industrial injury. For the moment, Mr. Chairman, we would settle for at least that amount which makes the percentage increase equal to the consumer price index so hopefully the buying dollar of the pension will not be continually eroded year after year as it has been in the past.

I don’t know how we can impress this upon the minister any more than by this argument -- that he should make this adjustment, bearing in mind that the cost is so little. When I say this, I am fully aware that if you have done your calculations correctly for this year, the cost to employers in the province for those other changes made this year -- the $108.2 million indicated in the minister’s release -- would increase the assessment to the employers in this province, based on their 1974 payrolls -- we would have to guess at what their 1975 payroll costs are -- by 0.6 per cent.

What we are saying is that to fully adjust it for all those years back to 1945, by the consumer price index, simply based on 1974 figures, would add another 0.2 per cent. It is such a small amount and so much justice can be done by adding that to it. Bearing in mind the inflationary costs employers have experienced over the last two or three years, this is a real bargain for them. The cost of Workmen’s Compensation Board assessments as a percentage of their payroll is the best bargain they have had over that entire period.

We had a 0.1 per cent increase last year to their employees payroll; we have a 0.6 per cent this year based on the 1974 payroll; and what we are suggesting to you is to add another 0.2 per cent to their payroll costs to fully place the pensions in the amounts they should be for those entire years.

It is so small that I can’t understand why the board doesn’t grant it. This is the year in which to grant it, of course. It is an election year and you would be heroes to your Workmen’s Compensation Board recipients for the first time in a great many years.

Another interesting factor we hear from time to time is the suggestion that some provincial tax money should be added to the Workmen’s Compensation Board programme so that pensions could be paid in an amount equal to the consumer price index, so that pensions could be properly adjusted. Those people who make that suggestion have never seriously looked at how small those payroll percentage increases would be to the employer.

There is absolutely no need for any public tax funds to be involved in this workmen’s compensation programme. They are sufficiently small that we do not even need to give that idea a second thought it is so small that it would not disrupt to any great effect at all the costs of goods and services provided by those industries. The payroll cost is only a portion of the total cost of an employer and we are proposing by this amendment to increase that payroll cost by only 0.2 per cent. That is what this amendment would do.

I can’t suggest any more strongly than I have that this should be done. I am fully aware that this is the first time in the bill it comes up. There are other sections of the bill in which this amendment should be included and will be included without further debate on it, I am sure. I am fully aware in this section itself there is a step forward if I interpret the bill correctly and perhaps the minister could comment on this. This purports to adjust the compensation rate. Last year we adjusted the pensions by the particular value stated. This year this particular amendment of section 5 takes the compensation rate -- that is, of someone who is on full compensation -- and adjusts it. That should have been done last year. It is being done this year but both of those need to be adjusted so that the compensation and the pensions are adjusted by the proper percentage increase, that percentage being the per cent increase in the consumer price index.

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone else wish to speak on the amendment?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Chairman, I guess I have spoken to this amendment or a similar amendment for the last three years in respect of what this government does. On the one hand it sends the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) to Ottawa to negotiate with the federal government on escalator clauses and intentions. He carries the torch to Ottawa on behalf of the province, demanding that the federal government introduce escalator clauses. Yet, wherever this government itself is responsible for payment, whether it be to recipients of family benefits or to those under the Workmen’s Compensation Act -- the two areas in particular where this government is responsible -- they don’t adhere to their own espousing of what they want Ottawa to do.

I have always found that strange about this government. It’s the Minister of Community and Social Services who has gone to Ottawa to lead the battle on behalf of the province. In the Canada Pension Plan it was an escalator clause and in respect of old age security it was an escalator clause. Yet where it is responsible as a government, both in family benefits and in workmen’s compensation, this government has shied away. What type of postulating do you call that where you have the effrontery to go to Ottawa and demand that?

It’s strictly a political game these Tories play continuously. They try to put Ottawa in a position where they fight elections on federal issues. The minister shakes his head and says no. How does he justify it then? The government demands Ottawa introduce these types of escalator clauses where it has the responsibility in these two areas yet it doesn’t adhere to that policy. What in God’s name gives, where the government can do that and do it with the effrontery it does and then come back here and constantly refuse to put escalator clauses into the Workmen’s Compensation Act, whether it be the pensions or the amount that it is paying in total temporary disability benefit or in family benefits? I just can’t understand it. We’ll have the minister stand in a few moments and he’ll give us some weak-kneed excuse about how it’s going to cost the employers too much.

I want to tell you when you go to Ottawa and demand more in the old age pension -- and I am not opposed to it, naturally the employers are going to pay a portion of it. I realize it’s going to cost the taxpayer more and I have no objection to that either. But how in the government’s own jurisdiction where it has the sole right to make that determination does it always come down foursquare against it? It is sheer hypocrisy and it galls me to no end that the government can play with human life the way these people do. And you really do.

I know the Minister of Community and Social Services would like to have an escalator clause in his payments. He said over and over and over again in the estimates that he is trying for it. I believe him. But the government can’t even get the Minister of Labour to agree that it’s right, and not only this minister, but his predecessors.

I ask the minister to tell me how he justifies badgering Ottawa constantly for escalator clauses while where he is responsible he won’t do it. He doesn’t even advocate it.

I recall the debate during his estimates when we brought the Workmen’s Compensation Board in that he wasn’t in favour of it. He was concerned about what it was going to cost. My colleague who has spoken just before me makes the point. He’s done very careful calculations on what it would cost. It seems to me if you are going to be consistent as a government in your philosophy of what you want others to do you must do it yourself or you must drop the sham.

I really don’t know how the Minister of Community and Social Services can go to Ottawa and take that position and then not go into cabinet here or stand up on the Legislature floor here and say, That’s right. We demand it of Ottawa and we must he prepared to do it ourselves.” You really must or it is sheer hypocrisy. I had thought I had another loophole on that one in what are the savings. My colleague says it’s 0.2 per cent on the payroll.

Mr. Bounsall: That would do it.

Mr. Martel: That’s a magnificent sum, isn’t it? That is a magnificent sum. I’m waiting with bated breath for the Minister of Labour to tell me how they, as a government, take one position when in Ottawa and one position here when they are legislating.

Mr. Chairman: Do any other members wish to speak on the amendment? If not, the minister.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

This is one of the new principles in the bill, in this section. Previously we had granted this for permanent disability but there are people who are on temporary disability who might be waiting for a final assessment of their claim and who, by the previous legislation, were not allowed an increase. Maybe they were stuck over the last two or three years, depending on the length of time prior to their going on to permanent disability or, of course, coming off completely. They were stuck at the figure they were earning at that time. This is a new principle which extends the escalation to temporary disability, and that point, we think, is a good thing. What we did last year for the permanent disability has worked out reasonably well.

I can’t give you any additional argument to those I have already given you in connection with it. You are saying how can we go to Ottawa and suggest one thing and not follow the same thing here. That follows back on the argument which I accept but you people have not accepted -- and we are each entitled to our own views on it -- that when you are going to Ottawa and asking for increases in such things as old age pension -- or when Ottawa does this -- it affects the whole class evenly across the board.

Mr. Martel: Canada Pension?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The Canada Pension or whatever it is; it affects that class of people. Here we are coming and, as you say, it is charged to the employer. It’s a very small amount in this case but that is not the point. You say it costs so little it is almost negligible in this case because there are not that many of these old temporary claims around. You could say, as far as this particular section is concerned, it’s almost negligible.

Whether it costs a little or it costs a great deal is not the point; it’s the principle involved. As I say, this sort of thing does not fall equally on a group of people. I ask you to consider and remember that workmen’s compensation is in lieu of the old master-and-servant claims and it got rid of a cause of action at law.

If I had a motor accident some five or 10 years ago and had to sue for it, my settlement would have been made on the basis of what the going rates were five or six years ago. I would have received a lump sum payment based on certain computations and that amount would not be increased on a year-by-year basis to catch up with inflation. Similarly, with the person who bought some insurance for themselves, some kind of accident insurance for themselves. They had an accident five or six years ago and their payment for that would not be increased as inflation effects were felt. You are saying that those people who’ve got workmen’s compensation should get a cost of living increase.

Mr. Martel: What about Canada Pension?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have made a compromise on this. We have come to a position somewhat in between. They are certainly far better off than the person who was on a private pension which would not increase at all. They are certainly better off than the person who settled a private law suit, but they are not tied in with the cost of living. Everybody pays this so regardless of where you -- it’s everybody paying for the benefit of a few and this is what I say is the difference between the two. You can shake your head all you want.

Mr. Martel: Could I ask the minister about Canada Pension then? The employer pays a portion of that and it is for a permanent disability whether on the job or from illness. Nonetheless, if it is on the job and the person is permanently disabled, the adjustment is made regularly and it was this government that asked Ottawa to do that.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s tied in with earnings.

Mr. Martel: Where is the difference between Canada Pension and workmen’s compensation?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is tied in with earnings.

Mr. Martel: What do you mean, it is tied in with earnings? When he stopped earning his capacity to earn stopped two years ago -- he acquired the Canada Pension. This government went to Ottawa and asked the federal government to tie an escalator clause to the Canada Pension, which they did. That’s the same as workmen’s compensation, my friend. There is no difference, although you can get it for illness but you still can get it on the job and obtain a Canada Pension. Your earning power is assessed at the day you got injured on that occasion, but the escalator clause later takes effect and you are paid for that. You get the increase as the cost of living increases and it was this government in 1972 that asked for that.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that there is quite a difference. Here are the people who are receiving workmen’s compensation benefits who are somewhere in between those who are privately protected and those who may be getting benefits from Canada Pension or some other source that is tied in.

Mr. Chairman: We have Mr. Bounsall’s amendment before us.

Those in favour of the amendment by Mr. Bounsall will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Do you agree to stack the vote?

Agreed.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Cannot do it; there are not five, there are 4½.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Is section 6 agreed to?

Mr. Haggerty: No, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister a question which deals with section 6, in particular subsection 1(5) -- that’s the impairment of the employee -- which says:

“Provided that he co-operates in and is available for a medical and vocational rehabilitation programme which would in the opinion of the board aid in getting him back to work, or accepts or is available for employment which is available and which in the opinion of the board is suitable for his capabilities.”

I suppose that is the problem we are going to have with this particular section, which deals with light modified work or light duty work.

The point I want to raise with the minister particularly is in the period of lost full employment in the industry -- and it could last for perhaps 12 months as indicated in this paragraph -- would you consider that the board or some rules or regulations be applied so the company or the industry will pay for his Canada Pension plan? It will cost maybe $180 a year or something like that; or $1 a week. He is going to lose that much -- perhaps one year -- in contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. If anybody injured is on workmen’s compensation nine times out of 10 he will end up on Canada Pension and, of course, if that isn’t kept up for the period he loses it means he is going to get less in return when he applies for Canada Pension.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, we are concerned about that, too, but we think the proper place to adjust it is within the Canada Pension provisions. I understand the federal government is in the process of at least considering the change and may change it, so that when they are on workmen’s compensation they will not lose their contributions.

Mr. Haggerty: Will the minster also consider it with the matter concerning unemployment insurance? The same thing could apply there. As you know, and you are well aware, with the unemployment insurance you have to have so many periods of work within a year and it is usually a certain timetable they have. A person could be injured, say, in early February or something like that and he could be off work for six months. Perhaps he isn’t going to be able to pick up a suitable job, like the one he had in the industry, and he is out of work until a job is found. Sure, he is perhaps going to pick up something under the scheme here -- workmen’s compensation. But, again, he may have to go back to unemployment insurance. If he doesn’t have sufficient time in there, then he becomes disentitled.

Perhaps it is a savings there for the workmen’s compensation that he has the two schemes that he can draw on. In a case of emergency, sometimes it is well to have both of them. Some of the delay with the workmen’s compensation is in getting a claim established and continuing the battle with them. It could be three or four months that he has no income at all.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think that’s something that the unemployment insurance people are considering and are prepared to act on, both on the pension and the unemployment insurance -- so that when they are on compensation, their payments will be waived. Now that’s the place to correct it and, as I say, I think they are prepared to do so.

Mr. Haggerty: Well, is your stuff presently working on this or has it made applications or written a letter to the federal government on this?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have made representations to the federal government.

Mr. Haggerty: You have?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: With these points, yes.

Mr. Chairman: Further discussion on section 6?

Mr. Bounsall: On section 6, yes. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that bothers me about section 6, and that is the changes to subsections 1 and 5 of the Act -- and that is the discretion that’s allowed to the board. Perhaps the board people here tonight could indicate to the minister just how widespread is their use of these particular provisions. The sections in the previous Act were very similar to them in that it allowed them to make adjustments.

My problem with this section is that it gives the board discretion in the amounts it will pay for the permanent partial disability. But it remains to be seen to what extent that discretion has been used to benefit the injured worker. And this is particularly in subsection 1(5) of section 6:

“...where the impairment of earning capacity ... is significantly greater than is usual for the nature and the degree of his injury, the board may supplement the award for permanent partial disability, provided that the total sum of the award does not exceed...”

And so on.

How often does the board determine that the impairment of earning capacity over the years has been significantly greater than the degree of injury -- and the discretion allotted to them allows them to make those adjustments? How often over the years has this, in fact, occurred under subsections 1 and 5, where that discretion is given?

We have changed 5 so that it certainly reads better. They can now have a look at the injury and they can now have a look at his employability. They can say: “His degree of injury may be slight but his employability is nil, and we can now make that adjustment.” But they were able to make a somewhat similar determination under the old subsection 5 -- it is just a little more clear to the board now how they can do it and to what they are to look. But in the past, how has the board acted in the discretion, which they already have under subsections 1 and 5? Does the minister know?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, the old section was for temporary injury and this new section is to allow this discretion for permanent injury. So the section that we put through last year, I think it was, was to allow the discretion in connection with temporary injury, and this is an extension of it to permanent injury.

I can’t, of course, give you any figures for permanent, but I asked what the figures were for temporary. Mr. MacDonald does not know, but he thinks it’s 2,000 or so cases. That figure we can get and give to you, where that discretion was used in the past year when they wanted to go beyond the old limit for temporary injury. But this, of course, is extending it to the permanent -- with the same kind of discretion.

Mr. Martel: Is that partial disability?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes.

Mr. Bounsall: By the same token, in other years under this section for the permanent disability recipients, where the board considered it more equitable, the board may award compensation for permanent disability, having regard to the difference between the average weekly earnings of the employee before the accident and the average amount that he was able to earn after the accident. In each case, the board had the discretion to make those adjustments before we had this particular change to the Act. They could take 75 per cent of such difference of the earnings after the accident and the earnings before.

How thoroughly and how often did the board over the years, under the discretion allowed under the present section in the Act for permanent disability, make adjustments of that sort? Did the board do it automatically? I would be very happy if I knew that the board was looking up the previous earnings and doing it automatically. The board officials nod yes, so that’s clear. I would have objected to the fact that one was never able to advance those earnings that they used to make, as the job which they held also increased in value, but the board did automatically make that adjustment and it was a law of decreasing returns. Time went on and it caught up to the old salary, and that was the finish of it.

I like this section better in that they can look at the difference between his earning capacity and his degree of employability. However, there is still the upper limit on it, I gather, in this section. The total sum of such supplement shall not exceed 75 per cent of his average weekly earnings during the 12 months immediately prior to the accident.

The board still has the upper limit on it. If the employability isn’t equal to his injury, the board has the maximum on it still. It only pays up to 75 per cent of the difference between whatever time these things occur and what his old salary earnings were. If it was automatic before under the old wording and it is going to be automatic now, the board still has the same ceiling on it. Perhaps the minister can explain how it has changed then, how this is able to be more easily spotted and how in what sense then is this an improvement.

Mr. Martel: I would just like to ask the minister a question. I don’t think I understand this section either.

What I read into this is that dependent on what a man’s income was at the time of his injury, if he returned to partial work with a permanent disability, he could, in fact, return to work at a new job which would maybe be a dollar less over a period of a couple of years. As that dollar difference diminished, he would ultimately reach a point where his income would be as great as at the time he got injured.

I’ve argued before that what we’ve done is, we have penalized the man because his earning capacity, because of his injury, has not kept pace. Maybe three years later he is back to the same salary that he was earning at the time he was injured. I read that into this section. If it gets back to that level, the government loses the capacity to augment his income. I’m not sure if I’m right but I would think I am. I would ask for clarification.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The question I think you are asking is whether the figure you calculate the 75 per cent on is frozen as of the date of the injury. If you’ll wait a minute, I will try to get the answer.

Mr. Chairman, I think I understand it.

No, that of course will be adjusted by those figures that we’ve been talking about -- the two per cent over a number of years, the four per cent and the 10 per cent this year.

Does this answer your question?

Mr. Martel: I am not sure. Maybe I could explain again what I am looking at to see if this section covers it. If a man gets injured -- let’s say he was injured two years ago and he finally returned to work a year after. When he returned to work, he went back to light duty; there was a permanent disability and he was given so much money. His light duty work, in fact, would have been paid less than the rate he was earning at the time of his injury. After a year or so, with the raises that occur regularly, he reaches an income equivalent to what he was getting at the time he was injured.

Does this section authorize you to make a discretionary allotment to the man because he has now reached what he was earning previously but it might be 75 cents an hour behind the rest of his colleagues? Does this cover that particular type of case? That is what I am trying to get at. Mr. MacDonald says no, I believe.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I understand it doesn’t.

Mr. Martel: It doesn’t?

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman, I can’t sit still without criticizing the bill in that regard. When a man, through his injury, is forced to go back to work at a lower rated job for the rest of his life he has to endure the loss of income which he would have acquired had he not been injured. That is precisely what you are building into the system. I know precisely what you are saying when you say that because I know a person intimately who is caught up in just such a problem.

A furnaceman in the smelter was injured and when he returned to work a year and a half later, he had to go back to smelter labour. Certainly, his loss of income was picked up by the Workmen’s Compensation Board until such time as a smelter labourer’s rate of pay reached the level that a furnaceman got at the time he was injured. Ever since that day, for the past 10 years, he has had to confine himself to being a smelter labourer whereas, he should be at a furnaceman’s level.

Why should an injured worker have to suffer not only the indignity of loss of classification but also the hardship of loss of earning power through no fault of his own because the injury sustained on the job precluded him from going back to his original classification? I would like to hear the minister try to justify why, for the next 20 years, a person in that predicament has to suffer loss of income.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, it was suggested we might be building that in now. That is not the case. We are not changing the Act in any way in this amendment. That’s already there.

In other words, what you are saying is that if the rate of pay for a certain category continues to go up, the assumption should be made that he was going to continue to work at that job and he should get some increase on a year by year basis, depending on what that job would otherwise pay. It is a pretty impossible thing to predict what a person may be earning next year or three years or four years from now. There is this freezing at the time the accident took place and I don’t know how you get around it.

We are getting around it by the two per cent we have given, the four per cent and the 10 per cent and those are increased now. I don’t think we can assume that the man is going to go on to a higher category or make any assumption of what he might have received if he stayed on the job. Now that’s just an assumption that would be impossible to make, and there has never been any attempt in the Act to do it.

Now, there is a change. This bill does provide, as you know, a change in the maximum from $12,000 to $15,000. The principle that is being changed here is that we are going back to look at those jobs on that revised maximum. In other words, as long as he is still on pension, if he was making $15,000 then and the limit was $12,000, we can now go back and pay on the basis of $15,000 -- but it is still based on what he was making at that time.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, I think it is not as difficult as the minister tries to make out. If a man is in a certain classification today, whether he is a locomotive engineer with the Canadian Pacific Railway or a furnaceman in a smelter, it is reasonable to assume that he is not going to be downgraded. Let’s say he has been on that particular job for five or 10 years and that he is a qualified railway engineer or a qualified furnaceman; it is reasonable to assume that he is going to remain as an engineer and a furnaceman. Why can you not build into the classification that this man, 10 years later, even though he has had to revert to a labourer’s rate, a lesser rate, should be compensated at the present-day classification of a furnaceman or a railway engineer? That’s where he would be had he not been injured; he would still be a furnaceman or a locomotive engineer. He wouldn’t be a track man or he wouldn’t be a smelter labourer. He would be driving his locomotive or he would be running his furnace.

What I am asking is, why should this man have to revert to a lower classification? Sure, we can’t assume that he was going to get promoted from furnaceman or engineer, but at least we can assume that he wasn’t going to be demoted. I am not asking for you to upgrade him or to give him a promotion. I am asking you to freeze him at the classification he was in when he was injured and pay him for that classification. But don’t freeze him at a rate lower than he was getting at the date of injury.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, that’s based on the assumption, of course, that he is going to stay in that job and stay with that same company and many assumptions of that kind, which the Act never contemplated and which we are not prepared to make.

Mr. Martel: Might I ask the minister why he makes that assumption, though? Why assume that a man with 20 years is going to leave the company? If he gets a light-duty job frequently it will be with the same company.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): If he does leave, it’s his own risk.

Mr. Martel: It’s his own ball game if he quits, but as long as he remains with the company in a lesser capacity because of the injury, surely to God he should be at the level of income which he would have enjoyed had he not been injured. All we are asking is that he be entitled to enjoy the level of income that he would have earned had he not been injured, and subject to a demotion -- well, there are not that many who get demotions, you know.

Some of us over here have been around industrial enterprises for a number of years, you know, and the number of demotions you see is minuscule. You might see people going up the ladder but you don’t see many being demoted. On the CNR you can’t go back to running a train. The only place you could be demoted would be to a fireman, and that job has become extinct. You must take your place -- if you are a conductor, you can’t stay as a permanent brakeman any longer.

When the minister talks about going backwards, that’s ridiculous; now he throws another one in, that he might leave the company. If he leaves the company, that’s a different ball game. He is going to a new job. We are saying that in terms of what he was earning at the time, as long as he remains in that company, he should be entitled to those benefits that his union will accrue for him. I think the minister’s excuse is really flimsy.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 carry?

Mr. Bounsall: No, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to add a few more remarks. This is the first time, in this particular amending Act that we have before us, where we have the 75 per cent appear. I think maybe I will make my amendment in regard to that 75 per cent and place the argument at this time.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 6(1) be amended by substituting “100 per cent” for “75 per cent” in subsections 1 and 5 of section 42.

Mr. Germa: That sounds reasonable.

Mr. Martel: We find that agreeable over here.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman. Yes, I find that a very agreeable amendment. It’s the argument I put this afternoon on second reading. There’s no reason that I could see why this legislation does not allow the board to pay more than 75 per cent of the worker’s earnings over the previous 12 months when that worker is injured, because the 75 per cent non-taxable earnings do not equal his 100 per cent taxable earnings. Now, the minister has responded in a way that he didn’t respond last year, nor that other Labour ministers have responded in the past, which was simply that 75 per cent non-taxable roughly equals 100 per cent taxable. And when I read the figures into the proceedings --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think I said that, Mr. Chairman. I gave three or four reasons -- and that was just one of them.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, all right, but you didn’t simply respond in the way that you did last year, and other Labour ministers have, to simply shrug and say: “Well, 75 per cent non-taxable is equal to 100 per cent taxable.”

I have read in the debate this afternoon on second reading what some of those different figures were. What the minister did say in one of his responses was that I was picking the extreme cases. I want it very clear on the record tonight that I was not. I will read enough figures in here so the minister will clearly see that I was picking no extreme figures when I read those differences for weekly amounts that would accrue to that family and to that worker because of that difference of 75 per cent.

I have the minimums now; under the Act $120 a week would be reduced to $90. If one was receiving $120 a week, taxable, and was injured and is now receiving three-quarters of that, the 90 per cent non-taxable for a single person, the difference comes out to $13.60 a week. The loss to that person is $13.60 a week if that person is a single person and has no dependants.

Now, I then pointed out to the minister this afternoon, using another example, that one could go down and add to that man a dependent wife and one could add children, various numbers of children to that, and what happens is that the figure simply increases. Because you have a dependent wife, you pay less taxes because you have the higher tax deduction. When you are cut to three-quarters of your earnings and those earnings are non-taxable, as opposed to 100 per cent taxable, what happens is, having paid less taxes, you have a greater amount per week in lost earnings.

In this particular case of a person being paid the minimum, should that person have four children -- and that’s as far down the list as I want to go; but I can assure the minister it is a regular progression. If he had a wife and four children, and is making $120 a week taxable, he in fact pays $1 a week in federal tax. The 75 per cent non-taxable, which moves him down to $90 a week, means that he is dropped $29 a week in earnings. The more dependants you have, the greater is your drop in actual take-home pay per week to the point that if you had four children and were on the minimum as laid out in the Act, you suffer a $29 per week loss -- $29 on $90; it’s expressed as a percentage of the pay which the board is paying you.

Such a man is suffering something like a 35 per cent decrease in the money he and his wife, with a family of four, would have to spend. As you move up to the other earning categories -- I can give it for all the different categories of dependants -- if someone is making $14,500 which is very close to the maximum as proposed in this Act, if it’s a single person, the loss per week incurred by that person -- the difference between $15,000 taxable and $12,000 non-taxable -- is $37.40.

If he is married but his wife is working so she is not a tax deduction and they have two children, the loss in earnings is $38.82 a week. If his wife is not working and, therefore, is a dependent and two children are involved, the loss per week is $49.02. If there is a man, a dependent wife and four children the loss is $51.77 a week.

They are not extreme cases. I just picked a case that was at the minimum; I picked a case which is at the maximum or quite near the maximum and I can quote you, if you need further convincing, other salary ranges in between -- for a man receiving $8,000; what his gross would be; what his rate from the board would be; and what the loss of income to him is -- and it is considerable. What conceivable reason do you have to let it cost a man, earning close to $15,000, with a dependent wife and four dependent children, $52 a week, which is the difference between $15,000 taxable and $12,000 non-taxable at your three-quarter figure? What conceivable reason can you give for his expenses in getting to and from work -- which is the other factor you brought in -- and the lunches he would eat amounting to that, bearing in mind he is only making a salary of $15,000? They’re not eating out every lunchtime; they’re carrying their lunch in a paper bag or a lunch bucket. What conceivable reason can you give for saying he is going to eat up $52 a week in additional expenses, in transportation to and from work and in those meals while he is away from home because that’s the difference -- $52 a week?

Mr. Martel: It is all that caviar.

Mr. Bounsall: The percentage of his take-home pay is not nearly as spectacular as the man who is only making 120 a week. The man who is only making $120 a week sure isn’t eating any lunches out and he’s getting to work by the cheapest possible way, yet he suffers a 35 per cent loss in that difference. The man who doesn’t suffer nearly as high a percentage loss because his salary is higher is, in fact, losing $52 a week. There is far too large a difference there.

There is too large a difference there for it to be equitable. I have other figures here if you want me to give them. I have not taken extreme cases or extreme examples. I can give them to you for someone at $11,000 and someone at $8,500.

Our view is it should be 100 per cent; let it be non-taxable and let him pocket the difference for his pain and his suffering. Let him pocket the $50 a week difference, if he is earning $15,000 and has four children, until he recovers.

If the Minister of Labour, or the board, in putting these things together, cannot possibly stomach the thought that a man who is injured and deprived of his living, however temporarily -- in some cases, as you know, it is two or three years, and all the worry that is involved in that -- but if a man is deprived of his earnings, deprived of his living, is worried about his future, if the minister cannot stomach the idea of him getting one penny more than what he was bringing home when he was working, then for heaven’s sake find another percentage figure here; find a sliding scale, but don’t leave these workers in the completely unjustified, low position, they are in.

The 75 per cent taxable income is not at all equitable or close to what happens in terms of take-home pay, looking at the expenses those workers would have, when compared to the 100 per cent taxable. Find a sliding scale; find a set of figures, a percentage which makes it equitable.

It may well turn out that 90 per cent would be a reasonable figure, if you wanted to make it an even amount, for people making under a certain fixed sum of dollars which would change each year. We would allow that to be put in the regulations without too much of a fight, to adjust that point at which it would be 90 per cent below a certain point and 95 per cent above a certain point. That is an amount which would be suitable to be put in some regulations pertaining to this Act.

That could be adjusted, so that he would end up with the same dollar amount. But the way the minister has it, at 75 per cent, there is no way it is equitable. The low wage earners loses a very high percentage of his take-home pay. The fairly high wage earner loses a lower percentage but a lot of dollars, and we are talking about a man and his family, married with two to four kids; we are talking of a range of $40 to $50 a week. Why does the minister do it? Why does he take someone and say: “Look, you are injured. You were making $15,000. Right off the bat, we are going to ensure that over the course of the year you are going to have $2,500 less to spend than if you hadn’t been injured”?

Mr. Martel: That’s teaching him.

Mr. Bounsall: And, you know, this is probably the same man who stood in the plant at Stelco and said, “I don’t want to go into that position because I consider it unsafe.” His foreman told him to go in, and when he said he wouldn’t, he had the choice of being suspended or going in there and getting injured. He goes in there and is injured and then the minister says: “We are going to arrange to pay you $2,500 a year less because you went into a place where you yourself said you shouldn’t go and were injured.”

That’s the basic inequity. When he is injured -- in most cases not because of his own doing; in many cases because the work place is unsafe -- you then go on by this 75 per cent factor and ensure that he is further downgraded and further disadvantaged with respect to his position in the world.

Something has to change. We have amended this to put in the 100 per cent. If the minister can come up with a more equitable ratio, do it; but it is sure not being equitable now.

I am not blaming the board for it, because this would have to be, no doubt, a cabinet decision. I am sure the board would like to see that inequity removed and those higher amounts paid. But certainly the minister should be talking to his colleagues and pointing out to them the inequity of this and that for the working people of Ontario who are injured it should be a reasonable thing for those workers to receive an amount at least equal to what their earnings were before they were injured.

One of the standard replies the minister might make now is that we want to ensure that by paying him there is some incentive for that worker to get back to work. Well, believe you me, there are not many people in our population who can sit around content to do nothing, if they have worked for a considerable portion of their lives. The way in which the Workmen’s Compensation Board requires medical reports from the doctors in attendance on injured workmen, there is no way that workman would find himself in a position where he would be allowed to become whole and not be cut off the pension.

So the minister has really no big worries on the score of someone, if he gets the same amount of money, trying to cover up the fact that he is no longer injured. That would he found out and, by the mechanisms you have, drops in pension will occur and he will want to return to work. They want to return to work anyway.

We are talking only of a very small percentage who might prefer to do nothing rather than work. I would think it would be the same as the percentage for those persons who rip off whatever welfare scheme we have, something in the vicinity of three to six per cent -- those who rip off the welfare scheme, those medical doctors who rip off OHIP and so on. We are talking about a small percentage, three to six per cent, whom your boys are very adept at catching anyway; to leave this at 75 per cent for that reason, rather than 100 per cent or some figure which would ensure that he has the same take-home pay, is just not good enough.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Chairman, last year the member for Welland South spoke on this point and suggested an 85 per cent figure. You can play the figure game all the time. Undoubtedly, 75 per cent is inequitable, but the big argument, of course, is that it’s not taxable. When you look at the widespread tax variations that can result for people making the same amount of money, certainly the taxation matter is a very indefinite thing. Some people may have retirement savings funds that are non-taxable, other people give more charitable donations than others; so the taxation may or may not be a big advantage.

Last year the 85 per cent was not considered, and I suppose the 100 per cent is going to the extreme. I think the member for Windsor West has an excellent point when he says it would not be too difficult to figure out a variable form of payment, depending on wages and the taxation position. Every employee has to file with his employer a slip showing his personal exemptions. I would think that in fairness to the employees, the minister would want to have something a little more equitable than 75 per cent straight across the board, because it does affect one wage earner considerably more than another wage earner, depending on the wages received by that person.

I might just ask, has the minister ever considered a sliding scale? Has he ever considered upgrading the 75 per cent? The income tax argument has a certain amount of validity, but income tax has a great variation in families, depending on whether the wife is working, how many children there are and other considerations as to how much non-taxable investment a person might happen to be making in the way of retirement.

I would think it’s time that the ministry moved toward promoting a more equitable amount and took into consideration the fact that it’s non-taxable and any other benefits that are required, the non-payment of hospitalization and anything else. Certainly, though, 75 per cent across the board is not an equitable way to deal with this matter of payment.

Mr. Chairman: It is now 10:30.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I would move that the committee rise and report.

Mr. Good: Let the minister reply.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Let me just give a brief reply, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Stress has been put on the fact that it’s non-taxable. That is certainly one of the factors involved, but I mentioned other factors. I mentioned the cost of work, and that was belittled. I also mentioned the fact that it was guaranteed for life, and there was no mention of that at all. It just doesn’t stop when a person gets to be 60 or 65 or anything else; it goes on, and that’s a considerable factor.

You are saying it’s inequitable. I would point out that every other jurisdiction in Canada has a 75 per cent limitation. So if it’s inequitable, we are not the only ones who are doing an injustice. I don’t agree that it’s an injustice.

What you have been suggesting is that these are people who have no other source of income. You have looked at minimums and maximums, and you have looked at children. But most of the people on workmen’s compensation in this province have other sources of income. That’s why I say to you that you are always looking at the most drastic situation and applying that across the board. As I say, most people on workmen’s compensation across this province do have other sources of income. That is the problem involved. You just can’t look at the bare facts and figures we have because they are not applicable to the majority.

Mr. Bounsall: I would just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, say that I agree. Most of them do have another source of income because most of them have sustained permanent partial injuries; but that permanent partial injury is something like 10, 15, 20 or 25 per cent, depending upon the extent of the injury, of the 75 per cent of their salaries way back when. Those who have another income because they are at work have got a very small percentage of that 75 per cent -- 20 or 25 per cent of that 75 per cent. We are not talking about getting 75 per cent of their totals. If a person is totally disabled and is getting 75 per cent, then he probably won’t have another source of income.

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 progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mind you, Mr. Speaker, it is minimal progress, but progress is progress.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with this debate in committee of the whole House, to be followed as previously called by item 20, Bill 111. Tomorrow we will announce the business for next week.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.