Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SUMMER EVENTS AT QUEEN’S PARK

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that my ministry will be sponsoring a summer programme of events on the front lawn at Queen’s Park commencing early in July.

The programme will consist of seven concerts on Wednesday evenings, starting July 9; an art show in August, displaying selected works by Ontario art students gathered from around the province; and an art “teach in”, featuring several of Ontario’s finest artists demonstrating their skills in sculpture, oils, graphic art, ceramics and the like. These artists will also show slides, answer questions and discuss their experiences. Gymnastic exhibitions and similar athletic displays are being planned as well.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): How many kids from the north will be there?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The summer programme has already begun with the current book display in the rotunda, as the member for Thunder Bay knows because he was there for the opening. This display of 757 popular Canadian books is designed to publicize the works of Canadian authors. I hope all members will assist us in drawing it to the attention of visitors to Queen’s Park.

As well as the display and concerts, Sunday tours of the legislative buildings will also be available to the public. There will be a special observance of Dominion Day on July 1 at Queen’s Park at noon and at Ontario Place in the evening. Throughout the last week of August there will be a continuing celebration of the theme of multiculturalism on the front lawn. This will climax with Ontario Day celebrations at Ontario Place on Sunday, Aug. 31, when representative groups from the Ontario Folk Arts Council will stage three spectacular performances at the Forum. Other events, including fireworks displays, will take place throughout the grounds.

The summer programmes at Queen’s Park, Mr. Speaker, will be held in the early evening to allow families to gather and picnic on Ontario’s front lawn while enjoying what we hope will be pleasant and relaxing entertainment after work. A preliminary programme of events is being provided to all members and details will be publicized throughout Metropolitan Toronto.

MOPEDS

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Later on this afternoon I’ll be introducing a bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act providing additional controls in respect to motor-assisted bicycles. The legislation enacted in February of this year created a new class of vehicle known as a motor-assisted bicycle and permitted the operation of these vehicles by persons 14 years of age and over. The reaction of the public, safety organizations, police forces and municipal councils to this legislation has been unfavourable. In view of this reaction and our opportunity to examine the experience in the sale and operation of these vehicles over the past few months, it has been determined that further control is required.

The definition of a motor-assisted bicycle is being amended to rule out vehicles weighing in excess of 120 pounds and those with hand and foot-operated clutch or gear controls. Dealers will be required to certify upon the sale of one of these vehicles that it is a motor-assisted bicycle within the definition. By this means, those vehicles I have previously described as pedal-assisted motorcycles will be ruled out.

Under the amendment, a motor-assisted bicycle is a motor vehicle requiring registration and the driver is required to hold a licence. The registration fee will be nominal. Any driver’s licence or an instruction permit will be acceptable. This will ensure that operators have proven their knowledge of the rules of the road, met vision requirements and are at least 16 years of age. The provisions of the Act regarding the demerit point system and licence suspensions will apply.

GRANTS TO CHURCH-RELATED UNIVERSITIES

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce details of a revised operating grants formula for eligible provincially-assisted universities with church-related colleges which teach theology. The new policy could generate an additional $1.1 million for McMaster University, the University of Ottawa, Queen’s, the Universities of Toronto and Western Ontario, and Wilfrid Laurier University.

Hon. members will recall that last year provisions were made to the funding of the arts and science component of church-related colleges. Since 1967 a formula based on enrolment has been used to calculate operating support to provincially-assisted universities.

Starting in 1976-1977, the same formula will be applied to the theological colleges, subject to the following conditions: The students in theology programmes must be registered in the parent university; degrees must be granted by the parent university; standards of admission, curriculum and graduation for all programmes must be established and regulated by the parent university.

Approximately 1,300 students are now enrolled in theology programmes in church-related institutions that could be affected by the change. These students are generating about $1.1 million in operating grants in the current academic year, and when the new system is introduced in 1976-1977, the parent universities would receive about $2.2 million on their behalf.

The provincial grants will be paid directly to the parent university and the internal allocation of the funds will be left to the university. The current policy, which does not provide capital funds to church-related institutions, remains unchanged. Any theological college which does not wish to come under the academic aegis of its parent university will continue to receive the existing level of grant.

Theological colleges which are not presently federated or affiliated with a provincial university would become eligible for the increased grants upon successfully negotiating affiliation or federation with one of the 15 provincial universities and upon meeting the conditions outlined in the new policy.

For the information of hon. members, theology is presently offered at 14 institutions, which are: McMaster Divinity College, associated with McMaster University; St. Augustine Seminary and St. Paul University, associated with the University of Ottawa; Queen’s Theological College, associated with Queen’s University; Knox College, St. Michael’s College, Trinity College, Victoria College and Wycliffe College, associated with the University of Toronto; Huron College and King’s College, associated with the University of Western Ontario; Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, associated with Wilfrid Laurier University; and Dominican College and Regis College, which are not affiliated with any provincially-assisted university.

REFORESTATION PROGRAMME

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the hon. members for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) and Thunder Bay asked questions about certain aspects of my ministry’s forest regeneration policy which I am pleased to answer in full today. The replies are quite detailed, so I thought I’d give them as a statement rather than replying during the question period.

First, concerning the progress of the 10-year programme for regeneration of Ontario forests: The policy we are following is to increase the overall area regenerated by artificial means from 154,000 acres in 1973-1974 to a total of 296,000 acres in 1982-1983. This programme means that with the addition of other areas which regenerate naturally, plus the available supplies of timber, from the target year 2020 there will be enough timber to sustain an industry which uses 9.1 million cu ft of roundwood per year. At the present time industry uses about 5.1 million cu ft per year.

Mr. Stokes: That’s cunits.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, cunits. I am sorry. The 10-year programme was initiated in 1973-1974, and the first two years were close to schedule. In the first year, 1973-1974, the goal was to regenerate 153,689 acres. We managed to complete 145,278 acres, meaning that there was a deficit of about 8,500 acres.

Then in the following year, 1974-1975, the goal was 150,408 acres, and the achievement was 150,604 acres, right on target. In addition, about 25,000 more acres were seeded by air to jackpine following the fires last summer in the Dryden area. The overall total for 1974-1975, therefore, was 175,604 acres regenerated, easily making up the small deficit of the previous year.

In the fiscal year 1975-1976, the target is to regenerate 173,000 acres, and I am confident this will be done. There is a gap between the amount of area requiring regeneration and the amount being regenerated. In 1974 this gap was about 120,000 acres. I repeat again, however, that our 10-year programme is designed to eliminate that gap. So, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to allay the fears expressed in the House that the forest regeneration programme is behind schedule.

Another question was asked about the relationship between the Crown dues collected and the amount spent on our regeneration programme. In 1973-1974 the stumpage revenue was $14.6 million and in 1974-1975 approximately $26 million. The total amount spent on regeneration and other silvicultural treatments represents about 60 per cent of the division of forests budget which was $11.9 million in 1973-1974, $13.6 million in 1974-1975, and, we estimate, $20.5 million in 1975-1976.

Silviculture is defined as the establishment and tending of forests and is thus comparable to agriculture. Silviculture includes such activities as tree improvement, seed collection, stock production, site preparation, regeneration and tending.

In addition, the forests division spent another $9,146,000 in 1973-1974 on other activities such as data collection, forest management planning, wood measurement and administration.

I recall that the question from the hon. member for Rainy River was to the effect that we were spending only one-tenth of the revenues from Crown dues on reforestation. Mr. Speaker, the fact is we are spending more than 60 per cent of our revenues on silviculture and almost the same amount on the other aspects of forest management.

The third question had to do with the survival rate of the planting stock. In December, 1974, my ministry published a report entitled, “Survival and Growth of Tree Plantations on Crown Lands in Ontario”. It shows the survival and growth, by species and regions, of nursery stock and tubed seedlings five years after planting. This book is readily available.

For the major species used in the boreal forest -- black spruce, white spruce and jackpine -- the survival rate is between 61 per cent and 74 per cent. This would provide adequately stocked stands.

For container stock, which represents about 10 per cent of all planted stock, the survival rate for spruce is about 33 per cent and for jackpine 55 per cent.

Mr. Stokes: That’s pretty sad.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The reasons for the lower survival rate of spruce have been investigated and both growing and planting techniques have been modified. The use of this kind of stock will not be expanded until better survival is obtained.

One of the primary objectives in the 10-year regeneration programme is to expand the use of techniques other than the planting of nursery stock.

Mr. Stokes: What about strip cutting?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will get to that.

This is essential because of accelerating costs and the need to regenerate sites where planting is not successful. Major expansions are planned in the seeding and modified cutting techniques to take care of this matter. On certain sites, cutting techniques can be modified to include strip cutting, shelterwood systems and leaving groups of trees.

In the 1960s, strip cutting was done on an experimental basis on 1,000 acres a year in black spruce stands in northern Ontario. This technique is being further developed and expanded as quickly as possible. It requires an accelerated road programme and more careful planning and layout of acres to be logged.

Modified cutting techniques are used more extensively in the white pine and yellow birch stands further south to improve the growth of residual trees and to create better conditions for natural regeneration.

I was also asked if I would table the planning document from which our regeneration programme has emerged. While I am not prepared to do so at this time, I would like to make two brief points that relate to it:

Although the forest regeneration activities are currently aimed at the goals mentioned previously, we are now reviewing the relevance of these goals. Because of a dramatic acceleration of industrial expansion and the resulting increased fibre requirements of the woods industry between now and 1978 we have decided that the forest production policy options planning document needs further revision. The staff of the division of forests are geared to complete this review by the fall of this year. During the debates on my estimates, as I have said previously in this House, I propose to make an expanded statement on our forest management policy and programme so that it can be examined in all of its many dimensions by those members who are so keenly interested in the subject, which is basic to our economy and the quality of our natural environment.

Mr. Stokes: Let the minister look at the volume agreements too, while he is at it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The minister wasn’t even listening; he doesn’t even know what he said.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Housing has the floor.

PLANNING REVIEW COMMITTEE

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): I am very pleased to announce today the establishment of a planning review committee to study the Planning Act and related legislation.

The Planning Act is the major tool shaping future development. It has served us well but even the best tool must be sharpened occasionally if it is to remain effective.

This will not, however, simply be a review of the procedure followed in planning in this province. The committee will have full scope to examine why we have planning and what planning is doing.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Isn’t it about time we knew the answer to that one?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Is this the new speech writer? This is the new one, is it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We must be sure the municipal and provincial planning systems respond to the changing needs of Ontario residents and supports provincial policies for social, economic, physical and community development.

Mr. Lewis: This is really silly.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: For this reason, Mr. Speaker, the committee’s terms of reference will include --

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the minister act now?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The goals of municipal and provincial planning; --

Mr. Singer: Great objectives!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- the role of government in planning and the relationship of planning to provincial and municipal responsibilities; the social, economic and environmental consequences of planning; and, finally, alternative concepts of the nature of planning.

Mr. Lewis: Thank God for that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The committee will, of course, also concern itself with the basis of planning -- the legislative framework, regulatory mechanisms, the planning structure and procedures and public involvement in the process.

This is obviously no small task we are giving the three-member committee, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to report we have acquired the services of one of Ontario’s foremost planners to chair the planning review committee. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to Mr. Eli Comay.

Mr. Singer: He was the one who gave us the housing report.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Comay, a professor of environmental studies at York University, is a former planning commissioner for Metropolitan Toronto and one of the authors of the Ontario Economic Council report, “Subject to Approval,” a study of municipal planning.

Mr. Singer: The government paid no attention to his housing report.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: However, he is perhaps best known as the chairman of the Ontario advisory task force on housing policy.

Mr. Singer: Yes, but the government didn’t listen to him then.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Indeed, the report of that committee is most often cited as the Comay report.

Mr. Lewis: As the discarded report.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the planning review committee will be seeking a wide range of views. Groups invited to participate will include municipal officials, the development industry, planning professionals, community and public interest groups and those involved with agricultural and rural land use planning.

The review committee will also be supported by a committee of senior representatives from the ministries concerned with planning. Staff support will be supplied by my ministry.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the planning review committee to produce a comprehensive report, including recommendations on proposed legislative changes, by September, 1976. Thank you.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a pretty earth-shaking announcement. That was fine. A job for Eli.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Transportation and Communications.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on Feb. 7 last, I advised the House that an inquiry would be carried out with respect to dump truck operations in the province. That inquiry has now been completed. I received a copy of the inquiry’s report during the last few days and today I am tabling it in the House.

The report makes over 40 recommendations. In my preliminary review, it appears the ministry has anticipated at least two of them -- the mandatory covering of loose loads on dump trucks and the report’s view that unsafe dump trucks must be removed from the roads. We are at present checking and removing unsafe vehicles and regulations regarding the covering of louse loads are all ready to be brought forward.

I can tell the hon. members there are also other recommendations we can act upon in the very near future, although they will require legislation or regulations to enforce some of them. These include the registration and plating of dump trucks in relation to their gross and axle weights, the necessity of a working trip record or bill of lading for all dump truck operations, and the joint responsibility of both the shipper and carrier for overloading offences.

I am receptive to the recommendation for the re-implementation of control of entry. To do so, I should point out, will necessitate an amendment to existing legislation as well as the conversion of current licences to conform to the new licensing procedures.

I also go along with the point that MTC’s minimum rates be applied on contracts subsidized by my ministry but actually carried out for municipalities, as well as those between operators and other ministries. Acceptance for work subsidized by my ministry will depend on the outcome of future talks with the municipalities, and I shall discuss with my colleagues the recommendation in regard to contracts with other ministries.

Finally, the report makes a number of related recommendations with respect to rates -- for example, the filing of rates, minimum rates, the rejection of rates by the Ontario Highway Transport Board and a review of the rates by the OHTB on the application of interested parties. The adoption of recommendations pertaining to rates will obviously demand a very thorough analysis, including their application to the whole of the for-hire trucking industry.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park on a matter of privilege.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): On a point of privilege, yes. I wonder if I can get a ruling from you, sir. As you know, every member is entitled to two mailings per year to his constituency and, for various reasons, some of us have been redistributed out of our constituencies. Some of us, for other reasons, are running elsewhere or may be running elsewhere. I would like a ruling from you that we are still entitled to two mailings per year, even if not to the same constituency.

Mr. Speaker: There is no change in that ruling.

Mr. Shulman: What is the ruling?

Mr. Speaker: The ruling is two mailings per year.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): He can’t have a mailing in Brampton.

Mr. Shulman: Two mailings a year where?

Mr. Speaker: Actually, I may have missed part of the question. If it has to do with whether it is the former riding or the proposed ridings, the new ones are not in existence at the present time.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce three distinguished guests who are in the House today, in your gallery, sir. Two of them are members of the West German federal parliament, members of the Christian Democratic Party, Dr. Walter Wallman and Mr. Wilfreid Boehm; and the third is a member of the provincial House in Hessen, Mr. Wilhelm Runsch. I am sure the House would like to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

PLANNING REVIEW COMMITTEE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put a question to the Minister of Housing: Does his statement, having to do with the establishment of this committee on planning, mean a repudiation of the commitment made by the former Treasurer (Mr. White) that there would be an overall plan for Ontario, which he expected to bring down in late 1974? Has that concept been abandoned now, and is the minister starting somewhere beyond square one?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the former Treasurer’s statement about the overall planning for Ontario. What we are doing as a government, as usual, is planning ahead. We will be here in 1976 as a government to determine what is the best way to plan for Ontario, and that’s the point that the opposition fails to recognize.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, we will probably let somebody else settle that; and I don’t mean George Gallup, we do mean the people.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is the member quitting again?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the minister, what is the status of the so-called White plan, the White plan for overall development of the province? Has that been abandoned? Did it go out with the dismissal of the former Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker. The two are not related whatsoever. What we’re talking about in this committee is --

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): We’re trying to find out what it looks like.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- investigation and review of the Planning Act itself. It’s not related to the overall plan for development for Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought the minister said, “Why is planning necessary?” Wasn’t that the thing they were going to start with?

Mr. Singer: Yes, that was part of the statement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Wouldn’t the minister call that square one -- why is planning necessary?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, not at all. All we’re saying is we know there’s every justification for planning, which the opposition very seldom does, and we want to establish how we should do it, that’s all.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: I would like the minister to explain something to me. Three years ago the minister announced a procedure to review the Planning Act almost in terms identical to today. Two years ago the minister attempted to find a chairman from outside the government for that planning review, and was unable to do so. So he appointed Keith Bain of the Treasury department to do the review of the Planning Act. That was two years ago. How is it that he is now announcing, yet again, another review of the Planning Act, and what has happened to the last three years of work?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, there never was any planning committee set up to establish a review of the Planning Act, as the hon. leader of the NDP well knows. What was suggested was that we would try to establish a chairman of a Planning Act review committee.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, that’s exactly right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We were unable, at that time, to obtain one. Mr. Keith Bain and his staff will be transferring to the Ministry of Housing to assist in this committee’s work.

Mr. Lewis: But they’ve been working for two years. What has happened to their work? The minister announced Mr. Bain’s appointment.

Mr. Stokes: They’ve done nothing but look.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification, Mr. Bain has not been working for the last two years. Mr. Bain was appointed in the first instance, and ill health made it necessary for him to resign from that appointment at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Downsview, a supplementary?

Mr. Singer: Yes. Is there any reason to believe that Mr. Comay’s anticipated report on planning is going to be better received than was his report on housing, and that the government has any real intention of implementing either the Comay report on housing or the expected Comay report on planning?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the Comay report on housing was a very good, documented one that the government has implemented to every possible degree.

Mr. Singer: The minister didn’t do anything Comay told him to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’m surprised he’s prepared to work for the government.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I expect the same thing to come forward from Mr. Comay in regard to the Planning Act review. The member for Downsview knows there have been certain obstacles in regard to housing for Ontario.

Mr. Singer: Yes, the minister and the guy sitting next to him are the greatest obstacles.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member’s colleagues in Ottawa have not assisted us to any degree whatsoever. As of Monday night we saw very concrete evidence of how much the federal government thought about housing in Ontario, we found that out. We also have to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Downsview recognizes that he can assist in housing in Ontario by making sure the municipalities which he represents and the developers he represents are on the same wavelength in regard to the development of housing enterprises in Ontario.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Does the member ever talk to them? Let him talk to his municipalities once in a while.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Are we to assume that Mr. Comay will be dealt with the way other chairmen of committee have been dealt with, and that is on a per diem basis? If so, what is Mr. Comay’s per diem to be?

As well, if so, has it ever occurred to the government to abandon completely the per diem payment approach to such committees, and establish instead a contract price for a piece of work done with a termination date to it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, yes, it has occurred many times in the past that we do have a contract price. I don’t expect a per diem rate to be established for Mr. Comay. I do expect a per diem rate for the members who will be on the committee.

Mr. Lewis: Why?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Because Mr. Comay will be full-time and the other members will not be.

Mr. Lewis: Why per diem? Why not money for a job of work done over a given time?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the subject of how much we’ll pay the other two has not yet been determined. Thu amount for Mr. Comay has been determined.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is it?

Mr. Lewis: What is it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It will be on a contract basis which I will divulge at a later date.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions from the Leader of the Opposition?

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy if he can indicate the state of government thinking at the present time on the approach to legislation, which could be presented before the Legislation adjourns for the summer, giving powers to the Ontario Energy Board to undertake some of the decisions which may be part of provincial government policy in the next few weeks to control the price of gasoline and oil.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe we have indicated that we are contemplating amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act, as it relates to the total question of consumer protection. That question should be referred to my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Which colleague? The Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): The good old Nixon two-step; 10 cents a dance.

Mr. Lewis: What? Of oil prices?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question of the Minister of Energy: Assuming he and the other members of the cabinet are concerned about the application of energy price increases, both now and later in the summer, have they examined the possibility of doing this by order in council; and do they not feel it would be better if the Legislature were involved in empowering the Energy Board to have these powers before the Legislature rises?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member will hark back to Tuesday, as much as he may not want to, and remember the comments of the Premier; and if he will consider the telegram which I sent to the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, which was made public and which I assume he has seen --

Mr. Lewis: Government by Telex is the way these people work.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- I think in point of fact he will realize we have expressed our concern, our sincere and grave concern. We await --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): How would the Leader of the Opposition do it?

Mr. Lewis: I would pick up the phone and tell him.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I didn’t even know he was back from Japan. His application for asylum was obviously turned down.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We await their response. We are considering every conceivable alternative, and depending on their responses we will then make our decisions.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, and I am sorry if the minister feels it should be directed elsewhere, but I would like to pursue with him the fact whether or not these powers are used by the Ontario Energy Board under the statement of policy by the government, as it may change in the next few days, would it not be at least a recognition of the primacy of the democratic process to use this Legislature to confer those powers, rather than to intend to do it by order in council when the Legislature is not in session?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I never inferred the latter at all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I inferred it; the minister implied it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He is not playing politics at all.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if I may: Did the minister notice that the federal Minister of Energy indicated the excise tax was purely applied by him to the manufacturers, that is the producers, and that it was entirely up to the provinces when the price increase, the excise tax, was passed on and at what time? How did the minister respond to that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I had a telephone call this morning at about a quarter past 7 from a reporter who gave me some of the details of what the federal minister had to say. I haven’t had the full details.

I would say this though: It is a federal tax; they do set the rules as to how it is to be collected and when.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): And who pays it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and if Mr. Macdonald thinks he is going to get out of this trap by passing the dime to Ontario -- and if he does it nine more times he will have passed the buck -- then he is sadly mistaken. It is a federal responsibility; they made the mess, they have to clean it up.

Mr. Stokes: We have to suffer in the process.

Mr. Lewis: Who does the minister think pays for the mess they created if not the people of Ontario? How, then, does the minister intend to protect the citizens of this province from the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: By getting re-elected.

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): Question, question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: How many days’ inventory will the minister permit the oil companies; has he calculated that yet, exactly? Why is the minister not prepared to indicate publicly that Ontario will determine the retail price; however he chooses to do it through the Ontario Energy Board or in some other way?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

I think that question might better have been left to be raised as a new question when the member has the opportunity. Any further questions from the Leader of the Opposition?

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): The Liberals are quiet aren’t they; the Liberals are very quiet this week.

GUN CONTROL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Attorney General what his response is to the report of the inquest which recommended, not the licensing of firearms, but a police licence for any individual age 16 and over who might want to purchase a firearm or ammunition. It seems to me that is an alternative which has not been considered in the statements made by the government in the past.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I have read in the press the results of the inquest. I have not read any of the information on the formal finding itself. I intend to look at it. It is something we are exploring right now, on those lines as to age, along with certain other licensing requirements we are presently considering. I must say I am somewhat sympathetic to the recommendation of the jury in that regard.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary for clarification: The minister indicates he is somewhat sympathetic to the proposal that in fact the individual who might want to buy a firearm would have to have a special police licence for that purpose in advance of the purchase, rather than any thought of licensing the firearms themselves.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am thinking in terms of a licensing type of procedure, be it applicable to the outlets or sales agents who sell firearms; I am thinking of that. I’m thinking of the requirements insofar as an individual going in and buying a firearm is concerned, be he or she 16 years of age or over; what the requirements really are and whether there should be a cooling-off period after the time one makes the application to purchase of maybe 48 hours or 72 hours before the vendor can actually sell or deliver the arms. These are the things I’m considering right now and I want to see the formal recommendation of the jury.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Supplementary: May I ask the minister why he doesn’t consider the sale of firearms through government-regulated outlets?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s more civil servants.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Does the member mean like liquor outlets?

Mr. Deans: Similar.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The same type of collusion too.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I really don’t think I could very well justify that type of programme. I don’t know what benefit it would provide to the people of Ontario -- I notice the member shakes his head -- if he thinks that the sale of them should be through government outlets as opposed to through major marketing outlets like Simpsons or Eaton’s or hardware dealers that are registered and licensed by this province -- if we went that route. I fail to see why I should hire staff and obtain premises to sell firearms.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Did it ever occur to the minister that perhaps it would be better to have a hold on the sale and distribution of firearms rather than have them sold regardless of the owner’s capacity to properly determine the eligibility of the individual purchaser?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I just don’t subscribe to that, that we could perhaps do it better.

Mr. Deans: They just sell them at any old place at all. The minister just carries on as he is doing. The minister says a lot but does nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary: In view of the minister’s reply that he is thinking of five or six different alternatives, could he tell us when he plans to bring a programme into this House and that it will be a government programme, particularly in view of the fact that his leader is so in favour of law and order against permissiveness?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I would be glad to tell the hon. member. The federal government will be implementing a programme dealing with this very matter, hopefully, by the end of August, so I am advised by the federal Solicitor General. We participated through our provincial registrar of firearms in that recent two- or three-day meeting in Ottawa. The views of our people are in the process of being expressed in, we hope, a rather practical way to the federal registrar.

I think one would have to agree that a gun registration programme, regardless of what form it takes, would really have to be national in scope to be of any value. I think that the jurisdiction to do that sort of thing obviously lies with the federal government. I still think that we can be supportive in terms of licensing and regulating the distribution of them within the province, be they long guns or handguns. I think it’s a complementary type of operation if it’s going to be effective.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister care to answer the question I put to him? When is he going to announce the view of this government on this subject?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member will find it will be announced very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary from the member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: If the federal government fails to do so, will the Ontario government ban the sale or possession of semi-automatic weapons?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We would consider that as an alternative.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on that.

Mr. Speaker: May I just make a comment, please? When there are too many supplementaries -- and we don’t like to cut off supplementaries provided they have to do with the original question -- if there are more than two or three, it becomes a debate, as you know, on the original subject which was brought up. There are many people who want to ask questions. The members may ask further questions later. I’m at the members’ disposal, of course, but I get complaints if there are too many supplementaries and I get complaints if they are cut off, so it’s very difficult to rule. I think we’ve had two from this side and two from the other side so perhaps we can go on. If there are further questions and if there’s time --

Mrs. Campbell: There were three from the other side.

Mr. Speaker: I thought there were two. If there were three, I’ll allow one from the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister’s expressed concern about guns and the legislation involving guns, does he find that consistent with the approach of this government in having a commemorative plaque for the inventor of the rifle? Why wouldn’t it honour the inventor of the modern athletic support rather than the rifle?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, the member is brilliant.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t even understand the question. Would he say it again? I didn’t hear it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Just marvellous.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, maybe we should have a Solicitor General with the power to appoint a royal commission into gun control. That’s a possibility.

Mr. Singer: There’s a volunteer behind the member for Scarborough West -- the member for High Park.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member is weakening. Oh, he is weakening.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Minister of Energy, has he actually calculated, and can he present to the Legislature from his ministry’s point of view, the number of days of inventory which are left to the oil companies in Ontario and therefore the basis of the Premier’s meetings with the executives of the companies?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I believe on Tuesday the Premier indicated that certainly the 45 days indicated in the federal budget are, in our view, too short. I believe the Premier referred to a point somewhere after Labour Day.

Mr. Stokes: How about 90 days?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the telegram which I have sent to Mr. Macdonald I’ve indicated that our studies, based, I must say, on figures supplied to us by StatCan and various other federal monitoring services --

Mr. Stokes: By the NDP research.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry, does the member want to hear the answer? Our figures based on that indicate it should be closer to 90 days and in effect we have asked the federal government to justify to us why they should not be revised upwards.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Since we’ve used exactly the same figures, I suspect, and have come to yet 27 days more than that and since it’s $1 million a day additional profit for the oil companies, could the minister in fact table the actual calculations he has done so the House can see them?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all I don’t know where the member gets the $1-million figure. He drops these figures in and that’s his --

Mr. Lewis: They were quite right last year.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m not sure, I haven’t checked those figures; but it is the member’s right to drop them in as he will.

We are trying to update the figures even more from our preliminary calculations. You must understand, Mr. Speaker, that we tried to do this on Tuesday with the latest figures available to us. We are trying to update them and will use them for discussions in the next few days -- we hope with the federal government, as well as with the companies.

Mr. Lewis: Why won’t the minister share them with the Legislature? Why won’t he give us the basis of his calculations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think what will be more important once we get a little further down the road will be the actual figures, calculated in the best way possible, as of July 1, the date the federal government intends to impose this increase.

Mr. Lewis: The minister hasn’t done it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I beg the member’s pardon but we have.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Supplementary: the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the basis of the series of meetings to be held between the Premier and the executive of the oil companies tomorrow --

Mr. Martel: They’re for campaign funds.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- or perhaps they are going on today -- going to be an examination of the application of the per-barrel price increase rather than the application of the 10 cents excise? Surely the discussions have to be on whether or not Ontario is going to permit the increases in price at the pumps to be based on the $1.50 increase that has been announced by the government of Canada. Can he indicate how those meetings are going to proceed and on what basis?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate that the meetings will cover a wide range of issues. But certainly the concern that we have expressed is, and again, in my Telex to Mr. Macdonald -- if the member hasn’t seen it I’ll be glad to send him a copy -- I indicated it --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to see it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- we are opposed as the government of Ontario to any increases other than those attributable to the rise in the price of crude oil.

Mr. Martel: The government should have done that last year, too.

Mr. Lewis: We don’t know what that means.

Mr. Deans: What does that mean?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

MEDICAL CARE INSURANCE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health, if I may. Has his ministry, or has the Treasury, done for him a comparison of the relative effects of shifting the cost of medical care insurance in Ontario to the income tax as opposed to the premium method? And has he balanced that against the regressivity of OHW premiums as they are now applied? I’m really asking the minister to respond a little further to what he’s been saying publicly for the last day or two.

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the question of the shifting of tax -- I personally consider OHIP premiums to be a tax -- from the one form to the other really isn’t the Minister of Health’s preserve. I was making comments, and I believe the press who were present would agree that I said that kind of decision would rest with the Treasurer to make.

About the fact that more money had to be raised obviously because of the shift in cost back to the province, I offered the opinion that I believe people in Ontario might find an increase in OHIP premiums more acceptable than some of the other forms of taxation -- first, because they could understand it was going toward increased health care costs; second, because a great share of the OHIP premiums in Ontario are not borne by the person receiving the insurance but by his or her employer.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, again as a part of the public debate, would it be possible to ask Treasury or his own ministry to provide the figures of what the increase would be in income tax -- I think it would work out to about nine points more -- and where the cut-off would be in income where people would actually be paying less on graduated income tax than they were paying by way of premium?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would think that kind of argument would certainly go on within the Treasury, and I might suggest that the hon. member talk to the Treasurer about it, rather than me. I spend the money. He raises it.

Mr. Lewis: Let me ask the Treasurer, if I may, is he doing that kind of comparative work? By way of an addendum, we’ve done a look at the transfer of the tax and it would appear that everyone earning a gross income of less than $18,000 a year, based on the tables in the Treasurer’s budget, would pay less on income tax than is now paid in premiums minus the very strong argument the Minister of Health makes about the employer’s contribution. Has the Treasurer done these comparisons?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I don’t know that we’ve worked it out just exactly that way, Mr. Speaker. Seventy per cent of the premiums are paid by the employers in this province.

Mr. Lewis: So the Treasurer hasn’t pursued that further than the public observations made by the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We pursue many things, but I don’t know that we are pursuing it just at the moment

PAYMENTS TO RETARDED AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development to have her policy secretariat review the payment of retarded and physically handicapped persons in the various sheltered centres in the province? I have here a pay packet from the Kinsmen’s Centre in Kitchener for 24 hours of work at the rate of six cents an hour, for a total of $1.44, for someone who is severely physically handicapped with moderate retardation, and I wonder what rationale obtains in the ministries generally around payment in these workshops?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, through you, I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, I would be very interested in getting those facts and I certainly will see that they are reviewed.

CONESTOGA COLLEGE

Mr. Lewis: I have one more question, just as a follow-up to yesterday, to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Can I request the minister to look at the financial arrangements in Conestoga College which are resulting in the apparently imminent layoff of 58 academic, administrative and support staff; to look into the financial apparatus of the college itself which allows for a surplus last year but an apparent, serious deficit this year; and to look into the question of contracting out janitorial services?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I received a report from Conestoga this morning as to where they stand. The hon. member is aware that they had some administrative problems in Conestoga some time ago which they are still in the process of straightening out. The report that I have at the moment indicates that the proposals to restructure have been placed before the board of governors for a decision; some have been decided, and I’ll just list them.

Restructuring some of the post-secondary programmes, which will reduce the hours of some of the courses and extend the academic year by two weeks, has been agreed to by the board; and that will mean a reduction of the academic staff by five post-secondary teachers.

It is proposed that the Cambridge centre, which only offers retraining programmes, will only offer retraining programmes for which there is a demonstrated need in that local community; and the general programmes will move to the Doon campus, which is about five miles away. That has been accepted by the board and will mean that three retraining faculty will be let go.

At present, the janitorial work is done by contract staff in all but two of the locations. This has been put out to tender, and there will be an estimated saving of perhaps $122,000 per annum if they get the kind of bids they are expecting, but there has been no final decision on that. They are also proposing to put out to tender the food service in the Doon campus, which is the only one which is not presently done by contractors. I understand this is not primarily because of a saving of money, but because of complaints of the quality of the service and food by the faculty and staff in the past.

If those two things are both done by tender, it will mean a reduction of 32 janitorial and cafeteria staff. They are proposing that all administrative services for the extension programmes, which were in seven locations, will be done centrally rather than in the seven locations, and if that is done that will mean a reduction of 18 in administrative staff.

Mr. Lewis: Can they share the financial data with the staff, rather than behaving so arbitrarily?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that the president has appointed members of the faculty and administrative staff and janitorial staff to the committees that have been looking at these things.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary from the member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Since there have been certain comments brought to various members of the House with respect to the availability of information to the faculty and to the staff members so that they can have some realistic input into these rather serious decisions for the college, will the minister ensure that the members who have been appointed to this committee are given all the necessary information, so that they can co-operate in the development of programmes of change if they are necessary, and be fully aware of what the ramifications are?

Hon. Mr. Acid: Mr. Speaker, as I say, my understanding is that information has been available. I’ll just make sure that it is.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

OMERS PENSION BENEFIT

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, a question of the provincial Treasurer regarding OMERS benefits, which are of great concern to all municipal employees: Is the ministry planning any change in benefits that would allow retired people to have their pension based on the last or best five years of employment, rather than on the average five years as it is now, to bring them in line with benefits relating to the civil servants’ superannuation fund?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I believe that’s a matter which is being discussed by the OMERS board, but it has not yet requested legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

ASSESSMENT ACT CHANGES

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Treasurer. Is the government, or the Treasurer’s department, going to make any response to numerous petitions it has received from small businessmen who have been badly damaged financially by the changes to the Assessment Act that we brought in here last year, which gave the huge windfall to the large corporations by changing the basis of assessment?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s the first I’ve heard about it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

CONTINGENCY RETAINERS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice or the Attorney General, if I could bring him back.

Mrs. Campbell: Or the Solicitor General.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister advise if there is, in fact, a basis for the front-page story in the Star today suggesting that the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada are viewing with some favour reversing the rule against contingency retainers? If, in fact, that is so, will the Attorney General state in a loud and clear voice that the government of Ontario doesn’t like that suggestion, and remove any possibility that the legal profession in this province is going to embark upon negligence actions as partners in the litigation rather than as lawyers?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen the story in the paper today which the member describes to me. I find it a very interesting piece of news. I’ve heard no discussions about such a thing. I will undertake to read the article. As a matter of fact, and I will reserve my observations until I’ve had such an opportunity to see if the contents are, in fact, correct.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, if, in fact, there is such a feeling, would the minister not share with me, abhorrence about the introduction of this principle into the rules of discipline or conduct insofar as they affect lawyers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would personally not be supportive of that type of thing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

HEALTH HAZARDS FOR GRAIN HANDLERS

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the Minister of Health aware of a study conducted by Dr. John Rankin, of the department of preventive medicine of the University of Wisconsin, which he believes indicates a growing occupational health hazard among grain handlers? Is anyone in his ministry pursuing this matter and can he tell us what initiatives his ministry will take?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get the information on that. I do not know.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources has the answer to a question asked previously.

PURCHASE OF RAILWAY LAND IN ERIEAU

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question raised by the member for Kent (Mr. Spence) pertaining to the property of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway in the village of Erieau, I received a report from the Ministry of Government Services, which acts as our real estate agent in this transaction. My information is that the company has not sold to any private company but is negotiating with the Ministry of Government Services as well as some outside interest in order to obtain the best offer. As negotiations are still proceeding, expropriation has not been initiated.

TIMAGAMI MINE EXPANSION

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, to answer a further question asked by the member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith); since he is back with us today I’ll reply to it, too. The member inquired if it was my intention to allow the Sherman Mine to extend its third pit at Timagami. The lands to which the member refers are old mining locations, ETW339, ETW340, WD341, and WD342 in the township of Strathy, and WD351 which were patented for both surface and mining rights in 1903 and are in good standing at the present time. These rights may not be rescinded and the present owners have every right to carry on mining operations subject, of course, to the municipal bylaws, regulations of the Ministry of the Environment and our own Mines Safety Act.

On Feb. 17, 1975, Cliffs of Canada Ltd., on behalf of Sherman Mine, requested a lease of the surface rights of three adjacent claims, numbers T38358, T38359 and T38370, for the purpose of waste rock disposal from the mining operations on ETW339, et al. This disposal area is located further from the town-site than the anticipated mining operation. The recommendation of our regional office was sought and they requested further data from the applicant as to what efforts it had made to locate alternative sites, what arrangements it had made with the Ministry of the Environment, what rehabilitation plans it had made and what exploratory work had been done on the three claims in the past. On the matter of surface rights, the lease is still under consideration pending clarification of these problems.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation and Communications tabled a report on the dump truck industry and made an accompanying statement and then left the House. I would hope he would return and you might recognize me later for a question on that important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

SERVICE STATION EMPLOYEE DISMISSALS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I wonder if he might look into the question of a business in Ottawa, at 973 Montreal Rd., a service station, where, following the theft of certain moneys in the service station, all employees of the station were fired without any of them being accused, charged or even considered suspect. Following complaints to his ministry they were just told to wait and see. I wonder if he, as the minister, might look at the situation -- it’s the service station at 973 Montreal Rd -- and have his ministry look at the rights and interests of these individuals who were fired without even being charged or suspected.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I’ll be glad to look into it. As the member knows, we have regulations on the discharge of a person, and if those regulations have been complied with there is nothing to stop an employer from discharging somebody, as long as he has kept within those regulations or the terms of the collective agreement. There may be further implications than the one he is suggesting or referring to and I’ll be glad to investigate it further.

Mr. Roy: Could I ask one supplementary to this? Would the minister advise whether an employer would be following regulations if the only reason he fired individuals was that there was a theft on his premises and none of the individuals was even suspect or charged?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the answer on that. I think they would be quite at liberty to do so if at any time they wanted to make a complete staff turnover; I think they would be at liberty to do so. I am suggesting to the member, however, that there may be further implications than the fact it arose out of a theft. I will have to get further information.

HOME OWNERSHIP MADE EASY PROGRAMME

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Am I correct in assuming in the case of Home Ownership Made Easy purchases that neither the lottery date nor the occupancy date has any bearing on their eligibility for the $1,500-home owner grant and that the only date that affects their eligibility is the date upon which they obtained the full ownership, in other words, assumed all of the financial liabilities?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, it is the date on which the owner takes title to the property.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question: Would the minister then check with the home ownership branch and with his colleague, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen), because it has been brought to my attention that they are considering the date on which they took occupancy whether or not they actually ha closed by that date, and he and I both know that that doesn’t necessarily mean they own the house?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

STRIKE AT TELSO PRODUCTS LTD.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour with regard to the Telso strike in Tilbury the longest one in Ontario, I think, for some time. Has the minister got any way of trying to entice the company to come back to the bargaining table when they have opened up their plant and are having people go in? They have offered 40 cents an hour increase in pay to the new employees that they are taking in and yet only offered 30 cents an hour to the employees they had previously. It is a foreign-owned company. Is there any way of making them come back to the bargaining table?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): They sound like strike-breakers.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member says, that strike is one of the longest that we have had. It goes back to Sept. 26. I think it is typical of the problem that we are facing -- I shouldn’t say across the board -- in many industries at the present time where this company can or people in the similar field can import from the United States to meet the demand and there is little incentive on the company at the present time to return to the table.

We have been doing our best to get them back to meaningful bargaining but so far without success. We will continue to work at it. It is a case where they or similar companies can produce in the United States a cheaper product or at less expense. The rates they are asking here -- and I am not saying they are unreasonable rates, as they are relatively low rates -- are making just the difference and there is not very much demand. It is a household product, as the member knows, that they make. There is not a great demand for that product at the time and they can import evidently all they need to supply the Canadian market.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Ruston: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Have the ministry officials ever contacted these people from the United States, who own the plant?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we have. I can’t tell the member just how recently but we have been in touch with them. I know what is happening down there. I received a telegram the other day that somebody was operating the boiler and I am following that up. I don’t have the answer to that one at the present time but we are doing our best and have knowledge of it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

FRESH MEAT SHIPMENTS

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is he aware that inspectors from his ministry in Thunder Bay are stopping shipments of fresh meat simply because the carriers can’t maintain the temperature of the meat at the 40 deg that is required by the ministry? Is it within the purview of the ministry to demand that the carriers provide refrigerated vans so that the fresh meat that is being shipped from Thunder Bay into outlying communities will arrive in good shape and of good quality?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether the hon. member is commending me or criticizing me for stopping those vans and checking the temperatures.

Mr. Deans: He is asking a question in the question period.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The fact is, yes, I am aware. Secondly, I believe it has been resolved by requiring a certain amount of frozen carbon dioxide to be on board the trucks.

Mr. Stakes: Is this within the purview of the ministry to insist that the carriers be equipped so that the meat to be transported will arrive at its destination in fit condition?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, certainly it is within the purview of my ministry to make sure that meat arrives in a safe condition.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport and Communications tabled the report on the dump truck industry this afternoon and made an accompanying statement, which tended to highlight some of the areas of recommendation in the report and what he intends to do about it.

I note that nowhere in his statement is there any mention of the problem of western Quebec and eastern Ontario truckers travelling across the border, an item raised in the report under chapter 6, entitled “Non-residence,” which is an extremely important problem in eastern Ontario. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to make a statement of commitment today to the truckers of eastern Ontario that he will apply himself to these recommendations very quickly?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are going to have to do is to work out a reciprocal arrangement with the Province of Quebec. My officials are meeting, and have been for some time, with the officials of the Province of Quebec to work out a reciprocal agreement and understanding.

The hon. member wants to remember that a lot of what is happening in the area he is referring to, particularly Ottawa, is a municipal problem, a municipal problem of enforcement. We are talking about the PCV licence as it applies to the provincial highways, and some of it is a straight cartage problem as it exists between the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull, but we are trying to work out something between the two jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

MINE WORKER PROTECTION

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: In his presentation before the Ham commission, Mr. Jewett of the ministry made the following statement:

“Some people speaking before this commission have suggested that miners in Ontario do not have the right to ref use work in unsafe places, but, Mr. Commissioner, under section 117, subsection 15 of the Mining Act, they have for years not only had the right but the clear responsibility to satisfy themselves that their workplace is safe.”

When, in fact, has the ministry ever protected, or moved in to protect, men who have left the workplace because they in fact felt it unsafe? When these men have been penalized, when has the minister moved in to protect those men?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have any specifics at my fingertips, but it’s common practice among the mining engineers of my ministry to allow the workers, where they have a device that’s unsafe or an area that’s unsafe for them, to withdraw themselves from that particular area or do not use that piece of equipment. It’s common practise.

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

Mr. Martel: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary first of all, yes.

Mr. Martel: Has the ministry in fact not refused repeatedly to commit itself to protect men if, in fact, they have left the workplace? The company has penalized them; has the minister not categorically refused to say that he would protect those men if they were right?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well Mr. Speaker, we have not entered into that close a negotiation between the men and the company, but we do allow them to remove themselves. As to the penalization, this is an area in which we are not involved.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa Centre was unable to ask me a question on Tuesday, and has asked in writing that I answer it on the order paper as question No. 31: “Has Mr. Gerard Ducharme, chairman of the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. had any discussions --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could the answer not be tabled in the normal way?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, I just wanted to put it on the record if I could. The member has asked me in writing to reply today, and I can’t do it otherwise.

Mr. Lewis: Well it is on the order paper. Table it in the House, that is all.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I was merely trying to help the member, that was all.

Mr. Speaker: I think if the hon. minister were to table it, it would meet the requirements.

The member for Waterloo North.

PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Health, who is returning to his seat at this time: Would the minister comment on the report by -- I think it’s associate professor Feldman in pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton -- who stated that lie suspects the method of payment to doctors in Ontario is connected with the fact that twice as many tonsillectomies and removal of adenoids are done in Ontario as in the United States, and three times as many as in England. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, first of all, I am not sure that’s so. I think if one chose a specific state in the union it may be true, but I don’t believe it is true across the United States in general. There are fewer in England, yes. There are also a good number of problems with the English health care system, and I don’t think one should jump too quickly to the conclusion --

Mr. Lewis: They don’t have as many tonsils in England.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well that’s right; they grow without them over there.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They only remove one.

Hon. Mr. Miller: In any case, I have done an exhaustive study in the last year of the leading surgical procedures in hospital, the leading causes for admission, and whether they in fact are manageable illnesses or not. Some very interesting statistics are coming up. In fact, I think the Advisory Council on the Status of Women came after me on an entirely different one, pointing out how many hysterectomies are being performed on women versus men, for example.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Now that’s worth taking a look at.

Mr. Singer: Real thinking.

Mr. Speaker: We’re a few minutes over our question period. A very short supplementary.

Mr. Good: Could the minister contact Prof. Feldman at McMaster and see if in fact he does have statistics to show that our method of payment does promote unnecessary tonsillectomies here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would be glad to look at any source of information on this. I can only tell the member that I am anxious about and am trying to eliminate all unnecessary medical procedures, whether they are surgical or otherwise, that are being done in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The time for the oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. D. W. Ewen from the standing private bills committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Mr. Wardle from the standing miscellaneous estimates committee reported the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Management Board of Cabinet be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

Administration programme................$1,857,000

Policy development programme............1,742,000

Management Board Analysis programme .............................................................2,664,000

Management audit programme...............521,000

Employee relation programme................609,000

Personnel services programme............1,316,000

Mr. McNeil from the standing resource development committee reported the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Environment be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Ministry support services programme .........................................................$11,703,000

Environmental assessment and planning programme...........................................13,109,000

Environmental control programme ..........................................................188,108,000

Resource recovery programme.........18,238,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the estimates of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation be referred to the standing miscellaneous estimates committee instead of the standing social development committee.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we are quite content, of course, that this be done so those estimates can be proceeded with this afternoon. Can the minister advise us, since the Culture and Recreation estimates would likely be completed this week, which of the remaining two might go ahead next Wednesday, if possible?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, because of the legislation that will be before the House today involving the Ministry of Labour, it leaves me no alternative other than Ministry of Industry and Tourism. So that will be the next one, to be followed by the Ministry of Labour as soon as the minister is available to us after his legislation.

Mr. Stokes: It’s still a three-ring circus, no matter how you look at it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that when the House adjourns on Friday, June 27, that it stands adjourned until Wednesday next, July 2.

Mr. Good: Where are we going to sleep on Wednesday and Thursday nights?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lewis: I want to express my personal regret at having suggested to the House leader that we would be able to manage next week, even with the federal NDP convention.

It’s going to be terribly awkward and I wish the House leader could give us the day that, in retrospect, he has occasionally given to the government party and to other parties at the time of conventions. But on the other hand, if need be, we’ll be here.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I appreciate the view, and I also appreciate the sentiments that are expressed by the leader of the NDP, because I did speak to them; I did discuss the matter with my colleagues. I think had it not been the three-day period certainly we could have given it consideration. On the other hand, I would like to remind members of the House that in our own cases possibly there might have been the odd day or the odd evening when we have taken advantage of a situation. I don’t deny that, but not for three days. In the case of a previous convention, we also didn’t suspend the sitting of the House.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member’s convention should only take a couple of hours.

Mr. Lewis: If that long.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves first reading of bill intituled, an Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, further to the amendments of the Highway Traffic Act in February of this year respecting school buses which come into effect on Sept. 1, this bill contains additional amendments to prevent the continued use of chrome yellow buses which are no longer used as school buses or which have been converted to some other use such as campers or trucks. A further amendment grants authority to municipalities to designate school bus loading zones where the stopping rule will not apply.

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier moves first reading of bill intituled, an Act to amend the Public Lands Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to correct a conflict which now exists in the Act between sections 30 and 51 and to bring the language of section 56, subsection 2, of the Act into line with the language used in the Highway Traffic Act, it also deals with letters patent of the Roman Catholic fiscal corporation of the diocese of Sault Ste. Marie.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill which will amend the definition of motor-assisted bicycles along with other proposed amendments to the Act to correct the situation we discussed earlier.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, on Tuesday the hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) raised with the acting Speaker an alleged point of privilege. The hon. member suggested to the Chair that his privileges as a member of this House had been infringed because he had not been permitted to attend a private meeting in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. While the hon. member may feel aggrieved that he was not permitted to attend the meeting, I believe his privileges as a member of this House have not in any way been infringed.

Orders of the day.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves second reading of Bill 106, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Does the minister have a statement?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): I would like to say a few words, if I may, in moving second reading.

It was on June 28 last year, sir, that we dealt with a set of amendments similar to those proposed at the present time -- just one year ago -- and, mainly because of the matter of inflation, we are presenting another set of amendments. In making these amendments I have tried to keep in mind some of the suggestions that were made from all sides of the House during the debate last year as well as additional recommendations from the board itself.

Just before we proceed into the debate, I would like to read again what I read to the House last year and when we were considering the bill. I think these words, from the report of Mr. Justice Roach in 1950, are relatively important because I think we tend to forget them from time to time, I would ask the members to keep these words in mind as we debate this bill today. I am quoting from Mr. Justice Roach:

“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; it is not social legislation for the purpose of elevating the standard of one group in society at the expense of another. 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 would remind the members that workmen’s compensation is paid to people as a right and regardless of their own monetary or independent means; that is the point I would ask them to keep in mind as they proceed along today.

I would also just like to take a minute to pay tribute to the hon. Michael Starr, who I think has done an excellent job in revamping the board since he assumed its leadership. He has presented, I think, a more humane approach to the problems of the workmen than perhaps existed before, he has made the board and its staff accessible, and he and the board are responsible, as I say, for many of the suggestions that have come forward today.

As you know, sir, there was considerable reorganization of the board after the task force made its report. The firm of P. S. Ross made a number of suggestions to the board which have now been put into effect and carried out. There were certain difficulties encountered during the carrying out and the changing of their procedures, particularly involved with the removal of the board from Harbour St. to where they are located at Bloor and Yonge. I think those difficulties have now been overcome, sir, as the board seems to be moving along very quickly, and I find that I am not getting the criticism about the speed of its operations that I did a few months ago.

I would ask the House to keep those comments in mind as we proceed. The bill is a good bill. As you know, sir, we hope to put it into effect on July 1, and I would request a relatively speedy handling of it by this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to add a few comments and suggestions that perhaps would improve some of the amendments before the Legislature as they relate to Bill 106, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

We in the official opposition support the bill in principle, in that the suggested increase in benefits is the right of every injured worker in Ontario, but as usual the bill does not go quite so far as to actually provide the injured worker or his family in most instances with sufficient income to maintain a family under the present adverse conditions and the continuing rise in the cost of living.

The increase in benefits too often does not keep abreast of the high inflationary costs, which erode any new benefit that is proposed under the new amendments. Workers who have been injured 10, 15 or 20 years ago and have long-time disabilities will receive less than an employee who is currently disabled as a result of an injury suffered recently or within the last year or two years. Proposed section 41a of this Act proposes a two per cent increase for each initial compensation rate, which falls far short of the goals of equity.

I don’t want to belabour the point in the Legislature, but referring back to the discussions that took place a year ago dealing with a bill similar to this one, I said then that it did not go far enough and that these people who had been injured say 15 or 20 years ago were again being short-changed, and quite drastically short-changed.

The Ontario Federation of Labour in its legislative proposals and the Union of Injured Workers both want to see the ceiling on compensable earnings completely eliminated and benefits based on the worker’s full normal earnings with upward adjustments to reflect the negotiated wages and increases.

I notice the amendment has increased it from $12,000 to $15,000. If one looks at some of the current wage settlements in industry in the Province of Ontario -- particularly the construction industry where we are talking about an average of $25,000 a year -- $15,000 is going to leave that particular person short-changed in case of an accident or an injury. Of course, if we look at the construction trades the risk is perhaps higher than in normal industry in Ontario.

I’m glad to see the first section of the Act includes the section which gives extension to include voluntary ambulance and fire brigade people. When I looked at that particular section I was sure that volunteer firemen were covered under the previous Ac to this bill, but I think what it means is in case of a serious fire, perhaps in northern Ontario, if some government official or somebody in official capacity asks a bystander to assist in the case of a fire, he is covered by Workmen’s Compensation. I think this is the right amendment to the bill and we accept that.

The other amendments, as we deal with them, include the increase in burial allowance from $500 to $600. With the present cost of burials today, this would not provide sufficient funds even to cover a person in dire need of burial expenses. This $600 is far short of the cost of burials which, I suppose, run about $1,500, on average, in the Province of Ontario. Of course we can add the $500 from the Canada Pension Plan to this, but still it would fall far short of the cost of burials. I think again that perhaps this should be increased.

The Workmen’s Compensation is well aware of a common occurrence -- an injured workman may return to work and, because of disability or other related matters, he may be forced to leave the permanent place of employment. He then loses many social security benefits and he’s not eligible to receive unemployment insurance. He no longer contributes to the scheme. He contributes nothing to the Canada Pension Plan and this will in the long run, I suppose, add to the cost to him when the time comes to collect Canada Pension by his not having made the full amount of contributions; perhaps it may affect even other private pensions too.

It has an effect on persons working in an industry which has other social security benefits, such as sickness benefit plans and other hospitalization plans. Schemes which are paid by the company or paid partially by him will be hampered by a long-term illness or even six months off work.

The reason I mention the unemployment insurance is if a person doesn’t get the right time in and the right period within a year and he happens to become injured in a particular time, he is not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits if he turns to work or if he can’t return to work. Sometimes this does create undue hardship for that person.

I think in this instance, when these benefits are being paid by the company and by the injured person, the board should pick up a certain percentage of the contributions to these different schemes such as Canada Pension and unemployment insurance. I raise this matter particularly because I have a claim number here and I’ll leave this with the minister. The claim number is 7134981 and the person is employed in industry, the International Nickel Co., Port Colborne, Ont. I use this as an example.

He was gassed in 1967 while employed there. Working in No. 5 building, he was overcome by chemical fumes and was admitted to the Port Colborne General Hospital for observation and treatment. He returned to work a few days after that and he had to attend the first aid facilities at the plant. He was given oxygen to help relieve the stress and discomfort of his breathing caused by the gas. Now, since the company is a little bit slack in workload in certain departments in the plant, he has been pulled out of the particular department where he had been employed for the last six or seven years in the shearing department, and was placed back in his old occupation in the No. 5 building, where he has become exposed again to chlorine gas. Since the first encounter, he has developed a chronic bronchitis -- and this was one of the reasons why he was transferred to the other jobsite.

I think the company knows perfectly well that this person cannot continue in that type of employment back in the atmosphere of chlorine gas. The doctor has indicated that this person cannot work there -- he has become allergic to that type of gas -- but he hasn’t been working since February of 1975.

He cannot collect unemployment insurance because the minute he applies for separation papers, then that means he has given up his status of employment with this particular company. He cannot collect plant or unemployment sick benefits, but yet he cannot continue to work in this particular section of the plant.

Now, I’ve made an appeal to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, hopefully, that they will give consideration to his first encounter with chlorine gas and the aftereffects from it. And with the chronic condition that exists now, that they will consider paying him for the lost time off work -- not through his fault, but perhaps through the neglect of the company to maintain employment in that industry.

This is only one particular case that I bring to the minister’s attention. There are perhaps thousands of them throughout the Province of Ontario when we come to the employment classification for light duty work. I can cite a number of cases of men working at General Motors in St. Catharines who have had some degree of injury causing back problems. These persons are not working today because there isn’t suitable employment in that particular industry -- and they are not collecting unemployment insurance.

In many cases, there is a battle or a struggle with the Workmen’s Compensation Board in trying to get a claim established or to maintain continued benefits to them. I say in this particular instance, there is a problem in this field.

The Act does not make any improvements in this particular field. I suppose when you look at section 5, and subsection 41a and section 6, there is very little improvement in both of these clauses that will give that person some type of protection when it comes to light duty work. Too often these people have to give up a good paying job, a good place of employment, good fringe benefits, and good pension plans -- for example, Inco has a good pension plan.

A main shortcoming in the bill is the fact that the pensions are not indexed to the cost of living. This should be a principle that the government should adopt, because these people are on a fixed income. When we look at people on a fixed income from old age pensions, there is a cost of living factor there -- it is indexed.

We have government employees who have a cost of living index. We have other industries which have a cost of living index, but for some unknown reason we don’t apply it to workmen’s compensation. In some cases, where that person is injured and has not worked for four or five months, when there is an increase in wages, he again loses. I suggest that consideration should be given to this, and perhaps even an amendment by the minister should be brought in or put forth to the Legislature for approval.

I see other clauses here that compensation benefits should be paid on the basis of capability for full employment and not based upon clinical assessment of the injury only. And these two sections, 41a and subsection 1 of section 6 don’t go quite far enough. The wording in section 5, subsection 41a(1) says:

“Where the board considers it more equitable, it may adjust the rate of compensation.”

It doesn’t say it “shall” but it “may”. That leaves the door open. There is going to be much work involving members of the Ontario Legislature and appeals to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, not only by members here but by union representatives and by the injured workman himself. The “may” there should be “shall.” Section b(1)(1) reads:

“Where permanent disability results from the injury, the impairment of earning capacity of the employee shall be estimated from the nature and degree of injury.”

Again, we have the word “estimated.” As I can recall from some of my dealings with appeals, “estimated” is what it has been for a number of years, and it doesn’t go quite far enough. I don’t think a person should have to come forward with an appeal to the Workmen’s Compensation Board because he has been injured. Where it has been suggested through the rehabilitation centre that he is suitable for light or modified work and he has to go back, in some cases he loses the job and there is certainly a loss there. I suggest where it has the word “estimated” in there, it should be “shall.” I don’t think we should have to go through the business of haggling over what the person is entitled to.

I have some other comments, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the most important thing missing in the bill itself is that there is nothing here that refers to the regulations of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I think this is rather a broad view. We can come in with amendments to the bill but as members of the Legislature we have very little say in matters of regulations. I see nothing here to improve the matter of concern about the regulations.

I want to bring to the attention of the House an important matter that has not been touched upon that relates to the Workmen’s Compensation Act and in particular to the regulations, schedule 3, about description of disease and the process as it relates to the person’s occupation. As members of the official opposition, we are of the opinion that major improvements are required to satisfy those persons who are employed in an occupational environment that can be injurious to their health. We in the Liberal Party have on a number of occasions stressed the need for a new occupational health and safety Act, one that is funded by all levels of government -- and when I say this I am talking about the federal level of government and the provincial level of government -- to provide research in matters of great concern into new occupational diseases that are facing almost all industrial employees in Ontario.

When I say it’s a matter of federal government, there was a question asked of the minister this afternoon about the working conditions or environment in the elevator industry in Ontario, particularly in the Fort William area, which is a federal matter. We know that there is a certain cause of discomfort to the workers there. I can’t think of the disease but it is one that they can pick up from that dust which is rather serious for them and could lead to emphysema and fibrosis of the lungs.

The Minister of Labour has the responsibility for the establishment of standards in Ontario. Particularly when I look at the exemptions in the mining industry, I hope that the government will move in some direction and that the Minister of Labour will be responsible not only for all labour but the mining industry and the smelting industry too in the Province of Ontario. Too often we have seen in the House the Minister of Labour involved in questions, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) involved in the questions and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) involved in questions. What a chaotic situation it is trying to find out who is actually responsible for the different categories of occupational diseases in the province. It is rather alarming that we have this today.

Ralph Nader’s study group report on disease and inquiry into jobs entitled, “Bitter Wages”, which was received in the library here on Sept. 11, 1974, says:

“The silent violence of occupational diseases expanded rapidly while the thrust of the law was mostly limited to the traumatic injury on the job. Massive continuing destruction of workers’ bodies a form of violence. Job casualties more serious than street crimes.”

One could apply that thinking to the Ontario labour force, where we see the continuing increases in compensation cases at the rate of six per cent in 1974.

I suppose those comments could follow that thinking there, that as much as we do have programmes to try to reduce the number of accidents in the Province of Ontario, we find that year after year we have an increase in accidents. As I look at the report, it doesn’t say “accidents.” It says “the number of incidents reported to the board” and this includes “fatal incidents.”

I have never heard of fatal incidents but I have heard of fatal accidents, but I suppose this means minor, or not too serious. Perhaps when that report uses the word “incidents” it means they are really not serious.

The Minister of Labour is not really serious enough in reducing the number of accidents in the Province of Ontario. When I look at that further, the burden of prevention should fall on industry, we have seen two accidents recently, and finally the government of the day has taken measures to control the negligence of industry to respond to far better in-plant hygienic working conditions, and I make those comments, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, concerning the Ham commission inquiry.

All of a sudden we have another study going on concerning the working conditions of the mining industry and smelters in the Province of Ontario. When I say negligence on the part of industry, I sincerely believe that this is what took place there and perhaps in other industries throughout the Province of Ontario.

“The government has allowed the continued negligence of the neglected workers’ plea for better occupational health standards and safety. It has allowed workers to be exposed to gases, chemicals, particulate radiation, silicosis, asbestos and other environmental hazards. [I suppose we could get into noise and we could get into the plastics industry, where there are some problems too. All of a sudden we see governments moving in that direction.] Many workers are affected by the type of environment. Employees in such industries and mines and smelting process are continually breathing in contaminated air. It settles in their lungs and bloodstream and they are not aware of the consequences.”

I was interested when the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Braithwaite) mentioned the other day, when dealing with the Safety Committees Act that I moved in the House here, the Globe and Mail headline: “Workmen’s Compensation Board is an information receiver,” Starr says, “not early alert system for industrial disease.” It’s rather alarming to have a statement like that. I don’t think the intent of it was to be capitalized by that heading there. I don’t think it was the chairman’s wording exactly, but it does bring to my attention that we are just an information receiver.

I am alarmed at the number of “incidents” or accidents in the Province of Ontario, particularly as they relate to industrial disease. If records are not kept up to date, then one does not know just how serious the problem is. I suppose when I make that comment, I would suggest perhaps that many of the reports that have come forward here within the last year in the Ontario Legislature, particularly as they relate to the mining industry, have been kept hidden from the members of the Legislature, and perhaps kept hidden from the responsible minister himself, because perhaps we don’t want to be alarmed about the conditions that confront some of the labourers in Ontario, particularly as they relate to occupational health diseases. There is a vast area of improvement that can be achieved in that field. What I would suggest to the minister is that I think it’s time that we had a new occupational health bill in the Province of Ontario to cover all phases of diseases in the Province of Ontario.

Perhaps he will come back and tell me that it is well covered under the section of the Workmen’s Compensation Act as it relates to schedule 3 and the description of different diseases. We can go on to benzol, arsenic, brass, nickel or zinc, cadmium, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

That rings a bell with me -- carbon monoxide -- because I have made numerous attempts to get the Workmen’s Compensation Board to give consideration to a particular claim. I know last year I tried to discuss it in committee -- which I did so -- but it was never put on the record.

This refers to claim C7448707; a worker had been employed at the Algoma Steel operation in the city of Port Colborne for a number of years and had come in contact with carbon monoxide. It is pretty hard to get away from it as it is there every day. If one is familiar with blast furnace operations, unused gas from a blast furnace is brought back through a system of what they call stoves, which are tanks to hold it. It is put under pressure and pushed back into the furnace again by blowers for re-burning purposes. It generates quite a hit of heat but the gas itself is rather a deadly poison, very toxic poison.

In this particular case he went to three levels of appeal. On the second appeal it was allowed because the board members definitely stated at that time that it was the sequela of occupational disease, such as carbon monoxide, and they allowed it. On the third appeal it went to the full board -- Mr. Legge was chairman at that time -- and there were representatives from the company, doctors and lawyers and so forth. I would just like to read their decision into the record.

“The board notes that in the considered opinion of the special consultants the diagnosis of Mr. Ray’s present condition as pre-senile dementia of unknown cause, which was also diagnosed by Dr. Thomas Barrie, MD, Dr. R. W. Einhorn, FRCP, and Dr. W. J. McIlroy, FRCP, is not a disease listed under the first column of schedule 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the board therefore concludes that the provisions of subsection 8 of section 118 are not applicable.”

I suppose if I go into more detail dealing with the studies of carbon monoxide poisoning which have been carried out in the United States, Great Britain and Europe, they would tell you definitely that this can be the sequela of carbon monoxide poisoning.

For some unknown reason the board has refused to accept it as that and in fact one medical report from the Workmen’s Compensation doctor consultant -- who is a university professor in Toronto; his name is Dr. W. H. Francombe, MD, indicated that in his opinion the person wasn’t unconscious. That is about three years after the accident; in his opinion. I don’t know how he can assess, in his opinion, that the person wasn’t unconscious. I think it is a hard thing for a layman or a first aid man to define when a person is unconscious and the discrepancy in the testimony given by the persons present at the accident is questionable.

I think the board took the word of the superintendent of the plant itself who, perhaps, was three or four minutes away from the accident. His co-worker and other person around the furnace floor who administered first aid, picked him up from the furnace floor and moved him into the foreman’s office and applied oxygen through some form of resuscitation machine.

In that period of time the first aid men thought the person was unconscious; they had removed his false teeth and applied oxygen. From there they picked him up and moved him outside the furnace room on a platform waiting for the ambulance to remove him to the hospital. The diagnosis at the hospital was that it was carbon monoxide poisoning but the board, for some unknown reason says, “This isn’t the cause of it.” The point is, long-term exposure in this particular type of industry, particularly where there is carbon monoxide poisoning, has been proved, by laboratory reports done on animals, to cause brain damage.

I don’t know what the board is thinking about when it won’t allow this particular claim. I look at the record of this particular industry -- of course, they can’t be responsible for all the accidents -- here is one here from the city of Port Colborne fire department, addressed to me:

“As requested by your letter of May 17, I am enclosing the following dates:

“On Oct. 3, 1950, at 03:48 hours, Edwin Fretz, aged 40, buried under bin, flue dust, dead.

“On Jan. 9, 1956, at 09:13 hours, Boyd McClellan, overcome by gas, pronounced okay.

“On Jan. 2, 1964, at 19:32 hours, Reagan Bisson, aged 27, overcome by gas, dead.

“On Jan. 4, 1965, at 22:07 hours, William Holliday, heart attack, okay.”

I suppose if one had the proper research done on carbon monoxide one of the results of carbon monoxide poisoning is vascular disease and heart problems. “On Oct. 5, 1965, at 06:17 hours, William Holliday, heart attack.”

It’s quite a coincidence that when this fellow collapsed, he was almost in the same area as all the other accidents, right around the stoves. That’s where the gas accumulates and it hangs there; one can’t smell it but it’s there. I know of a number of cases where the persons employed in the machine shop used to have a number of headaches. Mr. Rae was working at his machine shop. He was maintenance personnel working for Algoma Steel and worked out of that shop. The men always complained of headaches in that particular machine shop because the gas was leaking in that building.

I had forgotten two things dealing with this type of occupational health problems, diseases or accidents, one may call it. I believe it was in 1940; I was working at the time for the firm of Port Colborne Ironworks and two of the workers employed in that particular industry left that shop in the morning to go out to do some maintenance work at what they used to call the Steel Co. plant in Port Colborne. It is now Algoma Steel. They went to work and within half an hour there was a call back that the two men had lost their lives. They were gassed. It happened that quickly. That’s how quickly carbon monoxide poisoning can strike.

I regret that in this particular instance, with this person now with his present illness, perhaps this is the way he is living today. All reports indicate he would have been better off if he had gone; that way he would have got compensation for it but under the present rules and how they are interpreted -- I suppose arguments can be put forth by both sides -- this person walks the streets in Port Colborne. He has to have somebody to pick him up wherever he goes because he doesn’t know where he is going. He is only a young man in his early 50s.

In all the laboratory tests performed in hospitals, there have been no indications of any other source of disease within that person’s body to indicate his present senile condition. Dr. Einhorn of Hamilton, one of the specialists there, said we can’t exclude carbon monoxide poisoning.

That is the point I want to bring to the minister. As much as he has in this bill -- we accept it in principle -- he is giving them something but every worker deserves that right, of fair compensation for his injured body. I have asked for a new occupational health and safety Bill that would provide compensation, regardless of the kind of accident or the disease that person comes down with, if it can be related to that type of industry. We should not use the words “may” or “estimated” in the bill. I think those two words should be removed. It’s bad enough and hard enough for a person who is struck down by an industrial disease as a result of his occupation that he has to go through hell and misery -- and there are many of them -- and I think that when the Ham commission report comes out, no doubt it will indicate that vast improvements will have to be made in occupational health in the Province of Ontario, not only in the mining industry but throughout all industry in the Province of Ontario, because we are dealing with chemicals today we know nothing about.

Perhaps there is another thing I can talk about, Mr. Speaker. Where there are hazardous conditions, I think it is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour to inform those persons employed in that particular industry of those hazards; and if those hazards cause bodily harm to those persons, then they should be compensated fully -- rather than tell them, as some of the miners from the Elliot Lake area are being told, that they can find suitable employment. I would like to know who will hire them. One of the problems when a person is injured in the Province of Ontario is that he is being blacklisted in many instances from full employment in the Province of Ontario. That is one of the things that has been brought to my attention. The minute you walk into a plant, looking for employment, they’ll ask, “Have you ever had any problems with the Workmen’s Compensation Board?” If there is a record there, they say, “Well, you are a risk. We don’t want to assume that risk.” I know many industries perhaps would take persons who are not totally disabled, but there is always the possibility that they may be subject to some of the cost.

I think the general public in a sense has to say that when a worker is injured, then perhaps they should be totally responsible for him. Sure, we can say that it’s going to cost industry some money; and rightly so. They are making the profits, and surely some of those profits can be put aside, which are perhaps put aside now, to maintain a Compensation Act in the Province of Ontario. But I think in many instances that they can contribute more and pay more.

When I look at some of the suggestions in the bill here, it’s a piecemeal thing and I think we have to accept it on that basis. I would like to see it go further, but apparently it will not. I don’t know if the minister has any amendments or not.

There is one other point that perhaps I should also mention. The second shortcoming of the bill is in regard to the widows’ pension; with an increase of 10 per cent to dependent widows, the maximum pension would now be raised to $286 a month or $3,432 a year, which is well under the poverty level. In many cases I think, if a young person is fatally injured in industry, $286 might not even carry the payments on the house alone. I think there should be some consideration given on the basis that all matters of remaining debt that that person has accumulated should be looked after by the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

I bring these points to the attention of the minister in the hope that of the two bills he has before this House, the Labour Relations Amendment Act and this bill, that this bill will go to the standing committee to let the workers themselves have some input on legislation.

There is another thing that is perhaps missing in the bill itself when we talk about occupational safety. If we want to reduce the number of accidents in the Province of Ontario, we are going to have to have the involvement of those persons working in that environment. Too often we leave it to the experts; and there’s no doubt about it that they are doing a job, but they are not reaching everybody. If the minister wants to make improvements in it, if he is going to have any suggestions from this Ham commission report dealing with occupational health and safety, then for Pete’s sake, let those persons scrutinize that legislation and the regulations that he is going to bring in. Let them have some input into it, because above all those are the persons who know where the problem is and what should be done to correct it.

With those thoughts I will leave it with the minister. Hopefully, he will have some amendments to increase some of the benefits and perhaps give some consideration to what I have mentioned to him this afternoon.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We in the NDP confront this bill again with strongly felt, mixed and opposed emotions. On the one hand we are very tempted to say that any increase in pension benefits to injured workmen in this province is welcome and should be supported in a bill of this nature, no matter how small or how mixed up the rationale is in arriving at that increase, or what the compensation might be or that increase in pension might be. This bill certainly has provided some increases; it is getting to be a regular routine. Every June we come in with yet another bill that makes some small changes to the workmen’s compensation pensions and their compensation levels.

I might say that in total effect of moneys to be paid out, the amount of moneys involved in this bill is greater than those moneys involved in the bill of June 28, 1974, and, I believe, on June 7, 1973.

In this bill, the government has improved the Act in some instances. Definitions of employees have been expanded to include those who assist in search and rescue operations at the request of and under the direction of members of the Ontario Provincial Police. That is, when they have been pressed into service in a matter of emergency and are injured, then they will be paid compensation equivalent to wages at their own place of work, or at least based on the wages they made at their own place of work.

The ministry has included members of municipal volunteer ambulance brigades and auxiliary members of police forces. So, in terms of coverage and in terms of how it has been improved, and in terms of application for personal coverage, independent operator coverage, the minister has made it administratively a little bit better. He has increased the burial allowances slightly from $500 to $600 in a given year, and a lump sum payment to a widow or widower or the person acting in loco parentis has been increased by the same amount -- from $500 to $600.

Perhaps the biggest increase in the bill was the increase in the minimums of the temporarily totally disabled and the permanently totally disabled. Those minimums have been increased significantly. I think, in some respects, they are probably getting close to the amount where we, in this party, would say they are now almost adequate in both of those respects.

We will be putting forward a proposal later on as to exactly what we, in this party, at this particular stage of our existence in Ontario, June, 1975, would prefer and like to see those pensions raised to. So, for that we could applaud the minister.

He has already continued the steps which he started last year. It was the first that he realized, after virtually years of urging in this House from opposition members, that you cannot simply leave pensions set at the rate at which they were granted back in the years 1964, 1962, and 1953. The minister finally recognized in principle last year that those pensions should be increased, and dating from the year 1946 onward he did apply a revaluation factor. He has continued that practice this year by adding another 10 per cent to those pensions -- an amount equal to the increase in the cost of living from June of last year to June of this year.

There are some parts of the bill which we in this party would say and would recognize as being steps forward. On the other hand, however, the paucity of some of those percentage increases themselves and the rationale that the minister’s thinking must have taken to arrive at those particular increases escape us completely. We are utterly opposed to the paucity of them.

The government has added a 10 per cent increase to all pensions this year, based on the per cent increase in the cost of living, but they are still added to a pitifully low and completely inadequate base. We have a bill that in many respects is reaching the levels of pensions in some areas that it should. Certainly in the areas of minimums, as I’ve said, it seems to be getting there. Some of the rationale we’ve talked about in other years seems to have got through. But in other parts of the bill and in other areas of pensions to be paid the bill seems to have abandoned rationality completely.

The minister had opportunity in this bill to have adjusted it once and for all and laid out his rationale and what his objectives are going to be for the future, if he can meet them, in terms of pensions to be paid as the years go on. But he has missed that opportunity again. In some respects, because it doesn’t raise some pensions or because it only adjusts some pensions in a minor way, this bill is a step backwards.

This bill does not adequately adjust at all the pensions paid to widows and widowers, where the spouse has been killed in the workplace; nor does it adequately compensate on a regular basis the children of a worker who has been killed in the workplace. The bill has added to an improper base that 10 per cent cost of living figure for 1974. The base has not been adjusted properly over the years. To say now that the government has adjusted pensions by the full amount of the cost of living that has occurred for this past year is not nearly good enough, when it has taken it on a base which is still completely and woefully and inadequately adjusted. That is the part of the bill, as well as the widows’ and widowers’ pensions part of this bill, which I find the most hard to swallow.

The minister had an opportunity -- and he seemed to be taking a step in principle -- of adjusting the pensions by the amount of the full percentage increase in the cost of living that has occurred. He had an opportunity in this bill to build that in as an escalator clause, and he refused to take that particular step. He continues to use, in addition, the 75 per cent only of the worker’s average earnings as the base upon which first to give compensation, and as the maximum upon which to calculate the permanent partial disability pension, should that be the particular injury case for that worker. We have always argued long and loud that 75 per cent of the worker’s average earnings over the past year, or whatever shorter period the minister might choose to take because of the particular employment record of the worker, is pitifully low and that there is no excuse for it.

It’s for these four major factors, Mr. Speaker, that we in this party find, as we found last year, that we cannot vote in favour of this bill.

There is another matter in this bill as well which, if it hadn’t been included this time, the minister would have left us to talk about for every successive June from now on -- that of not completely eliminating the ceilings. I think if these other four points had been taken care of and ceilings not eliminated this year -- after all, we have to have something to talk about on this bill, and something to expect a year from now -- we wouldn’t have voted against it. If the minister still had refused to take our suggestion of last year that any percentage increases to pensions and compensations should not be applied to the commutation amounts of 10 per cent or less, which he forced the worker to take, if that was the only other point he hadn’t done, I think again we could have voted for the bill, using that as a talking point and expecting it to come next year. Those two points still should be done. They should have been done at this time but those other four points are major.

I want to expand on those other four points in particular, Mr. Speaker, as to what the government’s record is over the years in these areas and what should be done. Because the minister hasn’t done them these are the reasons we are going to have to vote against this particular amending bill -- as we did last year. Basically it is a bill to provide increases in benefits to workers receiving Workmen’s Compensation Board compensation or pensions.

The first of these which we object to, of course, is the pitifully inadequate increase given to widows’ and widowers’ pensions. Let’s look at the history of this. In 1973 in the month of June, we debated the Workmen’s Compensation Board bill and the increases granted then. At that time it was only widows’ pensions; the government added widowers in 1974. I think there was a sum total of six of them in existence at that time so there are not a great many people involved in payments of this sort, where the wife has been killed in the workplace or the common law wife has been killed in the workplace. Back then, in 1973, the minister increased widows’ pensions from $175 or $250 a month, a rather uncharacteristically large jump in pensions at that lime.

When I laid forth the principle on which he must have based that increase, there was a rather surprised reaction from the Minister of Labour but he did not deny it. When I followed the same argument through on the increases which occurred in the temporary total disability pensions in 1973, which went from $40 to $55, he seemed to know what I was talking about. It seemed clear to me, and it was not denied then that a formula was used to arrive at what those widows’ pensions and the temporary total disability pension should be.

In 1973, if one took a 40-hour week, multiplied it by the minimum wage which prevailed then, $1.80 an hour, took 75 per cent of it, it came out exactly to $250 a month. If we did this with the temporary total disability category it came out to $54 a week, and the minister had given them $55 a week. I accused the minister of taking what we thought to be an inadequate minimum wage -- but nonetheless a minimum wage -- multiplying it by 40 and basing it on a monthly or a weekly basis to arrive at a minimum weekly for a temporary total disability and for the widows’ pensions.

We placed amendments based on what we felt should be the proper minimum wage, giving a rationale for it at the time, again based on a formula. Again, we placed our idea that it should be a 100 per cent pension and we produced an amended figure with which we attempted to amend the Act that year.

Interestingly enough -- that’s history -- in that very same year again, one can assume, using the same rationale the minimum for permanent total disability was increased from $175 to $250 and that’s significant. The government has decided over the years, by the way it has been written over the years, that the widows’ and now the widowers’ pensions per month should be equal to the permanent total disability pensions. That’s how the minister arrived at those totals in 1973; they were both $250.

In 1974 one of the disgraces of that bill -- and we talked about it at length in 1974 -- was that neither of these figures, the widows’ and the widowers’ pensions, and the minimum for permanent total disability -- no; I was going to say they weren’t increased. They were increased only minimally by $10 a month to $260 a month. We were critical at that time over the paucity of that increase. Bitt note, they were increased by the same amount, $10 in each case. The minister again last year equated the pensions to be paid to widows or widowers when their spouse was killed in the workplace with the minimum pension which should be paid for a total permanent disability. Again we went through some of the arguments last year upon what that should rest.

This year the minister comes along and says, “We recognize that in essence that was far too low, that increase last year from $250 to $260.” He says, “For permanent total disability we’ll increase that figure to $400.” In all of my years of knowledge -- they don’t go back that far; only almost four years in terms of dealing with the board -- the identical figure has been used for widows’ and widowers’ pensions.

But what does he do with widows’ and widowers’ pensions? Do we see those going from $260 to $400? No. They go simply from $260 to $286. Mr. Speaker, there need not be and should not be one iota of difference. Someone in the Workmen’s Compensation Board or the ministry or both has decided that for the first time there should be a difference in the pension paid to a widower or widow whose spouse has been killed in the workplace and the minimum pension for a person who is totally disabled.

The amount of $286 a month to be paid to a widow or a widower is not nearly good enough. If there was no other reason than that, we would be voting against this bill, Mr. Speaker. What should that increase be? Let’s go through it.

If we take the 1973 reasoning and how the minister arrived at both of those figures, we would find that multiplying our current minimum wage of $2.40 an hour by the 40-hour week and, using the minister’s formula, taking 75 per cent of it and multiplying it by 4.3 weeks to the month to get the monthly figure, the widow’s pension should be $130 a month. That’s using the same way by which it was calculated back in 1973; $310 a month rather than $286.

In using our calculations an interesting figure emerges. We have argued in these Workmen’s Compensation bills that if the rationale the minister is going to use to arrive at the widow’s pension or the minimums for total temporary or total permanent, it should be based on the realistic minimum wage -- a wage which the Minister of Labour also sets.

We’ve argued it should be 60 per cent of the minimum wage. It should be 60 per cent of the average of salaries and wages in Ontario, including those persons who are on the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, in the Province of Ontario at this very moment, with some slight extrapolations, that turns out to be $200 a week. I have taken an extrapolation from the month of March. In the month of January, in the Province of Ontario, the average salary and wage was $193.57 and in March it was $196.98.

There is roughly a $3 difference between January and March of this year; between March and June 1 it is reasonable to add another $3 over the two months from January to March. From March to the end of May or June 1, another $3 would bring it exactly to $200 a week, the average of salaries and wages, including all those on the minimum wage in the Province of Ontario.

If we take that average salary, that average minimum wage and apply the 60 per cent factor to it -- which is the factor used in Manitoba -- it comes out that the minimum wage would be exactly $3 an hour. If we then take what should be the proper adjusted minimum wage, multiply that by 40 hours a week and take three-quarters of it -- the minister is still using this three-quarter philosophy -- it works out that a monthly pension would be $388. Isn’t that interesting? It is rather close to what he proposes in the bill for those on permanent total disability -- $400 a month.

If we do it that way a proper minimum wage of $3 an hour, times the 40-hour week and using his three-quarters factor, we get very close to the $400 a month he has in the bill for the minimum for those on total permanent disability.

If we take it on a weekly basis, it works out to be the exact figure -- $90 a week -- which is in the bill for those on temporary total disability.

What this means to me is -- I might say first that we don’t feel there should be a 75 per cent factor involved in it. It should be paid 100 per cent full. The amount, therefore, for the minimum for total temporary disabilities should be $120 a week and for permanent disability, which should be the same amount as the widows’ and widowers’ pensions, $515 a month. This is what we would put in this bill this year as the proper amount which should be paid.

What is very clear is that using the factor or approach of taking only three-quarters but with our rationale as to what the minimum wage should be, it would come out very close to what is in the bill -- $90 for the temporary total and an amount of $388, very close to the $400 figure the minister has, for total permanent disability. That last figure has been identical with the widows’ pensions over the years and that is the figure which we should have in this bill for widows’ pensions. We will accept no less.

The minister, in his opening remarks -- and I have heard him in the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and I have heard him when the Workmen’s Compensation Board comes before us in committee -- has quoted Mr. Justice Roach again on what the Workmen’s Compensation should be. That quote is one which the minister is fond of quoting. He just doesn’t understand it.

I haven’t got the quote in front of me hut, paraphrasing, the Workmen’s Compensation function is to compensate for loss of earnings and is not to be a welfare scheme. When the minister does not compensate for loss of earnings in some really rational way which doesn’t penalize the worker to a great extent, it is he who is making a welfare scheme out of it. It’s got to compensate for loss of earnings and anything less means the minister and the board are making a welfare scheme out of it. Roach is talking to him and is telling him that he shouldn’t be doing this. That’s exactly what he is doing and it is no more easily visible than in what he has not done to widows’ pensions in this bill.

He has chosen to make a welfare scheme out of it by not making it an adequate recompense for the loss of the earnings in the workplace of the spouse who has been killed. If we get into any sort of an argument about the widow going out to work if it is a man who’s been killed, that is no argument at all. That is taking the welfare approach to it rather than the approach of compensating that family in an adequate way as the government has done in the past for the loss of the earnings the worker who was killed was receiving in the workplace. The minister is making a welfare scheme out of it by doing anything less than he should be doing.

The second major point to cause us to vote against this bill is the revalorization scheme. This year, the minister could pat himself on the back and make a point in public terms that he has added to the pensions and the compensation amounts the full amount of the cost of living increase which occurred this year. In the year from June to June, it was 10.1 per cent, I gather, and he has made it 10 per cent. We won’t quibble about the 0.1 per cent. We would say he has adjusted fully with the percentage increase in the cost of living which has occurred. Except, and I remind the minister, last year when he announced it was a principle change -- that he was going to adjust pensions by an amount, going back over the years, totalling 60 per cent -- we applauded in this House. When we actually looked at those figures and saw what a small change there was relative to the cost of living that had occurred over those years, we did not applaud when we got back to debate on the bill. We opposed the bill last year primarily on that basis.

Last year, the government had increased it by a total of 60 per cent, starting from the year 1946 up to the end of 1973. It was two per cent each year until the years 1971 and 1972, in which case it gave four per cent. The percentage increase in the cost of living -- the consumer price index -- over those years amounted to 180 per cent, triple the amount that the government gave last year -- 60 per cent.

I would have confidently expected this year -- in fact I was sort of looking forward to the debate that I could centre around ft and predict what would happen in future years -- that this year the government had recognized the fact that it had only increased it back over those years by one-third the amount that it should have and that this year it would make up half of that difference, increase it so that over those years it would have increased by 120 per cent -- plus, again, whatever the full cost of living was this year, making the argument that the government can’t take all that big a bite in one particular year. I would have expected that next June the government would make it fully what the workers should have gotten in terms of the cost of living by adding on yet another 60 per cent -- again, on top of which would have come an exact adjustment for the consumer price index.

I was shocked to find that the government’s attitude now is to say that that increase in pensions that occurred from 1946 on to 1973 -- which was one-third of what it should have been -- it now finds completely adequate and is going to add what is implied to be a CPI increase on that completely and utterly inadequate base. By not doing anything more about that base, that is precisely what it has decided. The government has decided somehow that the base is okay and it is now going to make itself look good by adding full CPI indexes on to what is a totally inadequate base. We cannot accept that base in this party as being at all adequate, and we won’t until it is fully adjusted.

The pity is it doesn’t cost very much. To make that 60 per cent increase of last year running back to 1946 would cost the employers 0.1 per cent of their payroll. So, to have adjusted it fully to the full 180 per cent CPI change that occurred would have cost the employers an additional 0.2 per cent of their payroll -- 20 cents out of every $100 of payroll.

It would cost the board nothing -- and it would have cost the employers collectively across this province virtually nothing to have done it.

We pointed this out to the government last year. We pointed this out to the minister when the Workmen’s Compensation Board estimates were before us in committee. And the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, when questioned as to whether or not he personally would like to see a change in this occur, said -- and I wish we had a tape of the meeting; I can’t be sure I am quoting him exactly, but he said, “We would certainly have a lot of the pressure and the heat taken off us if that is what could occur and was occurring in the Province of Ontario regarding pension adjustments.”

And not to have made that change, which would be so meaningful to the lives of so many injured workmen, when the cost to the employers in this province is so minuscule, is completely abhorrent to me. Then to bring in a bill which adds on the correct CPI for this year, but on that improperly adjusted base, is, to my way of thinking, verging on the dishonest; and we will not take part in any dishonesty of that sort.

If the government wants to look at it another way -- if it wants to carry Justice Roach’s remarks completely through, with Justice Roach saying that compensation is to compensate for loss of earnings, it shouldn’t just have adjusted it by the percentage increase in the cost of living -- which was 180 per cent over those years, plus 10 per cent for last year -- he should have adjusted it by the percentage increase in salaries and wages in the Province of Ontario, which was 420 per cent from 1946 through to the end of 1973 and 453 per cent from 1946 through to now If the minister really wants to make Roach happy, if he really wants to make his quote mean what he says and what he meant it to mean, that’s the percentage increase the minister would have added on, and not just the cost-of-living increase.

That change is so big for the board to comprehend that at the moment we might compromise and say that the cost-of-living percentage increase is adequate, because we know we couldn’t get the minister to adjust it by what it should be adjusted; that is, to make the increase as a percentage equal to the same percentage increase in salaries and wages. It would be a much higher figure than it is.

Mr. Speaker, in a bill which implies that however inadequate the base, the increases are being adjusted by the consumer price index increase for the past year -- an amount of 10 per cent, which is very close to 10.1 per cent -- to not clearly indicate that we are going to automatically escalate pensions each year by the amount of increase in the consumer price index is something that simply cannot be tolerated and is a grave omission from this bill.

The fourth major point which will cause us to vote against this bill is the continued use of 75 per cent of the workers’ earnings on which to first calculate his compensation and then as the maximum on which to calculate his permanent partial disability pension for future years.

We’ve always said that this should be 100 per cent and made taxable. One of the reasons why this minister and his predecessors have said that the 75 per cent is acceptable is that the 75 per cent is non-taxable.

Let’s just have a look at what the actual difference is to a worker in a couple of salary classifications when he suffers an injury and goes on 75 per cent non-taxable benefits as opposed to the 100 per cent taxable earnings from his job.

I have figures for a person who earns $160 a week, or $4 an hour, which is $1 above what the minimum wage should be and $1.60 above what it actually is in Ontario. If that person is single, he suffers a weekly loss, between 70 per cent non-taxable and 100 per cent taxable, of $10.82 a week. He’s already injured, he’s already being paid, and his actual loss, because of that difference, is $10.82 a week.

I don’t see why the minister feels he should penalize an injured workman at the rate of more than $530 a year simply because he’s injured. That’s what the minister is doing when he tries to say that 75 per cent non-taxable is pretty close to 100 per cent taxable.

If the man is not single but happens to have a wife and children, because he pays less taxes because they are deductions from his income, the loss is even greater. If a man happens to be married and has four children -- I have the other categories here, but if he’s married and has four children and is making $160 a week, or $8,320 a year, he loses $22.37 a week, more than double what a single man making those same earnings loses.

The scheme not only discriminates against all workers at that salary level -- because the 75 per cent non-taxable does not equal their 100 per cent taxable -- it’s even more discriminatory the more dependents that persons has. The difference at that level, at $160 a week, between a single man and a married man with a wife and four children, is the former loses $10.82 a week, the latter loses $22.37 a week.

I don’t have the actual maximums here, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t work it out exactly for someone who was allowed to earn the maximum. Yes, I did. I got one very close to someone who, under this bill is now allowed to earn $15,000 a year, that is the maximum on which the minister applies the 75 per cent. Let’s look at that 75 per cent non-taxable and how that compares with 100 per cent taxable. The single man loses $37.47 a week and the man with a wife and four children loses $51.77 a week.

Now $15,000 taxable is not a very high salary in this day and age. It’s not all that much above the average of salaries and wages in this province. When that man is injured, the minister is willing to pay him -- or is willing to penalize him for his injury, if he is married with four children, by an amount in excess of $50 a week. There is just no justification for taking that sort of penalizing action against that worker. I don’t know what the minister wants to do or what arguments he might have in terms of maybe paying 100 per cent non-taxable or paying 100 per cent taxable, because they are exempt from the federal Income Tax Act, but he should have at least some sort of sliding scale of benefits so that the injured workmen are not penalized to the extent they are by receiving only 75 per cent of their total earnings, those earnings being non-taxable. The minister most certainly does now and the more dependents a worker has, whatever salary range he is in, the greater is the penalty and the greater is the discrimination.

I see nothing in his saying to an injured workman, “We’ll pay you 100 per cent non-taxable, because you have additional pain. You have additional mental anguish. You have all that worry in most cases about whether or not you can get back to work again and when and whether it will be an injury such that it’s going to restrict you in your future employment.” We would say for that additional worry and that extra pain, the government could afford to pay him more than he was getting before his injury.

For heaven’s sake, we all know, as MPPs, how the board has been administered in the past in terms of medical reports and the careful, close scrutiny given them so that the board assures itself that the injured worker is not trying to take the Workmen’s Compensation Board for a ride in terms of playing at being ill when he isn’t. The problem I and other MPPs have experienced with the board is to keep workers receiving compensation when they so very obviously need it in medical terms rather than re-seeing persons who have the reverse problem of not needing it any longer because they are not medically ill but are still receiving it. That has not been the problem. The problem his always been the other way around. The government has a very good system, and always has had over the years, of being able to cut workers off, being able to keep up with the medical reports and being able to assure itself there was no rip-off of the board been made by workers who were not as ill as they seemed.

I agree with the minister -- workers should not be using the Workmen’s Compensation Board scheme as a rip-off. If they can go back to work they should be back to work. If they can accept medical and vocational rehabilitation they should be accepting medical and vocational rehabilitation. By the same token we see no problem with it being 100 per cent non-taxable so in those periods when they are undergoing this pain and this uncertainty in their lives, they are receiving a little bit more in actual take home pay than they usually receive. Certainly the figure of 75 per cent is highly and grossly discriminatory and we object to that being continued in all these bills which pretend to increase the benefits.

The other two points we certainly would like to have seen in this bill would be the removal of the maximum. I know we argued this two years ago. I think, with the bill of two years ago, having heard a rumour that MPP’s salaries might go up to $15,000. I suggested replacing the figure in the bill with a maximum at least equal to the MPPs’ salaries. That was done facetiously, knowing we would have lost the argument for removing the ceilings completely. I still say -- and our position still is -- that there should be no ceilings.

If there is someone earning $30,000 who gets totally permanently disabled, we can’t see why his compensation while he is totally disabled or his pension if it is a partial permanent pension cannot be a percentage of his full earnings. We do not see why this cannot happen.

There will be very few cases of people earning that high an amount. There will be about as many of them, I suspect, as there are women who have been killed in the workplace leaving a widower. There are very few of those high earnings cases.

At the moment the minister has set $15,000 as a maximum on which he applies his three-quarters so that irrespective of what that worker makes the most he can receive in compensation -- or in pension, provided he is totally disabled -- is still $11,250; irrespective of what his earnings capacity was or what his total earnings were before that time. We say that this is not adequate. We won’t even play the game of saying he should have a take home pay of at least what an MPP has, $15,000, by making an amendment for it to be $20,000. Knowing full well the minister probably won’t omit his three-quarters, he needs a $20,000 maximum in order to be able to have a $15,000 calculable base, which is what MPPs make.

We simply say that maximum should disappear completely and until it does, the government doesn’t have a scheme to compensate workers for their loss of earnings, which is what the Workmen’s Compensation Board in Ontario is all about. It is helping to rehabilitate workers; helping to initiate safety programmes; seeing that workers get the proper vocational and medical rehabilitation and support; and seeing that they are compensated for their loss of earnings.

Mr. Speaker, there are steps forward in this bill but because of the four main points -- still retaining the 75 per cent; the revaluation of last year’s amounts being far too low and still being carried through in this bill; the fact that widows’ pensions have not been properly adjusted and have not even been kept in the proper categories as they have been in other years; and the fact that no clear scheme of automatically escalating pensions is in this bill -- we must vote against it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton East.

Mr. H. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, the principles involved and debatable in Bill 106, of course, are the adjustments in the several categories of payment to claimants. I think all members can agree at this point that the member for Windsor West has made a sound critique of the inadequacies of those adjustments and has stated very clearly that this party can no longer sanction the welfare measure implied in every change that has made.

We have taken this position each time they have brought in amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and I’ve noticed for many years that when Ministers of Labour have been squeezed by criticism, they stand up, pat their chests and say, “We are noted to have one of the best Workmen’s Compensation Acts in North America, and other countries are adopting it as a model.” Well, it’s about time we dropped that silly notion.

I can add very little to what the member for Windsor West has said, but I think his effort should be enough to persuade the minister to withdraw the bill and at least make the adjustment to remove the inequity in the area of the widow’s pension. I could make comparison that would make one shiver. Imagine one person living next door to another, a totally disabled workman receiving $400 a month and next door, a widow of a deceased workman receiving $286. One might say that they should get together somehow so they would have $686 and they might, in a fiscal way, get by.

I think we should start, at some time or other, to enlighten ourselves as to what people need to live on. It’s hard to deal with the principle of continued amendments to a bill of this type. I thought that the member for Welland South had some good points, bet of course he was out of order in dealing with specific cases; I expected that others would be ruled out of order because they were not sticking strictly to what the minister put in the bill as amendments.

There are some real enlightenments in other Acts, and I assume at this point that the Minister of Labour has read the latest report that was commissioned by the Saskatchewan government. It shows some enlightenment regarding the problems we’re talking about today.

One point I would like to stress -- it’s not in this Act, and I hope I’m ruled out of order -- is the main recommendation made by the commission that reported last year to the Saskatchewan government. I refer to the enlightened move of workmen’s compensation into an accident and sickness programme, the principle being that anyone who loses wages because of an injury should receive his or her income.

I’ve said before that nothing disturbs the harmony of married life more quickly and more dastardly than when the paycheque stops coming in. I’m talking about those men and women who are injured, not in an industry, but injured at home or through an accident on the street. If they’re not in a plant that has an organized contract, where they have negotiated weekly indemnity, they then are forced to use their savings and invariably, if it’s a long-term disability, end up on the relief rolls.

The main recommendation in the Saskatchewan commission report was that the government should move towards an accident and sickness programme. It could be entwined in the Workmen’s Compensation Board. It could be financed by a percentage sharing of employee and employer payments. It could be based on the same type of a system that we have now. But there is a real inequity in this situation.

We believe in the principle of workmen’s compensation, that workers get 75 per cent of their wages when they’re injured, even though we at this point think that there is a great inequity in that calculation. We agree in principle with unemployment insurance, where they now receive something like $126 a week if they’re unemployed as a result of sickness or just plain unemployed. Why not the same principle applied to those who are injured at home?

I would ask the minister to show some enlightenment and take this up with his colleagues. At least give us the promise that he will give it consideration. Let’s do something for that large group of people in this province who are forced on relief because of an injury or disablement because they are not included in any one of the three categories that pretend in some sense to provide an adequate income for those who are injured.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate the comments of my colleague who just sat down. I am also getting a little tired of Ministers of Labour standing in this Legislature, beating their chests and proclaiming that we have the best compensation legislation in the world. We have had them standing in this Legislature breaking their arms patting themselves on the back. At the same time, we have had occasion to lock this budding to protect the Minister of Labour from the disgruntled mobs who are beating at the front door of this Legislature. And that happened within the past three months.

The minister can recall very well when at 9 o’clock in the evening it was impossible to get into this Legislature because of the discontent of hundreds of workers at the front door. They were trying to get at the Minister of Labour for the indignities and the suffering which he and the Workmen’s Compensation Board had heaped upon the workers who were unfortunate enough to become injured in the workplace in the Province of Ontario.

I would appreciate it very much if the minsters would restrain themselves and quit trying to sell what is a deficient piece of legislation as something that is the best in the world. It is not the best situation in the world, and the government knows it very well.

Fiddling and fooling around with workmen’s compensation cases fully preoccupies 75 per cent of the time of myself and every other member of the Legislature who sits as a member of the New Democratic Party. We are constantly forced to go to the board to try and have the deficiencies or the maladministration of the board corrected; and the minister very well knows that. How can he continually stand there and say that we have the best legislation in the world when it takes 50 Ontario Provincial Police to keep the mobs of injured workers from coming into the building? I resent very much the way the ministers have acted. It is strictly window dressing.

The deficiencies in the Workmen’s Compensation Board are amply demonstrated when we just reflect back over the past year and call to mind the results of the failure of this government of Ontario to protect the workers in the mining camps in northern Ontario. I make reference to the horrendous situation which has developed in Elliot Lake and the problems that the workers there are facing as the result of injury to their health because the government of Ontario, the Minister of Labour and the Workmen’s Compensation Board fail to protect the health of these workers. There are literally hundreds of men in the province and throughout this world who have yet to reap the bitter fruit of the failures of this Workmen’s Compensation Board to protect the workers in the workplace.

This is some more Band-Aid legislation. The government is going to raise the minimums on which pensions and disability allowances can be calculated, but there is the basic deficiency in it that once it has raised the minimums it is going to revert to the 75 per cent of income of the worker over the past year. And at no time, even though this question has been asked 100 times since I have been in this Legislature, has the minister been able to answer adequately why a man should be penalized at the rate of 25 per cent of his pay because he chose to go to work.

By what rationale does the government reduce a man’s income, a family’s income, because all he wanted to do was go out and work and contribute to the state? There is all of this high phraseology that a worker should not suffer and should be compensated for his contribution to the state and should not be penalized on account of injury in the workplace. All of this is for nought. It’s just window dressing, flowery words. This government still persists in penalizing injured workers because they have to go into the workplace.

The industry I’ve been involved in for the past 35 years has one of the most horrendous records of any industry in this province. I come from the mining industry; I know exactly whereof I speak. The accident rate there has not improved over the past five years. The industrial disease rate has become worse as a result of the exposures that came out of Elliot Lake. The minister should recall, but probably doesn’t, the calamity in the sinter plant in the Copper Cliff smelter. The minister probably is innocent of the facts of life as they relate to a person who has to go into a mine or a smelter to earn his living and to make his contribution to society.

It’s unfortunate that I have to stand here this afternoon with this shadow over my head of having been innocent enough, as a young man, to go into the sinter plant in Copper Cliff. I resent that this government has neglected to protect me, that I was not advised of the facts when I was too young and innocent. I resent that it let a situation like that develop. I am now on the list of workers from the occupational health protection branch of the Ministry of Health, and I’m called once a year for a sputum test and for lung x-rays because this government allowed me to enter the sinter plant in Copper Cliff.

We can’t rely on the mining companies to protect us, and yet there is weakness in the legislation which says that the mining companies are responsible for the health and safety of their workers. They have demonstrated time and time again that they will not exercise their responsibility; they are so callous as not to have any regard. They care not for one more body; it’s just an expense of doing business.

As long as this minister sits here and protects the industries from proper assessment so that he could compensate these workers at a proper rate, then industry will just do a cost-benefit analysis and decide to continue killing, diseasing and maiming workers. The minister knows that’s how they operate. It’s strictly a book balance at the end of the year. There’s no humanitarian aspects whatsoever as far as these mining companies are concerned.

Another weakness in the legislation -- and I wish the minister would listen to it -- is that it does not take into consideration the kind of jobs various men have to do in order to make their contribution, and without their contribution we would be in a different world.

There should be a burnt-out pension, the principle is established under the Veterans Benefit Act at the federal level. They have realized that certain men had to endure extreme difficulties even though they didn’t stiffer any precise injury. They weren’t hit by shrapnel or they didn’t stop a bullet; just the living conditions and the environment that they were subjected to shortened their life span.

I would suggest to that minister that he has to take into consideration some of the workplaces that men go into voluntarily -- and the day might come when they will have to be conscripted to go in, because they are getting wiser every day. In fact, there was a recommendation made by one of the doctors from the occupational health protection branch that 15 years in a uranium mine is enough. No man should be forced to spend longer than 15 years in a mine. I would relate that to any kind of a mine.

I’m sure the minister must realize that after 15 or 20 years of hard work, even though this man has not got his head smashed because he’s been lucky enough to dodge the loose that’s coming down around him; even though he has not torn his back or sprained his back; even though he hasn’t suffered an amputation of an arm or a leg -- by the time he becomes 50 years old, he can’t put up with that pace any longer. He has to get out of the workplace. He has to come to surface. He has to go in at a lower rate than he started at.

Oh, the mining companies like a nice 20-year-old, 200-lb healthy man. They’ll take him down there and squeeze him and put the pressure on him until he’s about the age of 50. By that time he is burnt out. And try as you might, you can’t get the compensation board to consider that this man is deficient and is going to stiffer, not only in earnings, but his life span is going to be reduced because of the environment that he was subjected to -- the dust and the gas and the heat and the cold. Every extreme that nature can provide is found in the mining industry, and there should be some recognition of the environment in the workplace that these men are subjected to.

Certainly, if the federal government can devise a means of instituting a “burnt-out” pension for men who sewed in wartime, certainly this government should be wise enough to take a look at the statistical evidence and to calculate the life span and how many miners reach the age of pensionable benefit; very, very few of them ever reach that period.

I am also quite critical of the board in that they don’t provide for granting the benefit of the doubt to an injured worker. It is constantly the worker who, through his advocate, has to continue to dig up evidence in order to challenge the decisions of the board. I think the benefit of the doubt should be reversed. It should be the employer who challenges the worker and disqualifies him. But no, they take the word of the employer consistently. The injured worker who is short of funds, who doesn’t have the proper educational facilities, who doesn’t understand the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it is he who is caught out in left field.

I am just going to give one ridiculous instance of my experience in this. A worker at International Nickel Co. in Sudbury, after 30 years of underground work, made application for a silicosis pension. It was determined that he was 10 per cent silicotic. A message was received by letter that the board had determined a 10 per cent disability and they were now formulating a pension.

Well, lo and behold, the employer, the International Nickel Co., told the board that this man had had war service in the North African desert in 1945. Now, we are in 1974. And this company goes back to 1945 when this man served in a panzer division in the North African desert in 1945 and suggests that the dust in the desert may have caused the silicosis.

Now, how thin a string can you pull in order to upset a claim? Instead of the board telling the International Nickel Co. to get lost, they inquired into this man’s war service -- and it was true, he had spent a couple of years in the North African desert. But the board, in its wisdom -- maybe they sent somebody to North Africa to test the silica content of the dust in the desert -- came to the conclusion that the objection by the company was irrelevant and they said they would allow the award of pension.

But the company wasn’t going to be bought off that easily. They also found out that this man, prior to joining the German Army, and prior to serving in the North African desert in 1944, had helped his father, who was a bricklayer in a German city, during a summer vacation when he was aged 16. This was probably 40 years prior to the event which we are talking about, namely his contracting silicosis in Sudbury as a result of 30 years’ work underground. And we are pulling strings all the way back to when the boy was 16 years old and helped his father to mix mortar in Germany. And that held up the claim again -- a ridiculous, far-fetched story like that.

There is a successful conclusion to this. Finally, all of these objections were swept aside and the pension was granted and paid. But that is just a sample of the idiotic objections that this board will take into consideration in order to determine a person’s pension. I don’t think it should be allowed to happen or continue.

A year or so ago, the minister did make a certain amendment which provided that if a person was not able to return to his work place after an injury, and he was willing to take rehabilitation or co-operate with the board, he would not be reduced; he would get 100 per cent of his disability allowance. Lo and behold, I have had several occasions when men have been reduced to the 50 per cent level; that still hasn’t disappeared.

I think that is maladministration and the minister should be aware of that. He probably isn’t. This is still going on; the board still takes these decisions even despite section 41, I think it is, which was included in the Act. I don’t think a man or a company should be allowed to terminate a person’s employment as the result of injury.

Mr. Haggerty: But they do it though; they do it.

Mr. Germa: I feel an employer, by injuring a man, should accept responsibility for that injury for the rest of that person’s life. To some degree he does by having compulsory contributions made to the Workmen’s Compensation injury fund or accident fund, but I think more liability should be placed upon the employer in that once he has ruined this man he has to accept responsibility for supplying him with a job.

I see there is nothing in the bill to correct a very big inequity in that workers who have been deemed to suffer permanent injury or permanent damage as a result of injury, are awarded a pension based on a clinical assessment. What does that really mean? The clinical assessment, of course, has nothing to do with the man’s ability to work. In the industry I am familiar with and which I have worked in all my life, where we do have a particular problem, the basic requirement to be a miner is that one has a very strong back and is very stubborn. We do have a considerable number of back injuries and very often an assessment is made that this man should no longer lift any weight greater than 25 to 40 lb. This seems to be the standard practice.

For some workers, being restricted to a maximum weight to handle -- 40 lb -- wouldn’t be very bad. If one is a financier, a lawyer or a brain surgeon, it matters not -- or it matters very little -- if one can’t lift any weight greater than 40 lb. When we restrain a miner, when his health or his back is damaged to the degree he cannot lift more than 40 lb I say we have crippled that man 100 per cent.

He comes out of the clinical assessment with probably a 15 per cent disability rating but the prime thing he brought to the job, that young strong back, is now removed. That certainly has to be corrected. The minister has to take into consideration that by limiting the assessment to include only clinical factors, he is not really relating the disability pension to the man’s ability to work. I wish the minister would take that into consideration.

Another problem I am concerned with, and it seems to be growing, is the pressure placed on people who are under rehabilitation. I did raise this with the minister at an earlier event this year and I’d like to put on the record the results. My complaint was that the rehabilitation branch are injuring their own people by forcing them to participate in the rehabilitation programme. I did ask for an accident report of what kind of injuries were being suffered at the rehabilitation centre in Toronto and the next day I was provided with the available statistical evidence for the period; that would be 1973. I’d like to put them in the record because at that hearing there was no record of the debates.

In 1972 there were 5,726 admissions to the rehabilitation centre in Toronto; in 1972 there were 254 accidents at that rehabilitation centre. Among those 254 accidents were 20 fractures; there were three shoulder dislocations; there were 62 sprains; there were 34 lacerations; there were 17 abrasions and 73 contusions. There were other complaints not quoted. That isn’t the whole list; that doesn’t add up to the 254, but those are the most predominant ones.

In 1973 we had 5,538 admissions with 249 injuries reported. The most serious one, and the reason I raise this, was a complaint I had from a worker who had been ruptured by being forced to push a wheelbarrow up a ramp, an exercise which he knew he could not do. He was forced to do this job. The result was he couldn’t handle the wheelbarrow with the bricks in it, he slipped and fell and he ruptured himself.

I was interested in knowing how many people the rehabilitation centre had ruptured in 1973 and I came back with the figure of three. I think it is indicative, when they are rupturing people, that they are pushing a little bit too hard. In 1973 we had three hernias reported even though there was none reported in 1972. That year we had 14 fractures as a result of rehabilitation services and the list goes on and on.

I think there is too much pressure on the injured worker to return to the workplace. The worker should have some say in determining when he goes back because I find the medical profession is getting very cynical. They must have some thought in their mind that this person is malingering even though some doctors I have talked to have said that, particularly with injuries related to spinal problems, the medical profession admits it cannot precisely determine the amount of the man s disability. Some doctors are leaving it up to the injured worker to decide whether or not he can do the job. If some doctors come to that conclusion I think the rehabilitation department should let the workman determine what kind of a job or what kind of rehabilitation his health will allow him to do and he should not be pushed to the degree that he suffers fractures or hernias.

This report I have indicates that the accident rate in the rehabilitation centre rose from 0.8 per cent in 1972 to 1.3 per cent in 1973, almost a 100 per cent increase.

I would hope the minister would take recognition of the complaints we have consistently made against the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the legislation that governs it, and eventually get around to bringing in legislation which will serve to alleviate the numerous complaints we have on this side of the House.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak directly to the minister on the basis of the bill and I want to deal with the subject matter I have in a series of explicit case references in order to make the points we would like to make. That may be the best way of illuminating it.

We don’t oppose the bill lightly. One never opposes lightly a bill which raises benefits to injured workmen but there are some principles in the bill which are still so violated and seine aspects of the bill so wanting that I think it is necessary to make a number of points about the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Workmen’s Compensation Act. If I seem intemperate about the board from time to time it is only because patience is failing and the prospect of the Tories losing the election and some of us being able to do something about the Workmen’s Compensation Board is almost more than I can contain.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Exhilarating.

Mr. Lewis: Exhilarated is hardly the word. If there is ever an organization which needs a house cleaning, it is the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

By the way, I don’t say that lightly to the minister, Mr. Speaker, because I am one of those people who believes profoundly that transitions in government, changes in government, are something you approach carefully, shoring up all of these who can perform in the public interest even if their convictions may be slightly different from those of the new government. But with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, patience runs out early.

I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, by reading a letter to the Legislature and to the minister, which I received just in the last few days. It is dated June 17, 1975. I am going to use the name, because I have permission. It was sent to me and it is re Roderick Joseph Justin Moloney, late of 246 Prince St., Peterborough, died July 6, 1973.

The letter is written to me by a secretary to a legal firm in Peterborough. I can leave out the first paragraph; the letter reads:

“A client of our office, the abovenamed Roderick J. J. Moloney, died on July 6, 1973, from what was diagnosed as cancer. He had a history of diabetes, but as far as I know the two diseases were not related. Roderick was survived by his wife, Catherine, and three infant children. They are now at adolescence.

“Roderick Moloney had worked for Raybestos-Manhattan Canada Ltd. for 28 years prior to his death, having started to work there in July, 1945. On his death, his wife received from Raybestos the magnificent sum of $4,000 group insurance; the sum of $2,123.06 from the pension plan for employees in that bargaining unit. Aside from one other small private insurance policy and some money in shares in his credit union, that was his estate, except for his residential lands and premises, which were paid off.

“It has occurred to me, that with all the publicity being given to illness and death amongst Raybestos employees, Roderick Moloney’s name hasn’t been mentioned. I spoke to his wife, Catherine, in the office yesterday and have her permission to write to you. She said a few of the fellows have mentioned Rod’s illness, but maybe nothing can be done now. However, since her only income is her Canada Pension benefits, if there is any possibility of Rod’s case being reopened so that she might be eligible for workmen’s compensation, it would certainly be wonderful. She isn’t counting on it, of course, but I just thought that you might consider this case.

“Mrs. Moloney told me that Roderick use to look forward so eagerly to his vacation so he could get rid of the smell of the plant from his clothing, skin and hair, and felt so much better when he did. Surely that says something.

“I am enclosing a photocopy of a physician’s statement, which I have found in the estate file regarding Rod’s illness.”

And the physician’s statement for the Empire Life Insurance Co. is attached and it points out that carcinomatosis was evident in the deceased, and it is quite clear that the death was as a result of cancer.

I have since spoken to Mrs. Moloney and I could happily bear some kind of penance these days. I can never keep papers and materials in hand. I have since spoken to Mrs. Moloney and she is living, if memory serves me, on a pension that is somewhere in the vicinity of $140 or $150 a month, plus a small rental income from one of her children who works and pays board. That is virtually the total income.

Let me tell you why I read this --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: May I ask the member where the pension was from?

Mr. Lewis: From Canada Pension Plan disability. Canada Pension Plan, I may say, almost always recognizes disability, whereas the Workmen’s Compensation Board, for people when should be considered permanently unemployable within the Ministry of Community and Social Services, they almost never recognize disability. One often says thank God for the flexibility of the way in which regulations are interpreted by the Canada Pension Plan; and it would be, I am sure, the disability feature of that plan.

The reason I read the letter to you is to speak to something that has been bothering me ever since we began to raise questions of occupational health in the provincial Legislature. That is the failure of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to make any effort to find out whether occupational disease has resulted in disability, impairment or death of workers who have worked for a protracted period in a given place. The Workmen’s Compensation Board just washes its hands of any responsibility except receiving information and processing claims. They are wrong; they are guilty of moral neglect. I have said it before and I’ll say it again.

I remember when we dealt with Johns-Manville in the committee session of the Workmen’s Compensation Board when it was first open. We asked Michael Starr, having presented to him all the information on silicosis from Elliot Lake and all the information on asbestosis from Johns-Manville, how it was they never took the initiative to seek the problems out and to apply solutions. They said invariably -- they always say -- “We receive the information. We process the claims. That’s our only obligation,” and we say, “Nuts.”

What’s wrong with the Workmen’s Compensation Act amendments in this instance is that there is no obligation on the board to go back to those areas where there is an evident and persistent pattern of illness to see if injured workmen or the widows of deceased workmen should be entitled to claim.

What is so pathetic and unhappy about this letter is that the deceased died in the middle of 1973 of cancer which, it is 90 per cent almost sure, would be asbestos-related -- after 27 years there is almost no question that a claim would be honoured -- and by virtue of some indirect initiative it comes to light two years later when the Workmen’s Compensation Board should have been on to that Raybestos plant, asking for every single doctor’s certificate at the point of death to see whether or not it was a potential asbestos-induced disease or death. That’s what a civilized Workmen’s Compensation Board does. That’s what a board does which isn’t so obsessed with the bureaucratic processing of claims that it has no time to follow patterns of illness or impairment.

I feel that very strongly. It isn’t as though these cases are so proliferating that they can’t be handled. The board should automatically investigate the death or impairment of every worker at Johns-Manville; Raybestos-Manhattan; where they have chronicled it from Indusmin in Whitby; where they are chronicling it at Elliot Lake now; and find out whether compensation entitlement is possible.

When we are dealing with a company like Raybestos, there is no possibility of the company intervening on behalf of the worker. Can anyone imagine it? He was 27 years at the plant and the widow ends up with $2,123 as a lump pension benefit? Can anyone imagine it?

Mr. Burr: Two dollars a week.

Mr. Lewis: Two dollars a week, my colleague from Sandwich-Riverside points out. That was the total inheritance for 27 years of the man’s life in Raybestos-Manhattan and a $4,000 group insurance policy.

Is that the kind of company one expects to go to the Workmen’s Compensation Board and say, “We know this man died of lung cancer and it may be an asbestos-related disease and the widow may be due compensation”? Not on your life. When one gets companies which are so dreadfully insensitive it should be the initiative of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to seek people out and to provide compensation. If only it were possible to get them away from the preoccupation with the processing of claims. The letter indicates it.

I left sitting on my desk 20 minutes ago -- because I thought this debate was about to end abruptly -- a letter I received the day after the Johns-Manville case came to public notice. It’s of a man -- no, I’d better not use his name -- who worked for Johns-Manville for 27 years; died of lung cancer at the Centenary Hospital in the summer of 1974, and we have just opened the case with the board now. I wrote a letter to Michael Starr on April 5; he acknowledged it subsequently, and the claim was opened on May 6. From May 6 to this date, I haven’t had a further reply, although the claim is now in process, but I’m sure that it will be honoured.

I want to know why, by accident, it has to come this route, instead of the Workmen’s Compensation Board going to Johns-Manville and saying, “Show us the letters of your deceased employees. There is a pattern of asbestosis and lung cancer in this plant. People are obviously due compensation, and we’re going to seek them out and provide it.”

I really feel, as deeply as I can convey to him, that the minister should instruct the Workmen’s Compensation Board to do that, and that that should have been a legitimate clause of this bill. It should not be necessary to resort to this kind of indirect and capricious request for justice.

The other reason I read this into the record, and spoke to Mrs. Moloney earlier this week to seek her approval, is that this woman will now receive, under the beneficent terms of this legislation, something like $286 a month if the husband’s claim is honoured, as I bet it will be. I’m saying to the minister that $286 a month after 27 years of work at Raybestos-Manhattan is also morally wrong, and there is something wrong with legislation which permits that to happen.

If the minister has to be selective in his legislation, then by all means he should be selective. If he has to define a distinction between occupational disease and accidental death of a different kind, then let him make the distinction. But do not have widows of men who have worked for 25 to 30 years in a specific environment reduced to levels of $286 a month. Human ingenuity can devise a more equitable system than that. I’m absolutely certain of it, and I think the minister is certain of it too.

If the whole increase in the widows’ portion of this legislation amounts to $1.5 million -- and again I’m working by memory -- so that it is barely one to two per cent of the total cost the minister introduced, then I say to him, increase it to the minimum provided in this legislation -- $400 a month -- and give that to the widows without carping about the possibility of some of them receiving mare than they are due. Better he should err on the side of largesse in a situation like this than to reduce people to such a penurious state after a man has given his entire life to the work force. I’m reminded in saying that of another instance; I can only talk about them in specific instances. I don’t know how else to talk about them. About 10 days to two weeks ago I was brought to a home in Scarborough at the request of a woman who is a teacher -- I spend a large part of my life on these cases, as would the minister were he involved, I have no doubt, and one develops a certain resentment at the lack of justice in the process.

I went up to a little home in the northeast corner of Scarborough and I sat down with the young woman who invited me and her father, who has been a management employee of Johns-Manville for 27 years -- it’s like a magic number, that 25, 26, 27 years. He is now being treated for lung cancer. He had received 23 cobalt treatments. Sadly enough, it did not work, and about a week or 10 days ago, they began radical drug therapy. I don’t know where it stands now. It’s for a lung cancer disability.

It’s typical of Johns-Manville that after 27 years in a managerial position, the man’s income is $11,000 a year. He had applied for a claim of asbestosis back in April, 1974, and in November, 1974, they finally called him for an x-ray. I have the letter from Dr. Stewart and in February, 1975, they denied his claim. By that time, he already had diagnosed cancer. That’s quite artful of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

On April 7, they write him another letter saying:

“Dear Mr. H:

“Originally your claim for occupational chest disease was denied. Further medical evidence has been presented and your claim reviewed. It is now found that you have a chest condition which can be related directly to your occupation. Considering this, your claim has now been allowed for an occupational chest condition. It has been reported that you have been off work since Feb. 11, 1975, for treatment of your chest condition. Payment of temporary disability benefits will be considered once your employer confirms the type and amount of benefits you received from them since your layoff.”

That was April 7, 1975. From that date until the middle of June, the man heard not another word from the Workmen’s Compensation Board although he had diagnosed lung cancer.

A funny thing happened. By accident a letter came to his home, with a very substantial cheque in the letter -- I think it was for $700 -- made out to Johns-Manville re this man. It had been sent to his home by accident. He went trotting off to the Johns-Manville plant, the personnel director, and he said to the plant director: “What the devil is this?” And the director said, “Well, that’s our money, not yours.

And so it came to light that the claim had been approved and the board was paying compensation to Johns-Manville to replace the money they were paying to the employee but at no time had the board indicated to this person, this employee, what level of compensation they would pay, for what precise disease they would pay it, for how long they would pay it, and what was involved. He sits in his living room with his wife and his daughter, in a state of acute personal anxiety, wondering how in the devil one finds out from the Workmen’s Compensation board what rights one is entitled to and under what circumstances.

I suppose these things slip up; so often they slip up at the WCB. I, for one, am weary of it, as are my colleagues from Sudbury who have dealt so long with the board and Sudbury Inco, Elliot Lake and Rio Algom and Denison. These things should not be allowed to happen.

If, God forbid, this man passes on, dies as a result of his disease, his widow is left with $286 a month and that is wrong. That is as reprehensible and inequitable as any piece of legislation in this province. I say it is possible, even for Tories, to construct a more humane, a more civilized, a more just response to neglect.

Forgive my putting it this way, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, it’s as much the fault of the government as it is of the company, and the least it can do, for not enforcing adequate standards of health care in those environments, is pay to the widows adequate compensation. It it’s no more than appeasing what should be the acute sense of guilt, that alone should sponsor it because every one of these cases lies at the feet of the government, nowhere else.

The Tories have been in power for a period of time which encompasses the entire work span of every single worker who has died of silicosis, asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma, and they as a government, not individuals but as a government, have tolerated the conditions which resulted in the deaths. They end up paying the widows $286 a month. One begins to understand why it is that, as a party, there is a great deal of public scepticism about them throughout the Province of Ontario.

I want to raise another case with the minister. I want to raise the case of a man who sat here in the gallery for most of the week because he was receiving treatment at Princess Margaret. He has now returned -- I guess just yesterday -- to Elliot Lake. I had wished that he would be here for the debate and it speaks to another aspect of the legislation which is so wrong we will not support the bill on second reading.

The man’s name, and I don’t know whether you have met him, is Gus Frobel, and he is one of the gentlest, loveliest people I have met in the last couple of years of dealing in this area. He is also a man of exceptional tenacity and persuasiveness. His is the first lung cancer related to silica dust case acknowledged by the Workmen’s Compensation board. For three years Gus Frobel fought an individual and lonely battle and won his case before the board, presenting overwhelming medical evidence of the legitimacy of his claim. And it was at that point that the Workmen’s Compensation Board started to accept lung cancer as a compensable condition at Elliot Lake.

Gus Frobel has now lost a lung; Gus Frobel has now lost half his heart; Gus Frobel is now under treatment for his remaining lung; and Gus Frobel continues to fight. And the assault on the Gus Frobels of this world, which is committed in this legislation, as it is an assault on so many workmen’s compensation recipients who had misfortune of being injured in the late Sixties or early Seventies, who had the misfortune of their claim being honoured in the late Sixties or early Seventies, the injustice and the misfortune of this legislation is the government’s refusal to recognize what those people would be worth had it not been for government neglect.

Let me just give you the simple facts, because the chronology is kind of interesting. On July 3, 1972, Gus Frobel received a 100 per cent disability pension for $5,250 per year, or $437.50 per month, or $100.96 per week. On July 1, 1974, according to the formula in last year’s amendments, Gus received a two per cent increase for each year from 1968 to 1971 -- 1968 being the year of confirmation of the lung cancer related to radiation and silica -- and then four per cent for 1972 and 1973, giving him a total of a 16 per cent increase. Therefore, he now receives, before this legislation becomes law, $5,889 per year, or $490.75 per month, or $113.25 per week.

On July 1, 1975 -- if the bill passes and is proclaimed -- according to section 6(2) of the present amendments, Gus will receive 10 per cent more. Therefore, he will receive $6,477.90 per year, or $529.73 per month, or $124.59 per week. When Gus had to stop working underground at Rio-Algom in 1968, he was making $10,000 per year. Since then, wages at Rio-Algom have increased approximately 60 per cent, which means that he would have made this year more than the ceiling. And if he had been stricken this year and his claim confirmed this year, he would be receiving $12,500 per year. Instead, he receives $6,477.90, approximately 50 per cent of what workers falling ill from now on will make.

Now, let me give you a comparison. Since Gus’ first operation in 1968, to March 31, 1975, Rio-Algom has made a declared net profit of $169 million. But for Gus Frobel, the pension remains at $6,477.90 a year, even though he would be earning more than twice as much today had he been able to continue to work. That is what is so incredibly unjust about the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the government’s refusal to introduce amendments to take that kind of criterion into account. It is wrong; it is truly wrong.

Here is a man who had to fight for three years against the bureaucracy of the board and government to gets his claim reinstated, or at least acknowledged. Here is a man who is now reduced to 5 per cent of what he would be entitled to, because this legislation refuses to acknowledge that reality.

I have asked in the House before, “What is wrong with the government?” -- and the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) hurls it back at me in a kind of frivolous way. I don’t understand the operating rationale for the government. I don’t understand the human priorities. I don’t understand how they evolve their criteria for the worth of a life -- I don’t understand it -- unless it is measured against what companies can afford, rather than what lives are worth.

It is the ultimate indignity to the Gus Frobels of this world that they should now receive something like 50 per cent of entitlement because this government can’t make its legislation retroactive -- as everybody in the whole Workmen’s Compensation field has been asking it to make it for as long as I can remember.

Has the minister ever spent time with Gus Frobel, can I ask across the floor, by way of question?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am afraid I don’t recall --

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t recall him. If it is possible -- and I know it would be for Gus -- I would like to arrange an opportunity for this man and the minister to sit quietly in the minister’s office and talk. And, as he quietly and movingly tells of the events from 1968 to 1975, maybe that will be vivid enough to persuade the minister and his colleagues of the justice of the case, and of how wrong it is, when government and companies have been responsible for this man’s disease -- and, doubtless, eventual death -- that they should then penalize him in the years he has remaining. It is really intolerable. It is quite unbearable. I will leave it at that. The minister is a decent fellow. He will see Gus Frobel and maybe it will influence the future, if not the present. But the minister can never ask Gus to support this kind of bill; a bill which continues to visit this injustice on working people.

That leads me to another example that I want to deal with, because it derives from the same thing and it is probably the single more eccentric and unusual Workmen’s Compensation case in Ontario. I suspect the board would even agree with that description.

It has to do with a man named Antonio Nigro -- and Antonio Nigro lives in my riding, ironically. He lives in a geared-to-income Ontario Housing development called Warden Woods. He lives on Firvalley Ct. I am very fond of Tony Nigro and his family. Tony Nigro was the first person in Ontario to suffer the bends in a subway construction accident in 1958.

For 14 years we tried to establish 100 per cent entitlement for Tony Nigro, and for 14 years the board held out. It held out against John Robarts, against the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), against Liberals and against cabinet ministers. It dug its heels in and held out. Until finally, in 1972, the board capitulated and awarded Tony Nigro 14 years of 10 per cent retroactive disability, amounting to a sum in excess of $50,000, plus a monthly pension which must now be in the vicinity of $400 to $500 a month.

And do you know, Mr. Speaker, that money sits in trust to this day? And do you know, Mr. Speaker, that Tony Nigro sends the cheques back, when they come to him on a monthly basis? And let me tell the minister why -- why this extraordinary case -- because when the board finally capitulated to the irresistible logic of the claim, it couldn’t allow itself to behave decently. This is why I found the previous chairman of the board so totally unacceptable in his position. They couldn’t allow themselves to behave decently, and they decided to give the money to Tony Nigro through the public trustee; the clear implication being -- because it is in the legislation -- that one is not really emotionally stable enough to cope with the money if it comes through the public trustee. Tony Nigro said he would have none of it. He would have absolutely none of it. He had been managing money better than most human beings, as the Ministry of Community and Social Services can tell you, because they have had him on a social allowance for 15 years. He has done more in a crippled condition than very few people can work on this earth. Tony Nigro wasn’t going to capitulate to the indignity of taking the money through a third party on the basis that he wasn’t mentally healthy enough to administer it himself for his family.

We went to the courts and Tony wouldn’t accept it from the courts. We went to the public trustee. The scenes were quite funny. I was on my hands and knees at one point, trying to get Tony and the public trustee and everybody else to work it out. Tony wasn’t having it. We went to Michael Starr and sat in his office with Tony’s lawyer and tried to work out a way of the board admitting its mistake and getting money back to Tony. But they never removed the one condition that they had stipulated. So this man who was driven to a kind of ambulatory paranoia by the board’s behaviour for 14 years has to this day never accepted the board’s money. It’s incredible.

It sits out there, $52,000, gathering interest, several hundred dollars a month gathering interest. He lives off a social allowance, plus some money that he can get from, I think, a stepson. He’s a totally rational and lucid man on every front except the Workmen’s Compensation Board. That board, in the ultimate vindictive act reduced him to a man who feels almost pathologically at war with the board. Over 14 years they subjected him to so many indignities that I can’t convey it to the House. One of the reasons that Tony Nigro won’t take the money is that he says: “Why should I take the money based on the level of earnings in 1958? Had that not happened to me, I would be making this much more money and I want that reflected in the decision as well.”

I will tell the House something, I’m not sure that Tony Nigro can ever accept the money. I am not sure that there is any way of finding a route to give the man the money and to get him to accept it. This is one of those incredible cases -- I believe there is one more in Sarnia -- where all the money will sit there forever and the client, as it were, the injured workman cannot accept it.

The reason that Tony cannot accept it is twofold. First, the ministry has never recognized his worth through the years, he having suffered a crippling accident in the subway in the late 1950s. Secondly, the board drove the man to emotional distraction. The board did it as though it was a kind of premeditated determination that this human being would be singled out for abusive and indifferent behaviour on the part of the board. I don’t know whether Tony Nigro will ever get justice from Ontario but it is a perfect example of what one is dealing with when one deals with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I have wanted to tell the minister that story for a very long time and I am finally glad that I have. And I don’t know how it will ever get resolved -- perhaps never.

When the minister talks about the board, he is talking about an institution so bureaucratic, so monolithic, so inflexible and so self-impressed that it is very hard to put it effectively into words. They process a great many claims. Michael Starr is a lot more accessible than his predecessor. The board is generally efficient but I still haven’t seen evidence of the civilized human behaviour which time after time gives to the workmen the benefit of the doubt. I don’t want to go into the cases again. I want to finish up. I’ve raised with the minister in the Legislature and outside the case of Elizabeth Butler in Windsor who has or had a seriously respiratory condition induced by working in the tunnel between Windsor and Detroit and the great difference of medical opinion.

I pick up the Workmen’s Compensation Act and I see section 22, subsection 1, which says:

“The board may, on the application of either of them [that is, the workman or the employer] or of its own motion, ref the matter to a medical referee.”

Here we have three Windsor doctors who say she had pulmonary problems and one board doctor that says she didn’t, and the board will not allow a medical referee. That is so typical of the board it is again intolerable.

I have raised with the minister, and we have discussed it, the story of Normand Carriere, who is about to lose his home, and is seeking residence in a mobile home, because the board would not commute the pension for an amputation which was performed as a result of an accident.

Again, no matter how often I read it, no matter how often I think about it, it is not possible for me to comprehend the way these Solomons sit at the board and make judgements about what is good for people when the judgements are effectively destructive of the people with whom they are dealing.

A first-rate young family, which could have kept its house, whose father has gone off and got himself a certificate which will allow him work at $8 an hour as a welder if he can get it, who has trouble with his prosthesis and is therefore not guaranteed full-time employment, into works as hard as he can -- this family is in the process of disintegration because this board couldn’t commute the pension. All of the reasons are as much sophistry as only certain groups are capable of.

The legislation is not retroactive, as it should be, in terms of providing the base of which my colleague from Windsor West spoke. The legislation is wrong and cruel to the widows of those who have died, particularly from occupational disease. The legislation is wrong in its inability to reflect the increases on an indexed basis so that all of those at the board who feel discriminated against can be dealt with.

The legislation is wrong because it does not require the board’s intervention to seek out causes of disability and death, rather than waiting for them capriciously to be processed by the board. The legislation is wrong because it insists on only 75 per cent compensation when there is no earthly reason in the world why a man or a woman should earn less just because they have the misfortune of being injured on the job.

The legislation is wrong on so many aspects that our opposition to the bill comes not only from what is in it and what is out of it, but from a basic social conviction that it is time we did away with the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the whole Workmen’s Compensation Board in Ontario and provided a programme of social insurance for sickness and disability on and off the job which would cover everybody in the province, with employee and employer contributions to fund it, and without the endless need in difficult cases to drag themselves before the almighty board in sackcloth and ashes to wait to hear the judgements of those who are profoundly mortal but who judge with very little sensitivity, compassion or perception on the cases that are always most marginal and most needful.

I really would have wished that the board would work, but after 12 years in this Legislature, and after talking to all my colleagues, I do not know how long. The New Democratic Party has simply come to the conclusion that the Workmen’s Compensation Board will work as a stopgap, but it will never really give to people what they are entitled and there is too much humiliation involved in dealing with that board.

Therefore, a social insurance policy for sickness and disability on and off the job is what is required, just as health insurance works, just as automobile insurance should work and just as the insurance principle should apply, rather than the principle of proving, in the fact of suspicion, indifference and opposition, your right to a legitimate claim, a legitimate pension and, therefore, a legitimate life. That is why we are voting against the bill on second reading.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I want to involve myself in the discussion of Bill 106, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I must admit I don’t have a lot of requests for assistance in workmen’s compensation -- not that I would call very many -- but the ones I do have are very frustrating.

I suppose supporting this bill -- I don’t know, it’s a problem the Opposition has at times in supporting something the government brings in which is better than it was but it’s not nearly perfect. One always has to weigh which way one should go on a matter such as this. I think there is going to be a change in government and maybe it’s the opportune time to vote against it and when the new government comes in we can revamp the whole operation. However, they might hold off the election for a year or a year and a half. I am not sure the Premier (Mr. Davis) will call an election this year now with some of the problems around. I would imagine it would be called either in two weeks or next year.

I was looking over some of my files with regard to compensation and some of the benefits in the bill. When the minister has to bring a bill in -- I recall only a year ago we supported the bill which at that time increased some of the benefits. I think it was reluctantly done, too. These really should be tied in to the cost of living under all circumstances and that way the minister wouldn’t be coming back to the Legislature to have the Act amended.

I think of a case I have had on the go for years actually. I’ll refer to it as claim C6723779 and this is a case of a person in a propane gas explosion who had considerable burns on his arms and face and so forth. He was paid benefits for a while but as his condition improved he was able, of course, to go back to work at a different job, but the ramifications of the accident are still with him. They’ve been there and I expect they will be with him for life. Yet it’s impossible to get the doctors to agree there are certain things a person has happen to him which affect his nervous system. I am sure that is one way they probably try to avoid making a payment.

I look back to one case I had probably six years ago. The person had appealed it to two levels, I think, if I remember correctly at that time. It was referred to a former member he knew, and the former member, Mr. Reaume, referred it to me. We made representation for him and made arrangements for an appeal to the board.

An interesting thing was that before we went before the board, the secretary asked me to go in and speak to the board privately. They said, “We feel there may be some conditions affecting this case -- nervous conditions and so forth -- and they may cause some of the problems.”

I said, “If you knew this gentleman and knew the way he had worked in the past 15 or 20 years, the progress he had made acquiring a home, even a second home. And then have that all lost so that he turned the one home over to his son to take over the payments for it; he moved into the third storey of the other one which he had been renting out so he could rent out the two floors below him. When you walked in, you could hold your head up while you walked through the centre of his room but when you went back far you had to bend over because it was an attic. If you had to go from those living conditions he had been used to do this, with a $44 monthly pension, I could understand it would cause anybody problems.” I said, “It would cause me and my wife problems if we had the same thing happen.” We then went before the board and we were successful in receiving the proper benefit.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, I should adjourn the debate.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.