The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

BEEF CALF INCOME STABILIZATION PROGRAMME

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) I have the pleasure of announcing an Ontario beef calf income stabilization programme. This programme will form the first part of the farm income stabilization thrust as announced in the budget speech on April 7, 1975.

Under the new beef calf income stabilization programme, the Ontario government has two objectives: To stabilize the income of recognized beef calf producers in Ontario, and to encourage a continuing steady supply of Ontario-produced beef. I must stress that the programme is long-term in scope, with the major emphasis being on the benefits which will accrue to those producers who plan to continue in beef calf production over several years.

An income stabilization fund will be created whereby all recognized beef calf producers in Ontario will qualify for this joint producer-government programme on a voluntary basis for an initial five-year period; and, of course, it is open to review. Both the farmer and the provincial government would make annual contributions to the fund. Payments into and from the fund should approximately balance over the five-year period.

The weighted average market price becomes a vital statistic in the producer payout under this programme. Accordingly, the weighted average price for Ontario-produced stocker calves will be established each year at several principal selling points in Ontario during September, October and November. Should the weighted average market price of stocker calves fail below the guarantee, a payment for the difference will be made to the participating producers. Producer payments from the fund will be made on a per-cow basis to make it consistent with the premiums which will be collected per cow.

A payment would be made for each cow registered in the programme. A variety of factors will determine the payout per cow: The minimum price guarantee established; the weighted average market price; the number of calves from 100 cows; and the average calf weight. In this particular plan, payments will be based on a 450-lb calf and an 85 per cent calf drop. A price guarantee of 50 cents a pound has been established for stocker calves for the current year.

I must stress that the producer payment will be the same for all participating producers irrespective of their individual selling price or their individual costs of production. In this regard, the programme is designed to interfere as little as possible with an individual farmer’s decision-making in managing his own farm. As well, a farmer will not be required to sell his calves in the year in which they are produced to qualify for the payments.

Participating producers will be required to pay an annual fee per beef cow registered in the programme. For 1975, this fee will be $5 per cow. In the light of the particular financial circumstances surrounding the cow-calf producer at the present time, the 1975 farmer premium will be deferred until late in 1975. If, after calculation, a producer payout is made in 1975, the producer’s premium will be deducted from his payout. A promissory note will be accepted in lieu of a cash payment of the fee. The enrolment period for eligible producers for this year will be July 15 to August 31, 1975. Interested farmers will be able to pick up application forms and other pertinent information from the local agricultural representative’s office after July 15 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario beef calf income stabilization programme must not be viewed as a guaranteed income scheme; rather it is a plan to stabilize the income of beef cattle producers by putting a floor on the amount of money which a fanner would be expected to receive Over and above operating costs in years of low calf prices. In years of good market prices, the farmer would receive the full benefit of improved market conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members will agree with me that this programme, which has been developed by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, will go a long way towards assuring our Ontario beef industry of a more stable future, in spite of the many outside circumstances which are beyond the control of an individual farmer in this province.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The farmers won’t applaud it.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

DUMP TRUCK OPERATORS’ AGREEMENTS

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, during the recently concluded debates on the estimates of my ministry, the hon. member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) tabled a form of agreement, which he indicated that certain road contractors were asking dump truck operators to sign. This agreement provided that the operator would supply clump trucks to the contractor at specified rates and if under certain conditions they were not supplied, the contractor could charge the operator for loss or damage suffered thereby. The contract was considered to be onerous in that the operator was given no assurance of obtaining work from the contractor even though he had an obligation to provide the trucks.

On Friday, June 20, the hon. member for Yorkview repeated his request for my comment on this agreement, and I am pleased to provide it at this time. I can inform the House that, according to my information, agreements along the lines of the one in question are not in widespread use in Ontario. In fact, I have been informed of only two instances where such an agreement is in force, neither of which involves work on highway contracts. To the knowledge of the officials of my ministry, the agreement is not utilized on any road construction contracts let by this ministry.

I do not at this time believe there is a danger of this practice spreading. I intend, however, to keep the situation under review and, if at any time it appears that agreements of this type are becoming a problem, I will consider taking such steps which may include a condition in our standard form construction contract specification to prevent their use in MTC contracts.

I might also suggest that in strict legal terms the agreement may not be as onerous for the operator as some may have been led to believe. It might, therefore, be prudent for an operator, who has signed such an agreement, to obtain an interpretation from his lawyer as to what his rights are under it, in particular his right to carry on business with third parties without being subject to claim by the contractors. Certainly he would be well advised to consult a lawyer, whenever a contractor attempts to claim against him for a loss or damage suffered, to ensure that the claim is well founded.

DEATHS OF SUMMER STUDENTS

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I ask the members of this House to join with me in expressing deepest sympathy to the parents and families of Fritz Muhlberghuber and Steven Mold, both of Kitchener. The two 17-year-old boys died yesterday as a result of injuries received while employed as summer students at the Waterloo sewage treatment plant.

An investigation into the accident is being carried out by the proper authorities.

ASSESSMENT ACT CHANGE

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to reply to the issues raised by the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) concerning the amendment to the Assessment Act passed on June 19, 1974. The matter deals with section 17, subsection 3, of that Act.

Firstly, I wish to make it abundantly clear that the amendment exists because it adds greater equity to the overall assessment process. We in no way misinterpreted it or were unaware of the implications of the amendment. The controversy raised by the hon. member deals solely with income properties which have shared parking areas, common malls, often enclosed and acclimatized against the weather, and shared elevator or escalator cores. And the discussion applies particularly to those shopping centres which have one or two large department stores as a drawing card. In all the province, the amendment applies only to income-producing properties that have become operational since June, 1974.

Prior to the existence of the amendment, the Act provided that each occupant’s property was assessed separately and the common practice was to value each occupant’s property solely on the basis of the percentage of square feet occupied, rather than including the total shared space of the plaza. Therefore, business assessments did not reflect the value of common malls, shared walkways and shared parking areas. In some cases, those shared areas could amount to up to 20 per cent of the value of the total assessment.

Some stores, especially kiosks, enjoyed a substantial tax advantage because they paid tax only on occupied space but used the common area for their business trade.

This is a complex topic, Mr. Speaker, and at a later date I shall prepare a fuller statement. However, I want to make one emphatic point at this time. The situation does in no way involve the shift of tens of millions of dollars to the small tenants, as has been suggested by the member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): It most certainly does. How much does it involve?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The member knew that very well. It was a slight exaggeration.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. member for Kitchener.

UNIVERSITY SCIENTIFIC STUDY SUPPLIES

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities with respect to the supplying of various laboratory items to universities from Canadian companies.

Following the series of letters sent to the minister by the Johns Scientific company and Mr. J. Paul Richards, can the minister give us any information now as to government plans to require that universities at least give Canadian manufacturers the opportunity to bid for various scientific items, rather than continuing the systems approach, which is now encouraging universities to completely award the general purchase of these laboratory and other scientific items mainly to American subsidiaries?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I wrote to all the universities earlier in the year, saying that while their purchasing policies are of course their own business, as far as government policy is concerned we were anxious that where possible they purchase supplies from Canadian manufacturers.

In the case of the laboratory equipment to which the hon. member refers, I don’t have the details in front of me, but my recollection is that the firm did bid but the overall supply arrangement was such that the universities said they had considered that firm but had decided on economic grounds to purchase elsewhere. I could give the hon. member the details; I don’t have them with me today. I think I wrote to the firm either yesterday or the day before giving the details.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since there is the possibility of potential savings of money if competition does involve itself in these purchases, does the minister not think that the systems purchasing approach by the universities, while it may give some advantages, should at least be monitored somewhat to ensure that Canadian manufacturers at least have the opportunity to quote for these items?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, in the various complaints that have come to my attention -- and there have not been a great many of them -- I have got in touch on each occasion with the university administration. The information I have had is that m just about every case -- I say “just about” because I am not sure that I know of an exception, but there may have been one -- Canadian manufacturers or suppliers have been approached and the decision has been made on the basis of price and service. I don’t think the hon. member would want me to go any further than I have in suggesting that Canadian manufacturers receive every opportunity and preference within reason.

Mr. Breithaupt: If the minister could send me that information it would be appreciated.

RECREATION LAND OWNERSHIP

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources following the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to land ownership patterns within Prince Edward Island. Has the minister now decided to proceed with the formulation of any plans to have some control over the purchase of lands, at least for recreational purposes, by persons who are non-residents of Ontario or perhaps persons who are non-Canadian citizens?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that the government adopted a policy some time ago that land would not be sold to individuals for summer cottage development; titles in fee simple for those are available for commercial development only.

Just last week, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, I announced a new programme for summer cottages in subdivisions, whereby Ontario residents would be given first preference. In the first year it will be offered for lottery or for lease, in the second year, Canadians will be offered the right, but in the third year, non-Canadians will be offered the right.

Further to this announcement, I announced a new remote cottage programme whereby only Ontario residents, those who have been resident in this province for 12 consecutive months, will be allowed to have a remote cottage in that area north of the French River. I think we are moving ahead in the direction of allowing the right to lease Crown lands to residents of Ontario, ahead of any others on a priority basis.

Mr. Breithaupt: Following that obvious priority for both the use of Crown lands and the two programmes to which the minister also referred, is there any intention at least to monitor the transfer of ownership of any particularly large blocks of land, particularly along the more attractive river and lakefront systems, that will at least encourage those lands to remain in Canadian hands or at least to be made available for Canadian citizens as well for possible development?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is an area that the government and my particular ministry are constantly looking at. It is a matter of review at all times, so it is an ongoing situation.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary. The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that we have the remote cottage programme in place does the minister think it will be possible for people within his ministry to resolve the long-standing problem of squatters on Crown land? Does he think it may be possible nosy to issue land-use permits to those people who were once occupying Crown land illegally? I am not suggesting that he do it all but surely, rather than a scorched-earth policy, does the minister think it’s possible to integrate this new programme with those who now may be legitimately on Crown land and meet all the requirements as a result of his wilderness cottage programme?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very, very clear that we do not have a scorched-earth policy in this ministry or in this government.

Mr. Stokes: No, they just burn them down.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Just here and there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think the member is very much aware that we have a land use advisory committee in the northern part of the province whereby they zone specific areas as to areas of development and those areas where no development will occur. If there is a cottage there now that’s unauthorized and if it is in an area where development could occur, if the cottage owner meets the various criteria established in the remote cottage programme, then we would give him a 10-year lease.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

ORENSTEIN AND KOPPEL (CANADA) LTD.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, one question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the strike that has gone on since June 6 at the Orenstein and Koppel Co. (Canada) Ltd. in Dundas, can the minister advise if it is correct that the new owners of that company are not carrying on negotiations with Local 1740 of the International Association of Machinists? Could he also arrange to use his good offices to ensure that bargaining does continue in that particular location because of the apparent difficulties that have arisen in this situation?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Yes, Mr. Speaker, they have been on strike since June 9. We met with them last on June 24. There is no provision for any immediate meetings at present but, needless to say, we will continue to do our best to get the parties together.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is it correct, Mr. Speaker, that the management of the company is not making any offers with respect to assisting in a potential settlement?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I’d rather refrain from making any comment on that at this time. I don’t think it would be helpful to the bargaining position to make any comments publicly on the position that either party to those negotiations have taken.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Would the minister take a look at the possible violation of the Ontario Labour Relations Act involved in the company sending letters, both before the strike and after the strike began, to all of the employees indicating that the bargaining committee on behalf of the employees had misled the membership, and was not in fact conveying the nature of the offers made to the membership? I think that kind of effort to divide and conquer on the part of a company is explicitly ruled out under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and I would urge the minister to investigate.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) gave me one of those letters last evening, and I have not had a chance this morning to follow it up -- but that’s one of the things I will do; and I’ve got that letter in my hand.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West may ask his questions now.

BEEF CALF INCOME STABILIZATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask the Chairman of Management Board, first, how he can talk about a fair market return to the farmers on the one hand, and then set a level of 50 cents a pound when the costs determined, both by the farmers themselves and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on their behalf, are 70 cents a pound. And how does he introduce an income stabilization plan which is 20 cents a pound less than the actual cost of production for the farmer?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think that question can be very easily answered by the fact that the data that was presented to us has been in question, and I think the authorities of the OFA now agree with that.

Mr. Lewis: Show us.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, a supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: That last statement rather astounds me, and leaves me almost speechless -- almost. Am I not correct that the formula which the minister has come forward with in his plan is that he is going to pay out of pocket expenses, plus only 60 per cent of investment, farmers’ labour and management?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I can’t answer that one. I’d have to take that question and consult.

Mr. MacDonald: I’d appreciate it if he could get an answer on that, because I think that is the basis.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will.

Mr. Lewis: Since what the minister indicated, almost speechlessifying my colleague, is out of --

Mr. Breithaupt: Not quite.

Mr. Stokes: Unspeechless.

Mr. Lewis: Unspeechless? Well, either one; this is a Friday morning. If I may ask the minister, since the figures he is implying have at no time in all of the discussions ever been conceded by the Federation of Agriculture or the farmers involved, can he table the calculations for the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will if they’re available to me, Mr. Speaker; certainly. I would just like to make a further remark, that when the member for York South is speechless, that’s a new day around here.

Mr. MacDonald: A bad day around here, may I presume to say.

Mr. Lewis: May I also ask, by way of supplementary, whether anyone informed him that the two groups of cow-calf operators in the province most centrally involved, those on Manitoulin Island and those in the Rainy River district, have already objected to this plan in advance? Indeed, I have with me a petition from the Rainy River farmers totally rejecting the suggested income stabilization programme for Ontario cow-calf operators, which the minister has just introduced this morning. Did anyone tell him that they’d rejected it in advance?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, we knew very well that it wouldn’t receive unanimous approval.

Mr. Lewis: Unanimous? Certainly not by the people affected.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Because there were some people -- and the hon. member knows well who they are -- who would have taken a position against us no matter what we would have brought in.

Mr. Lewis: What is he talking about?

Mr. MacDonald: One of the three groups the government deigned to bring into this programme in advance.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): The member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) is one.

Mr. MacDonald: It’s ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breithaupt: As a supplementary: If those particular groups which are the most directly concerned at the present time are not content with the programme put forward, are there any intentions to meet further with them to see if those problems can be resolved for the benefit particularly of the farmers who are most concerned?

Mr. MacDonald: All that was at the meeting we were all tossed out of the other day.

Mr. Martel: Except the Tories.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think the member should have a very careful look at the statement and the words that I added myself from the Management Board’s point of view stating that we would review it. We are determined that the programme will work.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. MacDonald: The minister will find out that it is voluntary on the farmers’ part. He is going to have to change it.

Mr. Stokes: I think he should have left it to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer, responsible for matters municipal, was in the precincts. Is he still slinking about under the --

Mr. Henderson: The minister.

Mr. Lewis: The minister, I am sorry. He has been elevated to a position without portfolio.

Mr. Speaker: He may be back. We will give you an opportunity later.

WORKING CONDITIONS AT CHROMASCO

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. May I ask the Minister of Natural Resources has he yet an answer to the questions I raised on May 6 last and on June 16 last regarding the Chromasco Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I just happen to have it handy.

Mr. Breithaupt: He is glad the member asked that question.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member asked that question some time ago. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that Mr. Thomas’ letter of instruction dated April 24, 1975, listed 43 separate situations needing a remedy. A letter dated May 21, 1975, from a new manager indicates the completion of instructions for 36 of these items. Four more items were almost completed. The remaining three were in the nature of general requests for improved internal communications in the establishment of a continuous clean-up programme. Such a programme has been initiated and methods of proved dust control are under study.

It was indicated also that the flow of information between management and labour is improving. I understand the director of the mines engineering branch, in company with the regional mines engineer, is to audit the results shortly.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does it cause the minister, any personal concern that an inspector resisted the efforts on the part of the union for so long to clean up the conditions in that plant that when the inspection was finally done 43 directives had to be issued to the company? And what happens to those who contract occupational disease as a result of the earlier neglect?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is an area that I am going to look into personally. It has come to my attention on one or two other Occasions. I have met with the director of the mines engineering branch and discussed this very issue. I will be enforcing it a little harder.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. Could I urge the minister to read the transcript which I just happen to have read last night and this morning of the hearings before the Ham commission on Chromasco, in which a ministry inspector testified and the transcript is really quite remarkable? Perhaps he could refer to his colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), or discuss with him the observation of one of those who did the testing, reported as follows:

“Look, this is all we can do for you. I don’t care if you can cut the dust with a knife, it has nothing to do with us. We don’t care if you die from a heart attack from breathing the chest or if your lungs clog up, but as long as you don’t die from silicosis, then what the hell have you got to worry about?”

I would appreciate an investigation into that if the minister would. Thank you.

MUSKOKA AREA EDUCATION COSTS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister now in charge of matters municipal whether he has had communication from the district of Muskoka, whose total education budget announced last week has just jumped 28 per cent, ranging in increases from 24.2 per cent in the Muskoka area itself to 79.2 per cent in Georgian Bay, and an education tax increase from $132.50 to $170.50 on an average property in Muskoka assessed at $22,000?

Can the minister ask for a report as to the reasons for the increase and can he take a look at what is obviously the very difficult financial situation consequent on the creation of the district?

Hon. R. B. Beckett (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the matter that the hon. member has mentioned but I will certainly look into it.

ASSESSMENT ACT CHANGE

Mr. Lewis: I have one more question for the Minister of Revenue. I am chagrined to say I have nothing marginally comic in the absence of the Minister of Tourism and Industry, although he is marginally comic himself.

May I ask the minister what evidence has he of largish amounts of money not being involved in the questions raised by my colleague from High Park? What concrete evidence can the minister give to the House on this assessment question and is he right in the clear and documented observation that tax payments have gone up enormously for the small entrepreneurs in these various malls?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, to the first point, the amendment to the Assessment Act last year would apply only to properties which would come on the market for purpose of assessment for the first time after that. In other words, the other properties’ assessments are frozen. I’m advised there are only seven such malls or shopping centres which have been assessed in the last year or so.

Mr. Shulman: So far.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s the information which has been made available to me to date and the figure, as a very rough estimate, is something around $1 million rather than tens of millions as suggested by the member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: So far.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think we have to remember that this whole business of the shift of tax burden within any particular category -- the commercial sector is another one of them; in the past, I’ve talked of the shift of potential tax burden within the residential class, for example, but this applies to all these classes of assessed property for the purpose of municipal taxation -- will be reviewed by the ministry over the next year or so. If there is a dramatic shift of an inequitable nature within these classes, we will be taking steps to see that that dramatic shift does not occur if such dramatic shift as inequitable.

Mr. Shulman: It has already occurred.

Hon. Mr. Meen: As to the second part of the member’s question, I have not had a chance to look into the actual dollars and cents figures which he has quoted. He gave me some figures last evening and I have passed those along to my staff and asked them for a complete report. I would hope that perhaps next week I will be able to give the House a more complete statement which may be able to involve some exact figures.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that in one small mall alone, in Brantford, the saving to K-Mart was $150,000 which was shifted on to the smaller people, would the minister not agree with me that when this applies to all malls across the province it will not be in the tens of millions, it will be in the hundreds of millions? Does the minister disagree with his own board of assessment chairman who said this was grossly unfair?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Assessment Review Board is not one of my staff. I would suggest that what he was saying was obiter in that sense.

Mr. Shulman: Was what?

Mr. Lewis: Obiter: It’s a legal expression.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s a legal expression, Mr. Speaker. It was not part of the ratio decidendi of the decision,

Mr. Martel: Boy, is the minister ever flying high.

Hon. Mr. Meen: How about that?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Will the minister repeat that?

Hon. Mr. Meen: In any event, he was expressing his own opinion.

Mr. Stokes: The minister had better watch his language.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think he correctly interpreted the legislation. The intention we had last year, and expressed it in this House, was that this would bring some equity into that area of taxation rather than having it on a square foot basis. It gives no recognition whatsoever to valuable space as opposed to less valuable space, if one simply apportions the tax on the basis of the numbers of square feet occupied.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They don’t understand.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is either an admission of stupidity or irresponsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It gives no recognition whatever to the fellow who operates a little kiosk in the middle of a mall.

Mr. Shulman: Neither did the Treasurer. He said so yesterday.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It gives no recognition to the fact that that chap is renting a very small space and getting the use of a much larger space paid for by everyone else.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We know who is hiding behind those glasses. We know it’s the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent). We know why, too.

Hon. Mr. Meen: He would be in a much more preferential position in renting that kind of space in a mall. This approach, as we took it last year, of going to fair market rent for the purpose of apportionment was, in my opinion, a very sound way to approach it.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister going to take some time off the question period?

Hon. Mr. Meen: As I say, the ministries will be examining the impact of this over the next year or so.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have any further questions?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think for the present time --

Mr. Shulman: The companies will go bankrupt.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- it’s a fairer way to do it even if it does result in a reduction in taxes payable by some people.

Mr. Lewis: This is what lawyers would call a ratio decidendi.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have a further question?

OHC LETTER TO TENANTS

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask one further question of the Minister of Housing? Could I ask him to look at the tone and content of a letter sent out June 5, by R. Harwood, the senior area supervisor, district B, relating to Ontario Housing Corp. tenants at 444 Lumsden Ave., involving washing machines and faulty plumbing; ask bins to see whether be thinks the tone and contents of the letter are perhaps both harassing and intimidating; ask him to see whether the insistence of entry into the apartments conforms with the Landlord and Tenant Act; ask him to comment on the last paragraph which says, “If you have a night chain, please leave it unlocked during the above time and date so that it will not be necessary to break the lock”; in other words, ask him to look at the way in which these tenants are being approached and whether even a landlord in the private sector -- God knows I don’t love them all -- behaves in quite such a fashion?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look at it and contact the member directly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

JANITORIAL CONTRACTS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Has the minister looked into the maintenance contracts at the St. Clair College where the Portuguese building maintenance people were not given the contract for janitorial services, despite the fact that their bid was about $80,000 a year, or a quarter of a million dollars over a three-year contract, below all other bids.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for telling me about this last night. I was in touch with the college this morning and I am informed that when the tenders were advertised, the usual notice went in -- that is, that the lowest or any tender would not necessarily be accepted. There were four tenders received. Of these, three offered approximately the same number of cleaning hours per week of cleaning staff time and of these three, the lowest one offered 1,082 hours per week for a contract sum of $234,000. The fourth firm, which I assume is the one to which the hon. member referred, submitted a tender for 800 hours per week for a cost of $153,000. In the opinion of the staff, I assume, this was not felt to be a realistic estimate for the amount of cleaning work that was required so the lowest of the three remaining bids, that is the 1,082 hours for $234,000, was accepted. I probably will have further details on this next week, but I was able to get that information this morning.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister look into the possibility that the other bidders in the contract overbid on the contract, and could have performed the work in substantially fewer hours than they did bid? Would the minister also look into why Portuguese building maintenance were not called in to discuss the contract with the employees after the contract had been awarded?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Those are some of the things I wanted to find out about, Mr. Speaker. I infer from the information I received that they have had work done previously, and that about 1,000 hours is about what they feel it takes to do it properly. But I will confirm that and I will have the information next week.

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

OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the absence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells): Is she aware of a memorandum sent out by the Minister of Education on Nov. 2, 1973? This is in regard to equal employment and promotional opportunities for women in which he points out that it is a “well-known fact that relatively small numbers of women teachers have been assigned positions of responsibility,” and he goes on to say that he knows that the local boards will make decisions that will remedy this situation. Has he returned to the policy secretariat for advice and consultation about further steps that the ministry might take in view of the fact that in 1973, when the memo was sent out, there were 296 women principals in the public elementary system, but only 290 after he sent out the memo -- in other words, a decline of six -- and in the separate school system there was a decline of two per cent after he sent out the memo, and in the secondary system there was an increase of 0.3 per cent after he sent out the memo? What steps is this government taking to escalate the programme so that women are given positions of responsibility in our school system in Ontario?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I’ll take that question as notice. As I’m sure the member is aware, there is a very active affirmative action programme throughout the whole government at this moment. But I will take that question as notice and get the information from the Minister of Education.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, if I might, Mr. Speaker: Am I correct in assuming that the affirmative action programme the minister talks about extends not just within the ministries of the government but into other sectors, including the school system which is run by independent boards? Doesn’t the minister feel just a little bit discouraged by the results of the minister’s memo?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, yes, I may be discouraged but I’m sure the hon. member is well aware that the school boards of this province are autonomous and that all that the Ministry of Education can do at this moment is to encourage more women to become involved and to encourage the school boards to offer these positions to more women.

Mr. Foulds: A final supplementary: Would it not be possible for the ministry to offer incentives to women to take principals’ courses, for example, over the summer months? I would like to see proportional enrolment in this summer’s principals’ course and recommendation of the government’s principle.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Colleges and Universities has the answer to a question asked previously.

CONESTOGA COLLEGE DISMISSALS

Hon. Mr. Auld: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. member for Kitchener asked me several questions about Conestoga community college and whether the faculty and staff had been informed of the details of their financial situation and the plans that were being made to deal with it. I’m told that on June 12, the president, Mr. Hunter, presented his proposals and all the financial calculations to support them to a subcommittee of the board of governors at a meeting which lasted some seven hours. On June 18, he presented the same information to the entire college community, the faculty and staff which had been requested to meet at the Doon centre for that purpose. That was a five-hour meeting.

On June 23, there was a formal meeting of the board in the town hall at Harriston. This was an open meeting, with press and spectators, including faculty and support staff, being welcome to attend. That meeting commenced at 7 p.m. and lasted until midnight. At that meeting the board heard presentations from interested groups which, of course, included faculty and support staff. This was followed by a press conference at 9 a.m. the following day. I just have one copy of it here. The material that was made available to the faculty and board and press is some 21 pages. I was interested to note that the information of the member for Scarborough West included the results for 1974-1975 which predicted an unaudited deficit of $350,000. I think the hon. member yesterday suggested that there was a surplus.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, of $118,000.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This information includes the original proposal that the administration had to deal with its financial position and what is referred to as a faculty counterproposal, a three-year recovery plan modified from the faculty proposal which was the one which the president recommended to the board. If the hon. member would like this information, as I say, I have one copy of it. It’s quite thorough in terms of Judge Estey’s report on work hours, the financial position, surpluses and so on.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if the minister would simply table it, it would be available then to whomsoever might be interested.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would like also to say, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday I said that the cleaning job had been put out to tender but there had been no final decision on it. I was incorrect, Mr. Speaker. No final decision has been made but the cleaning services work has not yet gone to tender. What has happened is that an ad hoc committee was set up consisting of members of the board of governors and the administration and the janitorial staff. They were given authority to study the question of the contracting out of the janitorial services and if they found it would result in more economical cleaning, to go ahead and advertise for bids.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Supplementary: In view of all the administrative and financial problems that Conestoga college has experienced recently, could the minister tell where that leaves the proposed construction of the recreational complex so badly needed at the college? What effect is all this going to have on that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I told representatives of the college, when cabinet was in Kitchener a couple of weeks ago, that we were still anxious to see them complete their plans by the addition of the recreational facilities but inasmuch as they were not involved in specific courses and there were still academic facilities required in some of the other colleges around the province, it would probably be a couple of years before we could consider the capital amount required there. Some of the colleges, of course, as the hon. member knows, proceeded rapidly enough that before the capital moratorium in 1972 they were able to construct some or all of the athletic facilities they proposed to have. Others were not so fortunate and subsequent to that time only one college, I believe, has had capital funds allocated to it for recreational facilities. I believe that is Durham college and it was because of a joint community and college need, and some courses.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

MURDERS IN TORONTO

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Since the number of murders in Metropolitan Toronto has almost doubled this year, has the minister any records or anything to show whether the murder cases are tied in with drug situations? In many cases in the United States they have found this was the case, Is the minister doing any research as to whether he can tie in the murders with the drug traffic in the Metropolitan area?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): I may not be clear on the question. I take it the hon. member would like to know --

Mr. Ruston: Drug related.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- if these murders are drug related and, if so, the proportion which are drug related? Is that it?

Mr. Ruston: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I don’t have that information. I think it would be readily available. Many of the capital charges which have arisen in 1975 have not yet proceeded to trial. That information would undoubtedly be available. If the hon. member would like to obtain that information, I would be glad to get it for him and pass it on; at least that which can be disclosed at this particular time, because they haven’t been tried yet.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

ASSISTANCE TO CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mr. Martel: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: The recent Supreme Court decision involving David Bruyn allowed a 15-year-old to obtain financial assistance for vocational rehabilitation services. Is there any truth to the suggestion that the ministry is now considering writing age limitations into the vocational rehabilitation services, particularly at age 16?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, the question was raised in the House a couple of weeks ago and I indicated at that time that we certainly recognize the need to provide services to children with learning disabilities. I indicated at that time that this matter is before the social development field. It involves the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and my ministry, and the matter is being actively reviewed by the social policy field. As a matter of fact, there is a meeting on right now with staff discussing this very thing so the matter is under very active consideration.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: Is it the minister’s hope, at least, that the Ministry of Education will pick up this responsibility and provide the education facilities for the roughly 200,000 people who are handicapped in this fashion?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter, as I said, which is being actively considered. There are many who feel that children of school age should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, but something will definitely be finalized in the near future.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

SUBSIDIES TO MUNICIPALITIES FOR BICYCLE PATHS

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources, if he could move to his seat. The question is: Since many municipalities have applied for subsidies from the province for bicycle paths but have been unsuccessful and, because of provincial inaction on this matter of provincial trails, Metro Toronto has recently approved a $100,000 programme for a system of bikeways in the city, will the minister now establish a trails council and develop proposals to provide for public trails in the province, including the bikeways in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the entire question of a comprehensive trails programme is being looked at by the new Ontario Trails Council. You will recall that the province last year in a very ambitious programme, came up with a $1-million snowmobile trails programme. A decision to carry on with that particular programme in the coming year has not been made yet; we are looking for some reaction from the Trails Council. Any policy that we establish will await the input of the Ontario Trails Council, which now is formed and will be sitting very, very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

DUMP TRUCK OPERATORS’ AGREEMENTS

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Martel: If he would just sit still.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Boy, he’s in for it now.

Mr. Young: I will say about this minister that he is generally in his seat for question period, for which we give him full marks.

An hon. member: He just rode in on his moped.

Mr. Young: I want to thank him for the answer which he gave me this morning, but I want to ask a further question.

The contract to which he referred, and which we have been discussing, does not guarantee any work to the haulers and, according to the terms, the contractor may set off against any amount owing by it to the operator pursuant to this agreement, “the amount of any loss or damage sustained by the contractor by reason of failure of the operator to provide trucks” -- this is in the opinion of a contractor. At 9:30 this morning, I found out by telephone that O’Leary’s are still demanding the signing of this contract as a condition of employment and that McFarland and Beaver Asphalt are demanding a modified contract, which is not exactly the same as this.

Since the minister is subsidizing these contracts in large measure and since, I believe, some of these companies do business directly with his ministry, I wonder if the minister is going to take any further action that is suggested here, that the truckers should ask legal advice, since this involves them in very expensive and payment-delaying litigation?

In view of all these things, I wonder if the minister would not take it upon himself to see that these contracts are not only made null and void but that they no longer are required by truckers?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the legal advice that I have received says that as far as those contracts which we subsidize municipal contracts, are concerned, we really don’t have any sort of control in this area over these individual contracts that are a little farther down the line. We supply the subsidy, the municipality goes ahead and hires its contractors, and then the contractor makes whatever deals he has to with the truckers. We apparently don’t have input in this area.

We are still looking at what we can do in this area, even to the point where I have said that I would like to include a condition in our standard contract forms and specifications. The lawyers in my ministry tell me that this is not a very easy thing to do, because we are dealing with a contract that is away down the line and away from the contracts that we are involved with.

As I have said to the hon. member earlier, this particular contract he has shown me, I think, is a detestable sort of thing. I regret that there are people who are trying to use this sort of contract, although again some of the advice I have is that it wouldn’t stand up in court at all. I am a little bit in a bind as to know exactly what to do and how to overcome this legal situation.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Again?

Mr. Young: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would consider --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We had a very long question and a fairly lengthy answer. We are just about out of time; there are other people who want to ask questions, so make it short, please.

Mr. Young: I wonder if the minister would consider his ministry backing one of these truckers in taking a case to court and fighting it through to establish legality of the contract or otherwise.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly consider that possibility.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

CONSTRUCTION OF MODULAR HOUSING

Mr. Sargent: A question of the Minister of Housing --

Mr. Henderson: Good to have the member for Grey-Bruce back.

Mr. Sargent: I am glad to be anywhere.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member is lucky to be anywhere.

Mr. Speaker: Time is fleeting. Will the member proceed with his question, please?

Mr. Sargent: To the Minister of Housing: With regard to the decision of RCA Victor to close down its new $5-million cabinet plant in Owen Sound -- and the same in Midland -- 350 employees are going to be out of work in Owen Sound this fall --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Get more money for housing from Ottawa.

Mr. Sargent: Well, I am coming to that.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: That’s good.

Mr. Sargent: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa and RCA Victor. They want to have some dialogue as to the possibility of a crash programme on modular housing -- adapting these plants to modular housing and mobile home building. Would the minister consider discussion between his ministry and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism to see if we can get that joint programme working for these two areas, Owen Sound and Midland?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would consider talking to anyone. If the hon. member wishes to bring them in, I would be happy to meet with them. I just hope that RCA doesn’t close the plant in Prescott.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Sargent: Here’s a chance for the minister to look good for once now. Is he in favour of the idea?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question.

Mr. Sargent: Is the minister in favour of the idea?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’ll discuss it with them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

HOSPITAL DISPUTES INQUIRY

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: When will the recommendations of the Hospital Disputes Inquiry Commission, which reported last February, start to bear fruit and come into effect -- particularly on those recommendations dealing with a province-wide evaluation scheme?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the ministry is working on those at the present time. Some of them are already in effect and the remaining recommendations will be coming in due course.

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

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

DRAINAGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart, moves first reading of bill intituled, the Drainage Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, this bill revokes the present Drainage Act and re-enacts it in a more sequential, logical and updated format. Within the bill, members of the House will recognize many of the excellent recommendations of the select committee on land drainage chaired by the member for Lambton, that great representative from southwestern Ontario.

Mr. Sargent: We are going to miss him.

Mr. Lewis: When the member for Lambton comes into this House he should put on a tie.

Mr. Sargent: Take the member for Grey South along.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: What was that crack?

Mr. Sargent: They had the nomination in Grey South the other night. The minister knows his days are numbered. He has had it here.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I wonder if the member for Grey-Bruce is concerned because the ex-member, Mr. Whicher, is going to be running against him, on invitation?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; can we get on with the business of the House? Thank you.

Mr. Good: He won’t get five votes in Huron.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It should be pointed out that the Drainage Act comes into effect wherever a drainage works involves two or more landowners. A companion piece of legislation, the Tile Drainage Act, refers only to drainage work done on an individual landowner’s property. Under the Drainage Act, 1975, we have made provisions for petition procedures to be more equitable to the principal landowners with a stake in the drainage proposal, namely the owners of 60 per cent of the land requiring drainage can now present a valid petition.

A further provision in the Act allows for a preliminary engineer’s report on a proposed drainage works before the interested parties have to proceed with the expense of the detailed engineer’s report. In this regard, an on-site survey of the drainage site by all interested parties will now become a routine matter of procedure with each drainage proposal. This will allow for a gross analysis of the viability of the project by everyone concerned.

One item of the bill provides for provincial grants to be used to pay drainage superintendents to supervise the maintenance and repair of the drainage works. The appointment of the drainage superintendent remains a municipal responsibility.

Another item in the bill allows for the establishment of an Ontario Drainage Tribunal to look into appeals on the technical aspects of drainage. Prior to the new bill, the drainage referee or a county court judge handled all technical and legal matters. Now the jurisdiction of the drainage referee is restricted to matters of law. This should speed up the appeal procedure, while at the same time providing for a much fairer and more precise method of determining the extent of a drainage problem.

Further, on economic matters, maintenance and repair costs are now eligible for the same grants as new construction projects.

TILE DRAINAGE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart, moves the first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Tile Drainage Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in order that individual farmers might have the opportunity to receive more equitable treatment from local municipalities regarding loans for farm drainage purposes, the amended Act allows for appeals to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal.

This is the same tribunal as constituted under the Drainage Act, 1975. The wide fluctuation in the loaning procedures within individual Ontario municipalities led to situations where farmers were not being treated in a uniform manner. Prior to the amended Act, the farmer had no grievance procedure open to him if he felt he was being dealt with in an unfair manner by a local municipality regarding a tile loan.

A new section under the amended Act now makes it possible for the four per cent subsidized tile drainage loans up to 75 per cent of the full cost to apply to persons in territories without municipal organizations. This will provide a financial impetus to northern Ontario farmers to improve their land through the use of tile drainage.

PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS NEGOTIATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves the first reading of bill intituled An Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between the Provincial Schools Authority and Teachers.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, this bill makes the provisions of Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, 1975, with appropriate changes, apply to the 749 teachers employed under contract in schools operated by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ministry of Health.

The Act establishes a Provincial Schools Authority Council to employ teachers. For this purpose the authority will have the powers of a school board. The teachers will cease to be Crown employees and will be employed under the standard form of teachers’ contract and be subject to part IX of the Education Act, 1974, which outlines the duties of teachers, provides for the form of contract and establishes the rights of teachers with regard to boards of reference.

The teachers will negotiate as a single unit with the Provincial Schools Authority. Negotiations will follow the same procedure as established in Bill 100; and the teachers’ employee organization and the authority will be treated as a branch affiliate and the school board respectively under Bill 100.

The Education Relations Commission established under Bill 100 will also be responsible for monitoring and; assisting in negotiations between the authority and the provincial schools’ teachers.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be able to bring this bill to the House. I think it rounds out completely this government’s policy of establishing orderly procedures to further harmonious bargaining in relations between members of the teaching profession in the schools of this province and their employers.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 75, An Act to reform certain Laws founded upon Marital or Family Relationships.

Bill 86, An Act to provide for an Ombudsman to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of the Government of Ontario and its Agencies.

Clerk of the House: Orders 36 to 44, inclusive; concurrence in supply.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:

Ministry of Revenue;

Ministry of Community and Social Services;

Ministry of Colleges and Universities;

Ministry of Transportation and Communications:

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations;

Office of the Provincial Auditor;

Office of the Assembly;

Management Board of Cabinet;

Ministry of the Environment.

Clerk of the House: The 4th order, House in committee of the whole.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Chairman: The last time we sat in the committee of the whole House on this bill we were on section 6(1) and the member for Sudbury East was speaking.

On section 6:

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Chairman, last evening my colleague moved an amendment raising the amounts payable to 100 per cent as opposed to 75 per cent, and he presented a number of arguments.

I want to raise with the minister, if I could, a question on what seems to me to be a most unfair practice. It is my understanding that in much of industry if you are in a managerial capacity, if you are shift boss or if you are in any type of managerial capacity whatsoever, the company pays the full salary to the employee and the Workmen’s Compensation Board then pays management the 75 per cent.

The minister might say if that is the case, if it is true -- I suspect it is and I understand various companies do this. It is not a board decision and therefore you can’t interfere. If the minister doesn’t introduce the 100 per cent clause then we’re building in -- or we continue to build in or retain -- a class system by which if you’re with management your benefits are greater and if you’re not with management your income during injury is considerably less.

I understand with the federal government -- and again I ask for clarification -- the full salary is sent home to those who are on salary and you simply make a paper transaction, I guess, until the end of the year, which would indicate there is 75 per cent being paid to management in that situation as well. The employee gets 100 per cent.

If those things are correct, it seems to me that management is willing to see that it’s shift bosses or whatever type of managerial force they are, receive 100 per cent -- because they pay it. Why isn’t it fair? The employee who is on an hourly rate is not entitled to 100 per cent of his pay during the period which he is injured. Management pays it both ways, Mr. Minister. One, they pay it directly in salary, and as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, you simply send 75 per cent to them; management is paying that tab. But for the hourly-rated man, it’s only 75 per cent.

If I’m right, Mr. Minister, you have no right in the world -- and I don’t care what the other provinces have -- saying there will be that differential. If management is willing to do it for management and managerial staff, it should be willing to do it for the employees. The same thing applies even in sick pay, you know. A man gets his regular pay when he is on staff.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Of 100 per cent?

Mr. Martel: Yes, 100 per cent; but if an employee is out, he’s supposed to be able to get by on less I’ve never been able to understand the logic and somewhere some government is going to have the courage to rectify that and say if management personnel are entitled to 100 per cent during their convalescence, so are the employees.

I would ask the minister to confirm whether I’m right or wrong. If I’m right I would like to know, because management is paying for the full shot, why he isn’t willing to assess a little more against management so the employees get the same benefits as management?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether the member for Sudbury East is right or wrong but all company practices, and I think he will be the first to admit it, are not necessarily fair. Because one company does it or a number of companies do it, it doesn’t make it right. I don’t know anything which prohibits them from doing that if they wish to do so.

Mr. Martel: Doesn’t the minister agree that if management of a company is willing to ensure that the management, the shift bosses and so on, get 100 per cent by having the management receive their salaries directly from the company, with the company receiving the payment from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, if that management is willing to have its management receive 100 per cent, should not the employees of those companies also be entitled to full benefits while they are convalescing? In a sense of fairness, I ask the minister would it not seem logical that the employees should be entitled to the same 100 per cent? The amounts are different, granted, but shouldn’t they both be entitled to 100 per cent?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I think some companies do pay 100 per cent to both wage earners and managerial people if injury happens to them or they are away sick. I say it’s an individual company practice and what one company does, if they differentiate, doesn’t necessarily make it right and really has no bearing on what the government does in the matter. Because one company may discriminate it has really no bearing on what the government does. You’re saying because a company does this, that is the policy the government should follow. The policy the company adopts may be quite wrong as far as we’re concerned.

Mr. Martel: I am not suggesting that. Your concern, of course, always is that you can over-assess management -- we’ve heard you say that many times -- because ultimately they pay the bill for compensation. My position is --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It is not management that pays the bill; it is people who pay the bill.

Mr. Martel: Well okay, people pay the bill; that is all the more reason why it should be equitable. But if I say management pays the bill and if management is willing to pay the differential to its staff, particularly those who are in managerial capacities, whether they be a shift boss or something along that line, surely then we should be in a similar position and say that management pays the full shot anyway -- and you can bring it one step further and say it is the people -- but if management is willing to pay it for one class of people, surely a little higher assessment of management -- which is going to be the people anyway -- should be made by this ministry to guarantee that everyone is treated the same. But we know they aren’t treated the same; and for the few companies that pass it on to their employees I would suggest there are a lot more that pass it on to their managerial staff as opposed to their hourly-rated employees.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I can add anything to what I have already said. Some companies, I understand, do make a practice of paying 100 per cent. Some may just pick out the managerial people, and some may pick out both and pay it both to the hourly-rated people and the salaried people. But that is a matter of company practice.

As I say, just because one company does it, doesn’t necessarily make it right or wrong; that is no reason for us changing our policy of paying 75 per cent for the various reasons I have already discussed.

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

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to add a few comments to the amendment put forth by the member for Windsor West (Mr. Bounsall). I was noting the comments the Minister of Labour had placed before the committee last night dealing with it. Dealing with the 100 per cent increase, he said he couldn’t quite buy it and he said: “It just doesn’t stop when a person gets 60 or 65 years or anything else.”

I suppose what he was trying to convey to the members was that the compensation will continue to the age of 70 or perhaps beyond that. But I think when he makes that statement, he must take into consideration that if a person suffers an occupational disease or other injuries in industry, he will have lost that income for a period of perhaps 30 years. In other words, what I am saying is that he is disentitled from a company pension. In fact, he may be disentitled from a Canada Pension as a result.

When the minister states that it continues, he shouldn’t forget that if he hadn’t been injured he would have had those benefits from that other source, his pension. So you are riot saying that we are giving him something here for nothing. He is entitled to that, and rightly so. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good), mentioned last night, I believe, that we put forth the suggestion here a year ago that we thought 85 per cent was a reasonable approach to equity in the pension benefits paid to injured persons. I suppose if I took 85 per cent of the $15,000, which is the maximum now set under the Act, what such a person would get after he paid income tax would be a little over $12,000. That is a reasonable approach.

I suppose if you take into consideration another person who is earning an income of $7,000 or $8,000 and who has a family of two children, that 75 per cent is inequitable. It just doesn’t provide the benefits to him. In a sense, he is being shortchanged, and by a considerable amount of money, as has been mentioned by the member for Windsor West.

I think there has to be an increase in the 75 per cent. Whether 100 per cent is acceptable or not by the minister is debatable. I would suggest to him that maybe he would accept the amendment to 85 per cent, which would be agreeable, I think, to persons working in industry and even to management. I think you have to take into consideration the different cost of living today.

If we go back to your other amendments, the two per cent and the 10 per cent increase, they don’t even cover the cost of living. If you go back a period of 10 or 15 years, they tell me the price index from that period has increased by about 54 per cent. I think is the figure that has been kicked around.

If you really want to do something here -- and I’m sure that you can and it isn’t going to cost industry that much -- move at least to 85 per cent. I think that would be agreeable to all members of the House in this particular instance.

It’s well to say there are other benefits that a person receives when he’s on compensation, but I think you have to look at the other things he loses when he’s on compensation, the Canada Pension Plan and perhaps his own private pension scheme. He shouldn’t have to give those up or sacrifice those because he’s injured. It shouldn’t have to be that way. I suggest to the minister -- and I’m sure he is reasonable -- that he can accept 85 per cent.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Chairman, I have just a few further remarks on this. It’s clear from the calculations I have made that 85 per cent for most cases is still inequitable, and that still does not make up the difference in what a worker would have been receiving if his income was taxed, as opposed to 85 per cent of it non-taxable. It still does not make up the difference. If the ministry is refusing to see the equality argument and refusing to acknowledge the equality argument that’s made with respect to this whole question that is before us, I invited them last night to devise a sliding scale of percentages, which in most cases would be well above 85 per cent to ensure there is equality and as small a loss as possible.

By not accepting it, the minister is just refusing to be at all equitable here. As I pointed out before, the bigger the family, that is the greater the number of dependents, then the more inequitable the scheme is. You and the board have no reason to go around this province or anywhere else talking about the Workmen’s Compensation scheme which you have as being something good at all, when that basic inequity is so clearly there. It matters not to point to other jurisdictions and say, they have the 75 per cent provision too. You just want to ensure that you are continually being as inequitable as those other jurisdictions.

As long as you continue to be inequitable over this point, you have no right to go around talking about the worth of your Workmen’s Compensation scheme. You are continuing to penalize the worker for being injured in the workplace, and the more dependents he has the more you are willing to penalize him. That simply is not good enough.

I’d like to pick up on the same question which the member for Sudbury East mentioned just a few minutes ago with respect to employers who see that their salaried personnel, their supervisory and management personnel, receive their full pay. The board must know -- and this is a statistic we would ask the board to produce some time -- the employers and the companies to which they send their Workmen’s Compensation cheques rather than to the injured workman. I would ask the minister to ensure that the Workmen’s Compensation Board report to us and indicate to us those employers who in fact are paying their supervisory staff in this manner, what percentage of employers therefore are doing that in the province; and what percentage of the workers in this province who are covered by workmen’s compensation are represented by these employers.

I suspect it is the large employers who have this particular arrangement going, as opposed to the small ones. If there is only maybe, say, 50 per cent of the employers engaged in this practice, to pick a figure, it probably covers something like 80 or 85 per cent, therefore, of the workers participating in this plan.

To indicate how reasonable these suggestions are, the Canadian Union of Public Employees has not encountered that much difficulty, in bargaining for its collective agreements across this province, in seeing that provisions introduced into contracts on behalf of their employees they represent in the bargaining unit.

Both the inside and outside workers at city hall in Windsor and the members of the board of education in Windsor, represented by CUPE, have this in the bargaining agreement. In talking with them, it was no great fight in the initial instance to get it in. The agreement is that the net pay to the employer be the same and the Workmen’s Compensation Board simply pays to the employer the cheque on behalf of the employee. That’s exactly the case in the board of education, and the employer pays the same net pay to the employee.

I think in the situation in the city of Windsor, having looked at the total expenditures which they make for all of their employees, they have chosen to cover the employees themselves, but have made that arrangement with them that they will pay the net pay.

They use the Workmen’s Compensation Board to determine the degree of compensation, or that the injury is compensable. But, whether or not an employer, having looked at the situation and deciding whether to cover it itself or go through the board, there are many employers in this province who, with their bargaining agents, have agreed that for all of their workers they will see that they obtain their net pay. These have not been that difficult to obtain.

So, the employers in this province recognize the argument that is put forward that it’s inequitable to pay simply the 75 per cent and have it non-taxable. It’s also a bit of saving involved for the employer, because by agreeing to pay the net rather than the gross, the employer in fact saves the amount of the additional federal tax and provincial tax, presumably, which the employee would otherwise save. There is a net saving to the employer’s payroll for each individual by the amount of the tax saving for those who set it up that way. There is a small incentive there to the employer to engage in this. It’s deemed to be a reasonable provision.

The board should make this a widespread provision right across the Province of Ontario. It should be 100 per cent, or the ministry should devise a sliding scale. It would not be difficult for actuaries to take into account the number of dependents. That can be built into it as well; so that their actual pay is equal to or very close to what their net pay was before the injury occurred.

For the government not to do this, I feel, is irresponsible and a needless harassment of the injured workers in the Province of Ontario; a needless discrimination against those workers.

I personally feel the amendment to 100 per cent is a reasonable one. I have said to the ministry, “You devise a sliding scale which satisfies us and we would accept that.” I still defend the 100 per cent on the basis that if this results in the worker taking home a little more money than he did before he was injured this would not upset us because of the obvious human problems involved and associated with an injury -- the frustrations, the worry, the pain, and the suffering. We would not object to seeing a worker get $10 or $12 a week more for the period of his injury to offset the problems which result from that injury.

Many of these injuries are not such that the man or woman can simply stay at home in bed; they are hospitalized at site not in the community. Often communities do not have specialized medical facilities for the treatment of a particular injury. Although the board pays for the worker, the injured person, to go to that medical facility for his treatment, it does not have any mechanism for paying for the family to visit that injured workman. They often have fairly lengthy stays in that hospital at a distant point.

If you want to make an argument on extra funds that is a fairly compelling one for many people in this province. The family of that injured workman must pay its own travel expenses in order to visit that injured workman and in some cases it means staying a day or two, overnight, in a hotel or motel in a city quite a distance from where they reside. Those additional accommodation and food expenses over what it would cost them to eat in their own home are increased costs which a factor of 100 per cent probably would not be sufficient to cover.

The minister seems to be damned in his ideas on this 75 per cent. I suggest to the minister that he think of all the arguments which can be made for this and have been made for this and to bring forth amendments. If he won’t accept it this year let’s see them a year from now, so that this obviously severe inequity and this obvious discrimination are removed from this particular part of the operation of the board.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my friend whether he is referring to both temporary and permanent injury or would he suggest a sliding scale just for the temporary people?

Mr. Bounsall: In answer to that question, I think -- I am pretty sure -- I am talking of both. The permanent injury -- and by that I am referring to permanent partial injury -- pension which is accorded, I feel definitely should be based on 100 per cent of that worker’s earnings rather than 75 per cent. You can then adjust that according to the cost of living as time goes on or better still the percentage increase in salaries and wages as the years go on.

I think it certainly should be given quite clearly to those who are permanently partially disabled. That’s when they need it the most; when they are in and out of hospital and then their families are visiting them. I still feel it is inequitable for the partials which become permanent and a pension results. I feel it should also pertain in all fields where there is temporary partial disability and the employee is still not on the job and still not able to make his earnings.

In the minister’s mind am I missing a category I should be covering? Does the minister have another category in mind that --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, no; I can give perhaps some argument that is temporary. I am having a hard time buying anything for the permanent, and when you look at your sliding scale I wonder what other income you would take into account. You see my concern here all the way through is, I sympathize with what you are trying to say for the minimum recipient, but so many of these people, and I would say the majority of them, particularly on permanent, have other sources of income. Some are well to do people. You talk about inequities, inequities can work on the other end of the scale. We are making a law for everybody, and with strength and conviction and sincerity the opposition is pointing out the hardship cases; but there are people who are reasonably well to do who receive these workmen’s compensation benefits.

This, for them, particularly when it is non-taxable, is just -- I don’t like to use the word gravy -- but it is extra money. In other words, they have gone on to obtain other employment and they are getting full salary there, and then they suddenly get a payment from workmen’s compensation that is tax free. I know your argument to that is that it should all be taxable, and maybe that is correct, that it should be fully taxable. Of course, in that case then, unless all the other provinces adopted a similar thing, it would again be the Ontario taxpayer who was picking up the cost of it.

We want to be equitable, but you are looking, as I say, and basing the argument for changing the whole law on people who suffer at the bottom end; and I have not at any time suggested that there are not some who do suffer. But at the same time, there are many people receiving workmen’s compensation benefits of one sort or another who are reasonably well off.

Mr. Bounsall: In reply, I think the minister will concede -- I think he has conceded it here this morning -- that someone who is on temporary disability --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: When I say temporary, that is probably his only source of income.

Mr. Bounsall: All right. So I think the minister has conceded there is some injustice there and that should be looked at.

All right. Let’s look at a permanent total disability. We know how hard it is for an employee to qualify for that. He is really not able to do anything. He also has no income that can come from his own efforts. That is how he becomes classified as permanently totally disabled.

But the other category which the minister mentions is those who are on permanent partial disability. All right, those are the persons for whom a pension has been fixed. If it is a back injury and it improves to the point where he or she may be able to return to the workplace, in many cases it is going to be at a decreased job. Certainly if he or she returns to the same job, a job which they perform with a great degree of difficulty, they may be able to get through it. But in those positions where that permanent pension has been granted, we are talking about a percentage that is settled on according to your rating system for injuries, and for a back it is what -- an average figure might be 20 per cent? What I am saying is, they are getting that for life because of that injury, and at the moment it is 20 per cent of 75 per cent. They don’t get the whole 75 per cent of their average earnings. What we are saying is that it is reasonable that that should be 20 per cent of 100 per cent. It is the base on which you take it. If it is determined that that injury is a 20 per cent one, or an 18 per cent one, or a 27 per cent one, or whatever it is, and that is residual for the rest of his lifetime, that should be based on 100 per cent of his earnings that accrued at the time of the injury, with whatever other factors you might add with time, like adjustments for the consumer price index. That should be 100 per cent and not simply 75 per cent.

What frustrates me about the minister, when we get into this part of the argument, is that you pick out cases and mention someone who is earning a high salary, a young person in the executive field who has injured his back then gets repaired but he has perhaps got a 20 per cent injury for the rest of his life. That does not impede bins from taking up a desk job in the same executive capacity for the rest of his life at a fairly high salary.

You are saying of that person that it is inequitable to be paying him a pension of 20 per cent of 75 per cent or even 20 per cent of 100 per cent, because he is now able to proceed and have good earnings for the rest of his lifetime. That is what makes it a welfare scheme, the very thing about which you object to the Workmen’s Compensation Board becoming.

You argue there are some people who because of their position thereafter, are not hampered by the injury. It doesn’t decrease their earnings and therefore they continue to make good earnings. You are arguing that it’s inequitable for those persons to receive that pension. When you start looking at inequalities of that sort and whether the person needs that particular permanent pension which comes from that partial permanent disability, it’s you who are making the welfare scheme out of it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We are arguing whether or not it has to be tax-free. That was one of the arguments we were making -- that it was not 100 per cent because it was not subject to income tax. I am saying that to get a balance we are trying to get an average position. You, of course, are giving the cases at the low line and that’s your responsibility and right and duty. I am trying to point to some at the other end of the scheme, where this might be inequitable at the other end of the scale. What I am asking you, the question I asked was what do you base this sliding scale on? Do you base it on their income from the Workmen’s Compensation Board or on their overall income?

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Minister, if you take it on anything other than their income from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, you and the board are making a charity out of this rather than making the scheme as it was intended to be -- as Justice Roach commented -- to replace earnings lost in the workplace as a result of an injury. When you get into that it is you who are making the welfare scheme out of it, not us.

In reply to your question; yes, it should be 100 per cent taxable on the Workmen’s Compensation Board earnings and you don’t take into account any other income which they may be able to get or the fact that in spite of their injury they may have got themselves into a job which pays them fairly well. Make it 100 per cent and make it taxable.

I didn’t just talk about the hardship cases in the figures I gave. I asked you whether you felt it was inequitable for someone making the maximum which this amended Act proposes $15,000 or very close to $ 15,000 -- I have figures for $14,560 -- to receive the three-quarters amount non-taxable as opposed to the 100 per cent of it taxable. For a single person the weekly difference in payment is $37.47; for a married man with two children but wife working it is $38.82 on a weekly basis they are losing; for a man with a wife not working, and two children $49.02; and for a man and wife not working, and four dependent children, an amount of $52.

That’s at the high end of the scale; that’s not necessarily what you would call the hardship cases. Those are the amounts per week that a person in that position is losing -- from a single person, $37.47, to a man with a dependent wife and four dependent children, $52. This is what is the monetary loss per week; it’s fairly substantial. I am saying that loss is unjust.

It should be 100 per cent taxable. If you can’t get agreement with the other provinces, just change the federal income tax scheme to make it 100 per cent and taxable; then devise your sliding scale so that whatever per cent you pay on a non-taxable basis is equal to what the taxable earnings would be at the 100 per cent level. It’s clearly not there. lion don’t take into account that maybe they have income from other sources or, as in the case of two or three of my colleagues in this caucus who were involved in accidents before they came into this Legislature that maybe they have another form of work which pays them a salary.

You don’t take that into account because when you do take that into account in your thinking, then you are looking at it in the way in which you claim you don’t want to look at it -- making a welfare scheme out of it. You are looking at it in terms of whether or not the person absolutely needs it, rather than on the basis of equality. So many of them really need it. By far the vast majority need it.

You are talking about the few instances where you have a person who doesn’t need it who’s in that category. Those are much, much fewer -- including the inequality -- relative to all those who actually need that pension.

What I am arguing is that you don’t consider need at all in a scheme that is to replace a worker’s earnings for the salary loss in the workplace as a result of that injury or to pay to that worker, because of an injury in the workplace, a permanent pension as a result of that residual partial permanent disability which he or she will have for the rest of his or her lifetime. You just don’t get into looking at it, if the scheme is to work as originally devised and which Justice Roach would like to see happen, as to whether or not that person needs it at some particular point in their lifetime.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say one or two words on it. I have gone over the arguments as to why I thought that the 75 per cent was reasonable. I know you don’t accept them, but that doesn’t make them invalid arguments. We feel that in most cases 75 per cent is a reasonable figure, particularly with the federal tax being the way it is. If all payments were taxable, and this was common across the whole country, I could see some merit in the proposal; but for Ontario to take that position alone would be wrong, I think. If we were all doing it, as I say, I could see some merit in it.

Again, when I say you are looking at it as a welfare Act, you are looking at those cases -- even in the cases you gave for your income tax positions -- on the basis that there was no other income. Our information, although it’s incomplete -- we tried to gather a little information about it, but in some cases the recipients to whom we sent out questionnaires replied that it was none of our business -- and they are right when they say that. But the replies to some of the questionnaires that were sent out would indicate that they have other sources of income, and the majority of people who receive some sort of workmen’s compensation benefits do have other sources of income. You are suggesting that the majority do not, and you are always using the worst cases, as is right when you are presenting your argument to us; but I have to hit the average or the median case somewhere, and that’s what we are trying to do.

Again, both opposition parties are suggesting that industry pays the shot for this and that industry has got some great well that it can go into, and since it’s making lots of money anyway, a few more dollars to the Workmen’s Compensation Board is not going to make any difference. Again, in some cases that is right, but there are a lot of small businesses that find any additional expense, even though it’s only 0.2 per cent or something else, is just one more of the costs of doing business.

I would remind you again of the person who is unable to work through some natural cause such as a heart attack and how he stands against somebody who is injured through a work-oriented accident. Now the two of them are there; both of them pick up the bills for workmen’s compensation. The one man who happens to be in the position of receiving workmen’s compensation benefit is 100 per cent better off than his counterpart who may have some physical weakness in his body that puts him in that position. Yet the man who was receiving nothing in workmen’s compensation is also one of those who is paying for workmen’s compensation. This is the point that I can’t seem to get across to any of the opposition who feel that, all right, it is just industry which pays. It is everybody -- it is you and I and everybody. So, we are trying to do what is right for the majority of people.

That’s why I was intrigued by the suggestion of the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Gisborn). When I say intrigued, it is not a new suggestion, but I think it is a reasonable suggestion and a suggestion that maybe, when we can afford to, we will have to come to; where there is overall coverage for all people regardless of what causes their injuries. I am saying today that the Workmen’s Compensation Board does give good benefits, but some of the people who are paying for it are less able to pay for it than some people who are receiving it.

This is the kind of inequity, by the member’s argument, that can be created. I follow the argument; I sympathize with it. As a government, we would like to pay 100 per cent and maybe something additional for people, although we certainly don’t want to encourage people to be injured. I follow the member’s argument but we have a responsibility to the whole cross-section of society and we have to keep some balance in mind. And this is what, of course, we are trying to do.

Then there is the other side of all these arguments, too. They are rare cases, but there are some -- and the board comes across them from time to time -- where there are people who abuse the system. If you make it more attractive to stay off work, then the temptation is greater to do so. I am not suggesting there are many that do that, or that people would go out of their way to get injuries, but some of it is mental, and there is no question about it. We have discussed this in the estimates. Sometimes people think they are worse off by reason of injuries than they are. Again, these are a minority of cases, but sometimes it becomes attractive to these people, with some kind of imagined injury, to say: “Well, now, it would be better if I had this injury and stay at home.” Let me not suggest to you there are many; I am not suggesting that, but there are some. So, there are some limitations to what the government can or should do.

Again, we are not prepared at the present time to adopt the 75 per cent. I am prepared to look at some sort of sliding scale in connection with temporary employment or temporary injury, because I do realize that there are additional expenses. Quebec, I think, is looking at this at the present time, and we may have some help from them as to their experience on it. That point I am prepared to look at. But I am not so sure that I am just prepared to disregard what other source of income a person has. And because I am not prepared to look at that doesn’t mean that I am treating it as a welfare Act.

I think there are good and valid reasons for not paying 100 per cent. Of course, traditionally, it goes back to the old legal basis that in some cases a man would not receive compensation from his employer because there was some negligence on his part that led to the accident. The original argument, of course, was that since negligence is no longer a factor in this, the employee must take some of the responsibility involved. I don’t think that argument is valid today, but that was one of the original arguments for having a much lower figure than the 75 per cent that is there today.

So, I am prepared to look as a sliding scale and, as I say, Quebec is already. What we are proposing is reasonable, I think. At the present time I am not prepared to suggest that we should move from the 75 per cent.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wellington South.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge the minister to support the amendment that has been proposed by the member for Windsor West, and possibly from some of the other proposals he can come up with something better than 75 per cent that has been brought forth.

I offer the minister an example of a gentleman who was injured back in 1973, and whom I visited on Wednesday of this week. He has been on compensation since December of last year and has been in and out of a local hospital and has been in Downsview. His earnings in 1973 were $177 per week and he was a labourer for a small construction firm. He has a wife and two children. The cheque that he is now receiving and has been receiving since last December is $144. There is no other income coming into that house. It’s beyond what will afford him some other assistance from Community and Social Services. In fact, he doesn’t even qualify for full assistance under the OHIP programme.

I feel there is room for improvement in this and I would urge you to come up with some alternative to what the member for Windsor West and other members have suggested, to try to improve this situation so that the injured person can at least make his mortgage payments and continue to live in a normal manner.

I don’t think any person is going to stay off work on those wage rates in order to collect compensation. In fact you are protected by the progress reports made by the doctor and I don’t think the doctor is going to continue to support a man on compensation if he feels he is capable of returning to work. I urge you, in this time of inflation, to give this consideration at an earlier date than next year.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): The minister has continuously made the point that this motivating principle is that many of the people who have compensation pensions have other forms of income. Be that as it may, there are various other sectors in society who are on various other pensions from the public purse, and the minister made the wide-ranging argument that in principle he had to be the protector of the public purse and it wasn’t only industry he was concerned about. By putting on a means test, this is precisely what the minister is talking about; he is applying a means test. He is saying that no worker, regardless of the efforts he makes, is going to earn any more money than the minister, through his manipulation of legislation, has predetermined.

This really goes back and smacks of welfare. We all know that’s how the welfare system works. The minister consistently tries to tell us this is not a welfare scheme yet he adopts the basic principle of applying the means test.

In this party we have fought long and hard to remove the means test from those incomes which we consider people have rightfully earned because of service to the community. I think the greatest example of that is the breakthrough we had when the means test was removed from the old age security pension. The minister, I am sure, is old enough to remember the days when the means test was applied to people at age 70. After having contributed to this country for that many years they had to suffer the indignity of facing a means test in order to reap an old age pension.

That principle couldn’t stand up any more than this principle can stand up but here we have it -- a means test is being applied, using the wide-ranging principle that he has to protect the public purse. I could relate that to our own circumstances, to people within this Legislature. There is not going to be a means test applied when we take our pension regardless of any other outside efforts and regardless of any other income we might have. We are going to get a full pension and this is the kind of income which workers have.

If it was unearned income that workers have which the minister was talking about, I might have some sympathy for his argument but any worker who has outside income has it on account of efforts he has expended and it should bear no relationship to the pension which he has earned because of the suffering he has faced as the result of injury in the workplace. I think the whole argument the minister makes is riddled with holes; it is not a valid argument. Maybe he won’t concede it today but eventually he has to concede it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There is no means test here.

Mr. Germa: You are taking into consideration other sources of income. You have repeated the statement at least five times within the last half hour that other sources of income are bringing up this man’s earnings. It is not unearned income; it is income which is rightfully his and should bear no relationship.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I agree.

Mr. Germa: Maybe you can explain to me then what you are talking about by other sources of income and what relationship it has to the payment of pensions?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I didn’t raise the question of a sliding scale; it was raised by the opposition.

Mr. Haggerty: You made reference to other sources of income. What other sources?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The reason I made reference to other sources of income is because the cases that the opposition is always putting forward are the hardship cases and you’re treating everybody who receives workmen’s compensation as a hardship case. I’m saying that’s not so.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to enter the debate again but when you say other sources of income, I’ve known cases where an appeal has been made to the Workmen’s Compensation Board and it has been mentioned that if the injured worker’s spouse is working, then that is taken into consideration and they reduced his benefits based on that other source of income, which shouldn’t be so. I think that is what you are making reference to when you say that there are other sources of income.

As mentioned by the member for Sudbury, you are going back to the means test. When you take that attitude, about all other sources of income, you are definitely going back to the means test.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, I was being dragged down the garden path there pretty effectively. It was the opposition that raised the question of a sliding scale. When I say I think there is some merit and I’ll take a look at it, then you accuse me of wanting to bring in a means test. Now, let’s forget the whole sliding scale business.

Mr. Haggerty: We don’t want you to do that.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, on that point, we can’t let the minister get away with that. We’ve said bring in a sliding scale so that the wages as near as possible of 100 per cent taxable are adjusted to a percentage that is non-taxable. Bring in a sliding scale of those percentages -- 80, 90, 95 per cent; in some cases it will be 99 per cent -- so that the non-taxable amount equals the amount that he would be receiving if it was taxable. That’s the sliding scale we’ve asked you to bring in so that the take-home pay for tax purposes alone, with only that deducted, is equivalent.

What we’re saying about a means test is that whenever you mention anything about a worker who may be receiving income from outside source in addition to his pension, it’s you who are applying a means test. It’s you who are saying that that worker doesn’t deserve it because he’s got an income from some other source and that therefore we have to look at these incomes from other sources. That’s the means test.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall has moved that section 6(1) be amended by substituting “100 per cent” for “75 per cent” in subsections 1 and 5 of section 42 of the Act.

All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think the others have been stacked, Mr. Chairman. There is another amendment that’s been stacked; maybe this can be stacked too.

Mr. Bounsall: We’ll stack them all.

Mr. Haggerty: One more point on section 6. I want some clarification from the minister in dealing with a vocational rehabilitation programme. Just what vocational rehabilitation is there available for persons who will come under this programme? Are you going to buy into the Canada Manpower schemes so that they can be trained through their programmes and then the board will pay a portion of that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think that is right, Mr. Chairman. We’re not hide-bound in regard to it. I think we are ready to consider any reasonable place where they can go to get additional training, whether it’s our own, whether it’s the community colleges or whether it’s tied in with the federal schemes.

Mr. Haggerty: Well, when will you move in that direction? For example, if a person has been injured, will you move within a reasonable period so that he is able to go back to work? If he can’t get light modified work, will you move in as early as possible to get him into such a scheme?

I hate to repeat the number of cases that a person takes before the Workmen’s Compensation Board, but I appeared there for one person about three weeks ago and finally they’re going to put him into some rehabilitation programme. Maybe it will be an educational programme or a vocational programme, but that’s four years after the accident.

I hope the board is not going to bring in a scheme under this section that says, in effect, “We’ll put you in a vocational training school five years after the accident.” I hope that you move much quicker than that.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I hope we move much quicker than that too, Mr. Chairman. There must be some special circumstances surrounding that. I don’t know what they are. Mr. MacDonald is here this morning, I am sure he will be glad to discuss that case with you later. Our wish is to get them back into full employment or the work they can do as quickly as possible, and it follows that we put them into the framing courses as soon as they are physically able. We have been criticized that we have been pressing them too quickly into physical rehabilitation. I suppose in some cases the physical rehabilitation has to come before they are refrained. I think we are trying to do it as reasonably as possible. If you have a particular case perhaps you could mention it to Mr. MacDonald.

Mr. Haggerty: I don’t want to mention particular cases. Do you have any other rehabilitation centre that is available for injured workers in the Province of Ontario? Is there a Jewish centre or something here in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think we use various facilities around the province. We have our own hospital here in Toronto. I think we will use just about any school that is reasonable. Mr. MacDonald is nodding yes. Is there a particular school you wanted to know about?

Mr. Haggerty: No. In this one particular case before the board it was mentioned that they weren’t going to send the person to the rehabilitation centre in Downsview but were going to send him to some other rehabilitation centre where perhaps they did more in the educational end of it and there was the possibility he could be rehabilitated through better forms of education. They mentioned a Jewish centre in Toronto and they decided that’s where they were going to send him. Then the letter came back to me indicating that he was going back to Downsview. I thought perhaps you had another assessment centre here that would put an evaluation on his educational capabilities.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think that particular case, Mr. Chairman, may best be raised directly with the staff.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 carry?

Mr. Bounsall: No, I have comments on section 6, subsection 2, Mr. Chairman.

Here again, I feel that an amendment under this section would be useful. I won’t place it because it is the same as the amendment which virtually is the amendment which is already on the floor and which has been stacked. This is where, under subsection 42(8b) of the Act, as indicated in section 6(2) of this amendment Act, it would be the proper place to add that the pensions thereafter be adjusted annually by the same percentage as the percentage change in the consumer price index and by 12 per cent for each of the years 1972 and 1973 and by six per cent for each year from 1945 up to and including 1971.

This is the change which was made last year. This is where the re-evaluation occurred in the Act of last year. The argument was the same as already placed before the House in this bill under a previous section that that change was only one-third of what it should be and it accounts for only a 60 per cent adjustment to the workers’ pension in total. The consumer price index change was triple that, 180 per cent over those years. That is the base upon which we should add any increase in the worker’s pension. For this past year we have added a 10 per cent increase which is exactly equal to or 0.1 per cent off what was the actual consumer price index.

We would like to see in this section an automatic adjustment of those pensions from here on in, according to the consumer price index. It would save the minister coming back to the House year after year in the month of June -- and we would hope that it would Occur no longer than yearly and therefore in the month of June -- with amendments that would by themselves increase the pensions by the consumer price index increase. It’s the same type of amendment as placed previously so I won’t place it in section 6(2) as an addition to 42(8b) that is mentioned there, but this is where it should go. It’s in principle the same as the one before it and the argument is the same, that we have the improper, very low base upon which we are adding a 10 per cent increase for this year.

Although we do not argue with the 10 per cent increase for this year, because it has been added to a base which is one-third in its increase of what that should have been adjusted to a year ago, we find this is one of the major defects of the bill. We find and feel very strongly that that base should be properly adjusted before one adds the consumer price index percentage as a percentage of these pensions.

So, Mr. Chairman, I will not place the amendment because it is similar to the one we have before us, but that same amendment before us should be taken in its totality and placed in section 6(2) of the bill as an addition to subsection 42(8b) of the Act as outlined here.

I have another one of those subsections that I would like to speak to as well, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps some other person wishes to make remarks on the topic of the proper adjustment that should have been made to the pensions over the past years so they have the proper base. I would yield if there is anyone who wishes to speak at this time. No?

Okay, in subsection 6(3), that portion of the bill that refers to subsection 9 of section 42 of the Act; this is where the Act clearly indicates that any of these adjustments do not apply to a commutation lump sum award. I feel this too is discriminatory, Mr. Chairman, in this respect at least -- that any person who had an injury which was deemed to be permanent and partial to the extent of 10 per cent or less, had no choice at all as to whether or not to take a commutation. The Act really lays out that they must take that commutation and that commutation lump sum award was paid. They had no choice.

It’s different from a case where someone had an award that was greater than 10 per cent and were able to convince the board that some of that award, rather than in a pension over the years, should be commuted and that they should receive a portion of their award as a lump sum. All right. I understand those people were warned at the time that if they took a commutation and a lump sum award, if there was an adjustment to the pensions, they stood to lose it.

I don’t know how clearly they were told this, but in the cases on which I have written to the board and dealt with the board over commutations, it has been my impression that the worker applying for that commutation was clearly told that if there were increases that increase would not apply to the lump sum which he had taken as a commutation.

I am not sure they all quite understood what it was they were being told, but it appears the board made an effort to make that point to the workers when they have applied for a commutation. In most instances, it wasn’t a big factor in their minds, because they needed that particular lump sum of money as a commutation for a business they were hoping to go into or to help provide a down payment on a house. The fact is that there was no indication that they would ever be increased until last June. That there may have an increase in it did not play a big part in their thinking.

Part of the reason it didn’t play a big part in their thinking is, of course, that the board had never done it until last June; although they had perhaps talked about it for years and had certainly been urged by members in this House to increase the pensions by a factor -- if not the salaries and wages percentage increase -- at least equal to the rise in the consumer price index. The workers no doubt had heard of this, but nothing had occurred; and therefore wasn’t a big consideration in their thinking.

The board perhaps bears some responsibility for it not being a large factor in their thinking, because for so many years you had made no adjustment, even though you talked about it to them when you talked about commutations. From that idea, perhaps I think one could arrive at a situation for requested commutations which have occurred in the past, you should add the percentage increases to them and either pay it out in a lump sum again or make it a part of the pension, which in most cases is still occurring because they didn’t get all of their pension in a commutation. I think it’s probably fair.

And just to add to that, what is certainly unfair in my thinking is the treatment of all those Workmen’s Compensation Board recipients whose injuries were 10 per cent or less, and to whom the board gave no choice in terms of a lump sum award. They said: “You take this lump sum award whether you like it or not.” They had no choice of a pension continuing over the years as a result of that permanent partial disability.

When you have an Act coming in which adds, as it did last June, percentage increases to those pensions -- again this Act amending for the past year, adding 10 per cent to those pensions -- I feel it is only just that it should be given to those persons who were forced -- they had no choice -- to take a commutation lump sum award. If they had not been forced they would have been receiving a pension and the increases would have automatically been added to those pensions.

I know the minister doesn’t agree because we brought this up a year ago. It was June 28, 1974, and it was an argument which the minister said he would consider. The bill comes forward and it makes it very clear in this section that the increases will not apply to a commutation lump sum award so the minister has made his decision on that.

I suggest very seriously to the minister that for those forced to take a commutation, who had no choice in the matter, he again reconsider giving a pension or the proper commuted lump sum award to those people based upon the increases granted to all those who were on pension.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the argument my friend, has made. Yesterday the leader of the NDP was talking about a case in which the man was seeking commutation and the board had not consented to it. The theory was that it was all right to receive the lump sum because, in time, he would invest it in a house and the value of that house would go up or down with the market. That some theory applies whether it’s a small amount or whether it’s a large amount.

Those people who received a lump sum payments had smaller claims and rather than send a cheque for $5 or $6 on a monthly basis the board pays it to them all at one time. To me and the board it makes good sense and presumably the people who have received this money have treated it in the same way as the person who wanted to put it into a house. They may have put it into a house or something else of that nature and the value of it has gone up.

Now you want to say they should get it twice, I’m against that theory. In other words you want to let them get the capital increase on the amount they originally received and let them have the additional payment at this time. I say that is not done with commutations.

Last year, the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) suggested he had been working on a case where he had recommended a commutation. It was a few weeks before the amendment came into the House. I agreed with him that if that was the case and we had knowledge of something which the applicant didn’t, we had a duty, perhaps, to point that out and I would follow up that one. When we did try to follow it up we couldn’t find any such case, nor did the member for High Park produce any further evidence in regard to it. We couldn’t find that there had been any recent commutation in which he had been involved. That came to a dead end, but I did think there was some responsibility on the board, if it knew we were about to bring in amendment increasing it, it should have pointed that out. As I say, didn’t have any success in following up that specific instance the member for High Park referred to. We couldn’t follow that up. But as far as the theory of commutations is concerned, I think it is, as I’ve already stated, and as your own leader suggested yesterday, that commutations in certain circumstances were all right and that presumably the value of the money received would keep pace with the market.

However, there’s additional very practical point, and that is the number of these claims and the smallness of them. We don’t have records in many cases. The matter is closed off. As I said to you, we have about 443 reports sent into the board every year in connection with accidents. Many of those result in small lump-sum payments. We just don’t have any way of pulling them out and tracking them down in any way.

Yesterday, again, the board was criticised because it didn’t get after certain cases, particularly in the area of occupational health diseases. This is easily said by the opposition that they should be followed up, but it’s a case of the many claims and the many records we have. This is one of the best examples why we can’t do some of these things that you think we should be going through, because there are thousands and thousands of cases of these where the records have been closed. I don’t say they’re lost, but they’re filed away in old archives and it would be a tremendous job to pull these files out. We’d have to go through all our files for years back, and you’re asking us to do what would be a very time consuming, expensive job. It would cost probably for more to do the job than the amounts involved to make the payments.

Mr. Chairman: Section 6(3) carry? Carried.

Is section 7 of the amending Act carried? Carried.

Section 7 agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, I have remarks to make on section 8, Mr. Chairman. I’ll place an amendment and then speak to it later.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 8 be amended by replacing, “$90” with “$120”, in subsection 1; and two, by replacing “$400” with “$515” in subsection 2.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I said in my earlier remarks that the board, in a sense, is getting to the point which they should be getting to in these minimums. However, they haven’t quite got there yet, in terms of what we in the New Democratic Party would see as the reasonable minimums.

In the year 1973, in calculating the minimums for the temporary totally disabled and for the permanent totally disabled, it was clear how you had arrived at those figures, and that was by taking a 40-hour week, multiplying it by the minimum wage at that time and applying your 75 per cent factor, on a monthly basis or on a weekly basis. They turned out the figures of $250 and $500 respectively.

Last year there was no change at all in those minimums, and if you apply your same criteria on that basis for this year, still retaining your 75 per cent figure but using what we proposed at that time was the proper minimum wage factor; that is rather what it is at the moment, $2.40 an hour, using a factor equal to 60 per cent of the average salaries and wages, you in fact come out to the figures which appear in this section of the Act. Sixty per cent of the average salaries and wages at the moment is $200 a week. In Ontario at the end of May, 60 per cent of that is $3 an hour. If you multiply that by a 40-hour week and take three-quarters of that as is your wont to do throughout the entire operations of the board for calculations of pensions and compensations, you get the $90 a week which is the minimum for temporary total disability and you get a figure of $388 a month, which is pretty close to the $400 a month you put in for permanent total disability -- just a little bit beneath it.

We applaud the minister in applying that particular type of formula, for taking the current minimum wage times the 40 hours in his calculation. Again, our only difference would be that we would pay it 100 per cent rather than apply the three-quarter factor. When you apply it at the 100 per cent level rather than taking three-quarters of it, you would come out with the temporary total disability factor of $120 a week and you would come out with the permanent total disability factor of $515 a month.

These are the bases of the amendment to those particular figures. We would arrive at those figures by taking what we feel is the proper minimum wage -- $3 an hour at the moment -- times the 40-hour week, and on a weekly basis applying 100 per cent rather than three-quarters, as you have done to get your figures. This would come out in our terms to $120 a week and $515 a month.

I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that these are not unreasonable figures. These are not unreasonable figures. For permanent total disability the figure in your bill of $400 a month still only gives $4,800 a year to a recipient. There is no part of the Workmen’s Compensation Board scheme, apart from where a person has been killed in the workplace, that takes into account the number of dependants. It shouldn’t; it should be replacement for earnings in the workplace.

This $400 a month or $4,800 a year is low in terms of what even an individual can subsist on these days, let alone someone who has a dependent wife or dependent children. The increase as a minimum to $515, as we suggest for the monthly pension, is not out of line. It would provide about $6,300 a year as a minimum, based: on a monthly rate or on a weekly rate of the same amount as the minimums that an individual should receive. The Act already allows that if the earnings of that person were less than those minimum amounts they would get those earnings. What we are saying is that the minimum amounts should be $120 a week and $515 a month.

I would urge the minister to continue to use a formula basis to arrive at figures of this sort which they put into the Act. If you are using a formula and a rationale other than the one which was very clear in 1973 to carry through by and large in 1975 using a proper minimum wage base, I would like to hear it. This is the way that I can see these figures arrived at.

If you are using some other rationale, give us your rationale. Proclaim what your rationale is in arriving at these minimum figures. It should not be just something which you intuitively pick out of the air. You should have good solid reasons as to why these figures are here.

I can determine a rationale for the figures which are here and for the figures which appeared in the last amendment in this section in 1973. I thought they were fairly reasonable but low. We have suggested higher figures and laid out the rationale upon which we would base our calculation of the figures we would see here.

I would be very disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, if I heard that you really do not have a rationale for these figures. If you don’t have a rationale, then figures in next June or successive Junes, as you come in to amend this bill, will have no rationale to them either. You’ll simply pick some nice round figure out of the air to apply to the Act.

I can see that if your calculations produced a number using some formula or some particular rationale of $388 a month or $392, we wouldn’t object to it being rounded upward to $400. In fact, if your rationale produced an amount of $403 a month, or $406 a month, we wouldn’t object to it being rounded off to something like the $400.

But let’s see your rationale. Let’s see your formulation which causes you to bring out figures of $400 per month for permanent total as a minimum and figures for $90 a week for the temporary total disability. If you don’t have one, you should devise one.

I can perceive a formula in the figures myself. I would like to fully understand from you what rationale or formula you have used. It may not be the one that satisfies me, but it may make sense to me when I try to sit down and determine how you arrived at the particular figures.

So, Mr. Minister, I place these amendments. This is the rationale and the formula that we would use in arriving at our amendments. I have no doubt that these amendments will not be accepted by the minister, since he is not in the mood to accept amendments to this Act this morning. But more importantly, you should lay out for the members of the House your rationale for arriving at the particular figures which you have in the bill. I would like to understand exactly how you’ve arrived at it; what formula, if any, you have used in arriving at it.

If you haven’t a formula, you shouldn’t go on simply in terms of putting members into this Act -- picking figures out of the air as ones that sound like nice, rounded off figures to place in the Act -- or to do it simply on the basis of what you think employers in this province can afford to pay. That is not an adequate way of doing it. That shows no rationale at all and shows no consideration for the injured worker in this province whom you are trying to compensate on a basis somewhat equal to his earnings -- and for those workers set an absolute minimum.

The changes to this Act in terms of cost to the employers, and your arguments on cost, have never impressed us very much -- even with the complete total changes that are brought in by this particular Act. The employers’ contribution for safety in this province, through this particular Act, is still around the two per cent figure. It was 1.5 per cent of his payroll.

As I see it in the totality of the amendments today, it increases it by 0.6 per cent of his payroll costs. This is, of course, only a portion of a manufacturer’s total cost, and so we are in the vicinity of around two per cent.

The argument that one cannot adjust these to a fairer amount is to me not an argument. I understand, as in any situation, there may be some small employer who will say that an increase of 0.6 per cent of his payroll is an undue burden on him.

I would like to know of the cases, if any, in Ontario where it can be shown that Workmen’s Compensation Board payments by that employer have been the cause of his going out of business. I can hardly believe that, when on the average it has now just reached two per cent of his total payroll. But to use the considerations of how much you think you might be able to lay on employers in the province in a given year without getting too many letters from them saying, “My God, we are going to go out of business if we can’t pay for them -- that, to me, is no adequate rationale. That is not the way the board should be adding up its figures or dealing with the workmen of Ontario. Rather there should be a formula which you think is fair, a formula which you have clearly in your mind so you know what you are doing or what you should be doing in future years; and if you don’t have a formula, there should be a clear, concise rationale for arriving at the particular figures in this Act.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member asking me for a clear, concise rationale. I think he repeated himself six times in what he was saying.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not going to give him any clear, concise rationale.

Mr. Bounsall: You don’t have one.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Certainly we will look at minimum wages, but the proper amount of any of these payments is a matter of judgement from time to time. The process is that the recommendations are made by the board to the Minister of Labour, taken before the policy committee and discussed in cabinet. Any one of these -- the board itself, the policy committee, the minister or the cabinet -- may have some input on this thing. As I say, it is a matter of judgement of the government of the day.

You speak lightly of fractional percentage increases. This will result in total additional collections of some 11 to 13 per cent overall from the people of the Province of Ontario. I am not saying that is the criterion, but certainly it must be looked at. You just look at the fractions for one of these items alone and suggest that 0.2 is nothing. Well, 0.2 in some of these cases is millions of dollars.

I don’t want to leave the impression that we look first and foremost at the effect on the community. We do not. We try to find in our mind what is right and reasonable for the workman involved or his dependents. I know you don’t feel the figures that we have put forward are right and reasonable, but that is a matter of judgement and I am afraid must remain with the government to be a matter of judgement.

Mr. Bounsall: You have gone through the explanation of the various ways that suggestions come forward from the board and from the ministry, all of which end up in cabinet, and how, in the various consultative areas, the proposals that come forward may be changed.

At any time before it gets to cabinet, is there a formula or a rationale put forward from either the Workmen’s Compensation Board or your own ministry as to the amounts that would result in arriving at the particular amounts which appear in the bill for these two particular minimums? Is there a rationale that is used?

With the cabinet that sits over there, I can quite appreciate that a rationale put forward for an increase could well be turned down by that cabinet; but at either source is there a formula or a rationale clearly laid forward that would lead to the figures in this Act, even if some other figure results by the time it has gone through cabinet?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I have said the board and the ministry do look at the minimum wage; that is certainly one of the considerations. I simply said there are many considerations and that is not the only one.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about the amendments and support the member for Windsor West when he says that $90 a week is not sufficient to maintain anybody through an injury. I don’t think you have taken into consideration the minimum wage that is available now in the Province of Ontario. I believe you indicated that you are going to bring in another amendment to the minimum wage; perhaps it will be $2.75 an hour, in which case the $120 suggested by the member might be up around the minimum wage.

I am a little bit alarmed that the minister hasn’t taken into consideration the white paper that is being discussed now by the different Health Ministers, including the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) of the Province of Ontario. They have indicated that pensions are under discussion and that there should be a maximum above the poverty level; they have suggested, I believe, well over $6,000. The amendment that the member has put forward will bring it up to about $6,000. Perhaps that is where he has the $515 as the minimum which will be paid under subsection 2 for permanent total disability.

I am sure you must have read some of those reports and literature which have come out of those meetings with the federal minister and provincial ministers. I am sure the Minister of Community and Social Services has endorsed some of those proposals and they will be coming forward to the different governmental levels. We are looking at a level which puts persons above the poverty level. I think this is what we should be looking at.

In any pension scheme, even for a disability under workmen’s compensation, I think you have to take into consideration that there are other commitments an injured person has to live up to, to which he was committed, perhaps, long before the injury occurred. If you are paying for a home and perhaps other home necessities $400 a month isn’t going to go too far. I suppose you will come back and tell me he has another source of income -- perhaps a spouse is working; I don’t know. I think in this particular instance I would have to support the amendment of the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment please say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost and section 8 of the bill will stand as part of the bill.

Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Bounsall: I have something on section 10, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I’ll place it in the form of an amendment.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 10 be amended by deleting everything following Act in line one, and substituting therefor, “is amended by deleting everything after ‘remunerated’ and substituting therefor ‘and there shall be no maximum.’”

Mr. Bounsall: I must admit that amendments to this particular section of the Act, section 44(1) as laid out in section 10 of this amendment bill, are always rather difficult to do and make sense in terms of wording. Section 10 in this amendment Act makes it very clear as far as it can but whenever one tries to amend an amending section which amends section 44(1) it is always rather difficult. It will be clear what I am doing here. The subsection as amended -- section 10 of this amendment Act -- would read Subsection 1 of section 44 of the said Act is amended by deleting everything after ‘remunerated’ and substituting therefor ‘and there shall be no maximum’.”

You then look at section 44 of the Act. Section 44 of the original Act would then read, “Average earnings shall be computed in such a manner as is best calculated to give the rate per week or month at which the employee was remunerated and there shall be no maximum.” That is the way section 44(1) of the original Act would read as I have worded the amendment to section 10 of this amendment Act.

It’s quite clear in principle, Mr. Chairman. The very simple point I am trying to make here is that there should be no maximum in this Act upon which workmen’s compensation pensions should be based. I know the minister will say, as he has said in the past, that a person who is earning maybe $20,000, $30,000 a year or more does not need a pension, a temporary disability pension, based on those high earnings, and should he have a permanent partial disability of let’s say 20 per cent, he should not expect to receive 20 per cent of 75 per cent of let’s say a salary of $30,000 as a permanent pension.

We disagree, because the scheme here, Mr. Chairman, should cover everyone in the province. If someone is making $30,000 and becomes injured to the point where he can’t work while he is on temporary total disability, we feel he should have a compensation payment from the board approximating whatever his earnings were. We feel that is the only way. We do not feel that someone who is making $30,000 should have as his maximum income the maximum compensation he or she could get, the amount which this bill would allow, with its maximum of $15,000, on which you then apply your 75 per cent, which gives you a figure of $11,250.

We feel that for those people, about whom you could say, “Well, they have been making $30,000 a year, they should have enough saved up and have investment income from other sources so that they don’t need any more than $11,250 annual rate at the time for which they are temporary totally disabled and, thereafter, if there is a residual permanent disability which is partial, they should have that based not on a percentage of $30,000, but based on a maximum of a percentage of whatever that injury is, of $11,250.” It just doesn’t make sense.

If a person is deprived of earnings the whole Workmen’s Compensation Board scheme, as I see it, is to replace those earnings. There should not be any sort of maximum on it at all. Bear in mind that in the vast majority of the cases, we are not talking of compensable injuries where the persons make large salaries. The vast majority of them are not in this category. Perhaps the board could tell us, for any given year -- last year or the year before -- what percentage of injuries to workers are there in which those workers make more than what it put in the Act, $15,000 a year. That would be an easily acquired figure. They have it in their statistics, I am sure. That would be a very interesting statistic. But to us, it just isn’t reasonable that there should be a maximum on that at all, and that certainly the $15,000 maximum that is placed in the Act is not at all reasonable when it produces, after you apply your 15 per cent, the $11,250 maximum amount which that person could get. I am afraid we are probably back into the same argument with the minister. Perhaps his argument will be that he can’t afford it. I don’t know what his argument will be on this. I suppose it would have to be purely on the basis of not being able to afford it. I can’t see any other really valid argument. I will get back into the argument as to whether or not it is a welfare scheme if any other remarks are made.

It just seems so very, very reasonable to us in an Act of this sort -- irrespective of what other jurisdictions do -- that there should be no maximum on which compensation can be paid for a temporary total disability, or a maximum on which a permanent partial disability pension is thereafter paid. Certainly, there are very few cases of which I am speaking where the people have a salary in the $30,000 range, and I would be interested in that statistic if the minister has it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All I can say is that the Workmen’s Compensation Board payments are funded, as you know. To leave this without a ceiling would make it a very difficult and expensive proposition to try to cover that. As I have said before, there is some responsibility, we feel, for people making this kind of money to do something to protect themselves. It comes back to the same argument that I have used in other sections, that many of the people who are helping to pay the costs involved here are people who are not getting anywhere near $15,000 or $12,000 a year.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Section 10 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to speak on any section of the bill before section 15?

Mr. Bounsall: Section 12.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

On section 12:

Mr. Bounsall: On section 12, Mr. Chairman, as far as I can determine, the amounts for the allowances for replacement or repair of clothing worn or damaged by reason of wearing a lower limb prosthesis or the $84 in respect of the upper limb prosthesis were adjusted just a year ago in 1974. The minister is bringing in an amendment to this section which does improve it in that it allows for an allowance for the repair of worn or damaged clothing as a result of wearing a back brace or a leg brace, provided those braces are supplied by the board. He has added the back brace and the permanent leg brace to that.

We support this. This is, something which it is reasonable to do. But having brought in the section to deal with that small amendment, which is indeed an improvement, why did he let the figures stay the same? The board knows and the minister knows that the price of clothing has escalated severely over the last year. I believe the figures that took effect last year were for the year 1974. Clothing has gone up by a considerable amount during this past year and it doesn’t seem reasonable, that you haven’t adjusted the figures.

I’m not going to get into the game on this one of suggesting the figure to which $168 or $84 should go. You have the percentage increase in clothing costs that have occurred over the year. It’s not as high as the consumer price index cost, I understand, it is not quite as high as 10 per cent. Having brought in the bill, one would have thought you could have adjusted that figure by at least the amount by which clothing has increased over the year.

Secondly, would you not find it reasonable to put a figure into this section for bedding allowances for paraplegics. There are injuries in the workplace which result in persons becoming paraplegics. They do not have a clothing problem. They are virtually confined to bed.

Being virtually confined to bed, there is a considerable amount of additional wear and tear on bedding. Would the minister and the board not find it reasonable that there might be an allowance for those few recipients who are paraplegics? This would be the section in which it would fall. Perhaps it could be something not exceeding $100 a year per annum as a bedding allowance for workers who have become paraplegics as a result of an injury in the workplace.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how I can make any comment on that. It’s one of these cases where, no matter what we do, you are suggesting we are not doing enough. This thought of bedding allowance is new. I am not going to say that is unreasonable. I suppose there are many other things that you could suggest. These are the figures. Again, it is a judgement call that we have come up with. I think they are reasonable. They’re an improvement. I think the hon. member has got to leave us a little to do next year.

Mr. Bounsall: Just one other comment, these are the same figures that were in. the bill last year. There is no improvement on the figure. What you’ve done is you’ve added the back brace and the leg brace as things which could be compensated for when there is wear on clothing or damage to clothing. I just suggest that you perhaps should have adjusted the figures. I hope you will have a look at how many paraplegics there are and allow a bedding allowance for that in other years. I expect to see it -- or rather hope to see it in the bill next year.

One other thing occurs to me. I have a Workmen’s Compensation Board recipient in my riding who had a shoulder injury. Shoulder braces are not very common, and a shoulder brace was specially devised for her. In fact shoulder braces are so uncommon that the board took two or three months to make up its mind whether it could pay for a shoulder brace. It wasn’t the common type of brace -- like back, leg, neck and so on -- and they finally convinced themselves that a shoulder brace might do some good and they therefore paid for that shoulder brace.

Because a neck brace would generally be outside of the clothing worn by a recipient, it is not accounted for in this particular Act. But that particular shoulder brace would produce some damage and some additional wear and tear on the clothing worn on the upper part of the body. It doesn’t fall into the upper limb prosthesis and it isn’t a back brace. It certainly isn’t a leg brace.

Would a person who has a shoulder brace, even though it’s not specifically laid out here in the Act, be considered for a clothing allowance up to these maximums under this section of the Act?

I suspect they wouldn’t, but shouldn’t the Act be amended to account for braces, other than just those specified here and your additions of this year, which obviously are going to produce wear and tear on clothing?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, no, they wouldn’t qualify. The thought is that these other kinds of braces -- some of them worn only temporarily -- don’t do that much damage to clothes.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 12 carry?

Section 12 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Do the members have much to say on sections 13, 14, 15 or 16 which are still left to amend? If not, we will -- section 15?

Mr. Haggerty: No; section 14.

Mr. Chairman: I think we should rise and report.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports progress on one bill and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday next we will proceed with the same debate in committee, Bill 106; to be followed by item No. 20, Bill 111; and the fifth item, Bill 14, the Environmental Assessment Act.

Now I would reserve the right to switch those last two items if necessary, depending upon the timing -- but I don’t think that will affect the members greatly.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:00 o’clock, p.m.