WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT
HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS ACT
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 66, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.
On section 1:
The Deputy Chairman: There are lots of workers in this province, and most of them are right here right now. We do not just talk.
Is there anything on section 1, or shall section 1 carry?
Mr. McClellan: No, there are some amendments, as I am sure you are aware, Mr. Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman: I just wanted to see where we were coming from.
Whom shall I recognize first? There is no one standing up with a rush of interesting comments.
Mr. Nixon: Well, in that case I should just tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in the temporary absence of my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), who has made elaborate preparation for the --
The Deputy Chairman: He has provided that huge sheaf of paper?
Mr. Nixon: Yes, he has provided me with that same body of material, which, as you know, contains a number of amendments, all designed to improve substantially the benefits that are set out in the government legislation. You know that the costs of any of these improvements are borne by the employers, and this is something that makes our amendments in order, I understand.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Mr. Wrye, moves that section 36(1) as set out in clause 1(1)(a) of the bill be amended by striking out "$1,400" and substituting "$1,800"; in clause 1(1)(c) by striking out "$564" and substituting "$590"; in clause 1(1)(d) by striking out "$590," "$157" and "$176" and substituting, respectively, "$590," "$164" and "$184"; in clause 1(1)(e) by striking out "$176" and substituting "$184"; and in clause 1(1)(f) by striking out "$564" and substituting "$590."
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, you can see that we have worked at this very carefully, and on that basis alone I would expect that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), and even the sometime spokesman for workmen in the New Democratic Party, would participate by supporting the amendment. I am hoping that my colleague the Liberal-Labour member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) will be here to support us in this important matter as well. But since the whip of the NDP has an amendment to my amendment, perhaps I should subside and let that amendment be placed so the body of our argument can then be put forward.
The Deputy Chairman: I am very pleased, then, to recognize the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella).
Mr. Kerrio: Wait a minute. Where is the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo)? He filibustered on this, and he should be --
The Deputy Chairman: May I suggest that the member for Niagara Falls not tell other members of the House what to do.
Mr. Lupusella: Exactly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kerrio: I thought the member for Downsview would have enough interest in the workers to be here to put these amendments --
The Deputy Chairman: The member for Dovercourt and I will both try hard to disregard these extraneous comments.
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I am trying, too, but I am tempted to make a few remarks, because I am the critic for the Workers' Compensation Board; I think the member for Downsview gave a great contribution to the debate and he will be here in a minute.
The Deputy Chairman: I am not falling into any trap.
Mr. Lupusella: Therefore, just to be consistent with our increases, which were moved around December 1982, we do not accept the 10 per cent increase suggested by the Liberals. I think 15 per cent really comes close to previous losses that injured workers suffered in the past. I am sure 10 per cent will not cover their losses. Therefore, I will move an amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that Mr. Nixon's amendment to subsection 36(1) of the act as set out in clause 1(1)(c) of the bill be further amended by striking out "$590" and substituting "$618"; in clause 1(1)(d) by striking out "$590," "$164 and $184" and substituting "$618," "$181" and "$203"; in clause 1(1)(e) by striking out "$184" and substituting "$203"; and in clause 1(1)(f) by striking out "$590" and substituting "$618."
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to give a further contribution to the debate. As I stated, in December 1982 we moved a 15 per cent increase, and we want to be consistent with the 15 per cent increase that should take place in injured workers' level of benefits.
As I stated previously, 15 per cent does not really reflect the loss that injured workers have had to face, especially in the last few years, in relation to the cost of living increase. Injured workers across Ontario have been defenceless. They lost purchasing power as a result of the level of benefits they had received from the Workers' Compensation Board, and therefore I think 15 per cent is a fair adjustment on their increase in comparison to the five per cent increase suggested by the government.
As my colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) stated, the five per cent increase is putting injured workers on the level of starvation. On the basis of their economic contributions through the years to the economic development of this province, injured workers deserve more from this government.
I do not want to repeat what I said in my opening statement. We all realize that injured workers across Ontario are crying out for justice and that such justice is not met by the bill that was introduced by the government, which is contemplating a five per cent increase in the level of benefits. We are talking about widows who are receiving a fixed amount of money on a monthly basis from the Workers' Compensation Board that is far below the level of poverty across Ontario.
8:10 p.m.
We are talking about benefits given to dependent children. I think the children of workers who were killed on the job are classified by the act and by the level of benefits as second-class citizens across Ontario. They cannot get the same type of education other dependents enjoy. They have been going through a series of economic, social and psychological hardships because they have lost the breadwinner of the family. Therefore, the family has suffered from a loss of income caused by a great loss that took place as a result of the breadwinner being killed on the job.
This government has been extremely insensitive to the needs of injured workers down through the years. I realize that on July 1, 1975, the ceiling or the maximum annual earnings covered by the compensation board, was increased to $15,000. I remember well the Tory fanfare before the provincial election that took place on September 18, 1975. They made a big announcement about these increases and talked about the generosity of the ceiling, which was brought up to $15,000. As a result, the maximum weekly earnings covered by the board then were $288.46, and the maximum weekly WCB payment was $216.35.
The government made a big announcement about those increases in July in preparation for the provincial election that was supposed to take place in either June or September. We know for a fact today that the election took place on September 18, 1975.
I remember vividly when the Premier (Mr. Davis) left Ontario to go to Italy to try to get Italian support and, in particular, the support of injured workers across Ontario. I remember that there was a big demonstration at the airport when the Premier left the province. Injured workers were demonstrating because of the inefficiency and bureaucratic process that was taking place at the board level.
People were not satisfied with the amount of money they were receiving from the Workmen's Compensation Board. Even though the $15,000 ceiling gave the impression that the problems of injured workers would be solved in one way or another, eight years later we know that $15,000 and $216.35 are really not enough. The skyrocketing cost of living that has taken place over eight years has set back the purchasing power of the pensions and the level of benefits of injured workers.
Eight years later we are faced with the same problem. Injured workers in particular are complaining that the benefits are not enough. The level of benefits does not cover what they would have if the breadwinner were alive and working in the labour market. They are trying to get the extra income they have lost because the breadwinner has passed away.
The government and the Minister of Labour have not shown any particular concern about the widows and the amount of money they were getting. In the past eight years I have had evidence in many phone calls from people complaining about this situation, and I am still receiving phone calls after the announcement that the government will increase injured workers' pensions by five per cent.
The message from the injured workers is clear-cut: "Fight back, because the government is not giving us what we deserve to get. We have made our contribution to society and to the socioeconomic development of this province. There is no recognition whatsoever from this province taking into consideration or trying to establish the right level of benefits that would reflect the contribution we have given to the province as a whole."
I think the government has been cruel and insensitive to its injured workers through the years. I remember that in 1975, as my colleague the member for Downsview has stated several times, the then Minister of Labour, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), delayed the process of increasing injured workers' pensions for three years with the excuse that the Wyatt report was supposed to take a look at the financial implications and the liability of the board for the next three or four years after 1975, and after three years of wasting time we realized the Wyatt report actually was not worth it.
From the evidence that was brought to our attention, the WCB actually had enough money that it had collected through the years from the employers' assessments, and it had invested this money in short- and long-term securities. Actually, there is money available to give to injured workers. What the injured workers are waiting for is a compassionate approach from the Minister of Labour and the government that will take into consideration their economic and social conditions. One day justice will be done as a result of that.
By the way, as a result of the remarks by the Liberal member for Niagara Falls, the member for Downsview is with us. We know for a fact that he has been deeply involved with injured workers' pensions and the level of benefits for so many years.
Mr. Kerrio: I have been more involved than he has.
Mr. Lupusella: I knew that he would come on time to participate in this crucial debate that is taking place in regard to amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act.
But as you stated, Mr. Chairman, I want to ignore completely the interjection of the honourable member, because I want to pursue the principle that it is time the government faced once and for all the situation that injured workers are in and have been in and the misery they have been going through for so many years as a result of the inefficiency of the Workers' Compensation Act.
The government is trying to justify each increase as being fair and related to fiscal responsibility. I think this type of justification does not give injured workers the concrete support they deserve. They deserve to have it because if we go back through the years we realize that the government and the board were not generous in increasing pension benefits to the right amount for injured workers across Ontario.
8:20 p.m.
We are talking about a situation that in the past has had traumatic consequences for families, dependent children and widows. The government seems unable to meet that challenge and instead goes back to the principle of fiscal responsibility. It fails to find out how many billions of dollars the board has invested and say, "Let us give some of this money to injured workers."
It should understand they have been going through a very difficult period since the time they were injured. It should be saying, "Let us try to give back what they were unable to get from the board when they were assessed for the level of their benefits, or before July 1975, when the board declared that injured workers could perform light jobs." Even though light jobs were not available at the time, their benefits were automatically cut back by 50 per cent. At least in 1975 we saw some sort of justice. If a doctor declared an injured worker fit for light duties and the worker looked for a light job, his or her benefits would be restored to 100 per cent.
We should reconsider all the claims from pensioners, injured workers, widows and so on before 1975 and the money they lost as a result of a law that was completely insensitive and inefficient. The Minister of Labour should use a compassionate approach instead of giving a five per cent increase to injured workers. This does not really recognize the traumatic situation they suffered as a result of an accident.
We realize that the Liberal Party's motion to increase injured workers' pensions by 10 per cent will be defeated by the government anyway. Our amendment, which would give a 15 per cent increase, will also be defeated. I do not think this is a fair process we have to go through. I am sure there are several members sitting on the government side who are extremely sympathetic to the needs and problems that injured workers face today and have been facing in the past. I am sure that members of the Legislature from all political parties have had experience in one way or another with injured workers' pensions.
I am sure there are sympathetic members sitting across the floor who would like to see injured workers in a better financial situation than the board is establishing today as a result of the act under which they must operate. I have heard comments in the past even down at the board level that they are not completely responsible for all the injustices that took place in the past. The responsibility really rests with the politicians and the provincial Legislature, which has the power to change the act.
I have a message for the board as well. It is a corporate board, and it also establishes policies by itself. The administration of the board actually operates on a daily basis with policies similar to those established by such corporate boards, so I do not think the provincial Legislature is fully responsible for the bureaucratic process of mismanagement that took place through the years at the board's offices or for all the people who have been complaining about their insensitivity in taking positions that affect their livelihood tremendously.
By the way, just to give the members a small example of what is happening at the board level -- and I do not know who is responsible -- yesterday I got in touch with the representatives of the board in relation to a constituent of mine who had attended a training course given by the rehabilitation department for seven weeks. He was on a pension of $215, if I am not mistaken. During the seven weeks of training he had not received any money in relation to the rehabilitation process that was taking place.
Actually, when I called, the people down there were extremely surprised, and as a result of the phone call the situation was immediately corrected. They got in touch with the injured worker. They apologized for the delay in the money the injured worker was entitled to receive every two weeks as a result of the rehabilitation process he was in.
I think this injured worker had complained several times to the rehabilitation officer, who, it is my understanding, did not do a good job of looking after this important financial commitment of the board. Injured workers are supposed to get money during the rehabilitation process. They are fully aware that a pension should go out every two weeks to injured workers, especially those who are undertaking a training course.
There are problems all over the place. I think the board should come to their senses and injured workers should not be penalized as a result of their unfortunate situation of being under the Workers' Compensation Board, which I am sure in the past was very surprised to know that injured workers had suffered injuries. I am sure they were discriminated against just for the simple reason that they had taken money from the compensation board.
We view the WCB as a right for injured workers, for people who are employed in the labour force and who have an accident. I think the board should be seen not as a form of charity but as a right for all injured workers, for all workers across Ontario who are so unfortunate as to face an accident during their lives.
I think we will not be able to convince the Minister of Labour that serious changes are needed in the act, that injured workers across Ontario are not satisfied with the five per cent increase, nor are they satisfied with the 10 per cent increase suggested by the Liberal Party. I think they are expecting more and they will expect more from the Minister of Labour and from the government of this province. It is so strange that I have to stand here in this Legislature debating a bill that contemplates a five per cent increase, and I am fully aware that the Liberal amendment for a 10 per cent increase and my amendment for a 15 per cent increase will be defeated later on this evening.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Kerrio: I don't think so. No, they are going to pick one or the other.
Mr. Lane: Think positively, don't be negative.
Mr. Di Santo: And you will agree with them.
Mr. Kerrio: Odoardo, I'll bet you; 10 per cent
Mr. Lupusella: It is a very frustrating process for us. It is frustrating for the Liberals and in particular for the NDP, but it is more frustrating for injured workers across the province who are expecting some sort of financial relief; such relief is not forthcoming from the government side.
I warn the minister that we plan to introduce new amendments about October, when the House reconvenes. We are going to raise the same sort of criticism we are raising today as to the insufficiency of the increases for people and injured workers who largely are not affected by the amendments that will be introduced. I am quite sceptical about the government's manoeuvre and the position that is going to be taken at the time the new amendments are introduced.
I am sure injured workers have been living on small pensions given by the board for so many years. I know there are several thousands of injured workers receiving family benefits from the province. Actually, we have reached the point where the government is subsidizing benefits for employers across the province because injured workers have been forced by the policies of the board, and by the action of this government, to get some sort of financial relief from family benefits. Of course, such family benefits are inadequate; but if one wants to make a comparison with WCB benefits, WCB benefits are more generous than the others.
Employers are screaming and complaining that their assessment is going up. My clear message to the government and the board is that the government is in a position today where, if it were to take some of the billions of dollars that have been invested by the board, it would relieve the financial hardship injured workers have suffered down through the years. To do that the Minister of Labour must convince the other members of the cabinet that such a move has to take place.
My particular concern is that when the new amendments are introduced, we will forget the situation of all those workers who were injured on the job and who are getting small pensions from the board. I hope that either the committee or the minister will find a way to solve the situation of thousands of injured workers who have been living in misery for so many years.
I realize the minister is going to maintain the position that, down through the years, the government has taken into consideration the cost of living increase clause for our injured workers. I want to tell him that such an increase did not take place on a regular, yearly basis.
For example, let us consider that the ceiling of January 1, 1952, was $4,000; it was increased to $5,000 in 1957, five years later. Five years later the benefits increased from $76.82 to $96.15. Of course, I do not have any statistical data to know how great the cost of living increase was during that period. I am sure it was not in the government's mind to take into consideration the cost of living increase clause, because injured workers across Ontario pursued this particular principle when they started organizing. They were trying to make a concrete demand to the government that the cost of living be taken into consideration when the government was contemplating further increases in the level of benefits.
With that perspective and that scenario, I hope the government will do something about it. As I stated, our amendments will be defeated, but I am sure in December of this year we will raise the same type of criticism we are going to raise tonight. It will be like talking to a brick wall, but not because the government is not aware of the situation. It is a political situation we are locked into, and the government is following the political course of defending employers across Ontario instead of defending the injured workers' needs across the province.
I want to remind the minister again that the 15 per cent increase which we are suggesting and which we had suggested around Christmas is not unrealistic. It should be acceptable, at least to all members of this House, if we are talking seriously about the injured workers' needs.
We do not have to penalize employers across Ontario by increasing their assessment rate by 15 per cent. I want to re-emphasize the principle that there is enough money, totalling billions of dollars, invested by the Workers' Compensation Board. In December 1982, I brought to the attention of the government the billions of dollars the board had invested in short- and long-term securities.
If the government chooses to weigh, and I am sure it will, each political decision with fiscal responsibility on its mind, and if it defends employers across the province because employers will be its constituency during the next election, then I say to the minister that the money invested can be pulled out to be given to injured workers and will cover all the loopholes and the sources of injustice to which they have been subjected for the many years since the act was enacted by this Legislature.
I do not think employers should be penalized; they do not have be, because the money is there. The government and the board will collect the money on a yearly basis as a result of the premium the employers have placed with them. It is just a matter of becoming politically and socially mature to take into consideration the vast majority of people who have been living in poverty for so many years. We have an obligation, as a Legislature and as a government, to take into consideration the economic and social situations into which their accidents have forced them.
8:40 p.m.
If the government and the Minister of Labour decide not to increase injured workers' pensions by 15 per cent, the government will be in the position of defining injured workers as second-class citizens across Ontario. Instead of the five per cent increase in their pension giving them a boost, it will demoralize them further. I think that is unfair.
I realize the federal and provincial governments did not take the bishops' economic statement into consideration. We have a religious obligation as a Legislature and as a government towards injured workers to make sure they can meet their financial commitments as a result of the money allocated by the board according to the degree of disability which they have suffered.
Again the government is hard of hearing. We know for a fact the government and previous Ministers of Labour were extremely insensitive to this situation. The government will become more insensitive to the injured workers' needs at the time when the changes are required, needed and requested by injured workers across Ontario.
To conclude my remarks on subsection 36(1), we are going to vote against the 10 per cent increase suggested by the Liberals. I hope we have convinced the Liberals, on behalf of injured workers across Ontario, that the 15 per cent increase is more fair. I am sure they will join us tonight to show the sort of compassionate and political action of which the Liberal Party is capable by supporting our amendment.
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to commend the New Democratic Party for its stand and to suggest in all sincerity --
Mr. Di Santo: That is the first time.
Mr. Kerrio: It is not the first time. I will explain as I go on.
Certainly the worker has every right to expect the support of the New Democratic Party. But as an employer over many years and certainly as a person who has spent many more years in work clothes and with workers than I have in this august establishment -- I had as many as 100 people in my employ, and I always made the comment that those people did not work for me but worked with me -- I tell the honourable members that there is a real world out there that I was part of.
I feel very strongly about supporting the injured workers, as the honourable member does, but I do not want him to think that his is the only party that supports that position, because everyone of any consequence in this country knows that without the worker there is no way that industry or any other function of this country can prosper.
The fact of the matter is that my comments were taken out of context. I say this with the greatest respect to the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo), because he got up the other night and made very valid points on what the injured worker should expect; but coming from the real world, I must bring into focus some things that are very appropriate and must be said in this kind of a debate.
The reality is that workers' compensation is no-fault insurance. In that respect I say that an employer, no matter how careful he is or how little he is responsible for any accident that might transpire on the job, pays the full premium for that no-fault insurance.
I am not saying that is wrong, but I want to bring it into perspective because the New Democratic Party does not address itself to that part of the real world. When I say that, I say it with something else in mind. It matters little to the family of an injured worker whether he breaks his leg on the way to the job or whether he breaks it on the job. I have stood in my place for many years in the Legislature and said that anyone who is injured should have compensation. He should not have to rely on workers' compensation, which only protects him on the job.
That leads me to a comment that I think is valid and one I have made many times. It has been twisted and turned out of context by some members over there, but I have said this. I challenge them to look back in Hansard and see if anywhere they can find that I have not had the compassion, the support, indeed the willingness to give the injured worker, the widow and the people who make our country what it is the kind of support they deserve.
To do that, there is another dimension that has never been considered. If we are going to have no-fault insurance, if we are going to protect a worker on his way to and from work, the government is going to have to play a wider and larger role. It is going to have to do some of the funding. Little wonder we can do the things that should be done for an injured worker when it is put on the back of small business or any kind of business. The government is saying the way out of the dilemma of this whole economic depression is to get the small businessman to bring us back out of the dilemma. But then what does the government do? It heaps more costs on him and thinks that money comes from somewhere in outer space. It is not true.
We are going to have to convince this government it is going to have to play a larger and broader role in the support of an injured worker, a widow or a widower of an injured worker. Some people lose that perspective. I say with the greatest respect to those who have never paid $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 on top of their payroll to meet the obligations to workers' compensation, they think that is just added to the price of the job, but that is not quite true when one is in a very competitive business. It becomes most difficult. It is not the way to give a worker in this province full protection.
If the members over there think they can just ask for 15 or 20 or 25 per cent from the employer on a no-fault insurance plan, they are absolutely wrong. The way this is going to work is for everyone in society to accept the responsibility for a worker who is injured, whether it is on the job, off the job or wherever.
There are other things they may not know. A small business pays liability insurance and many other insurances on the basis of its payroll. I have been through this. It becomes very much more of an advantage to a small company to have more equipment and machinery than people if it is going to be charged on the basis of its payroll for workers' compensation, insurance, liability insurance and all of the other things that happen.
There is a real world out there. It is a fact that the Liberal Party looks at both sides of an issue. It begins to look at the protection of the worker and how it can be best accomplished, but it also looks at the small entrepreneur who is out there in difficult times trying to make ends meet.
I say to the minister that I support the position of the New Democratic Party; it is looking for everything it can get for the injured worker. I also say we have to be realistic. Unless the government plays a larger and broader role in accepting that no-fault insurance is going to look after any injured worker or widow and picks up that aspect of it that should be the responsibility of the government, we can only give the kind of increase that the government feels obliged to do.
I say to the Minister of Labour that at another time, another consideration of workers' compensation has to take into account that those workers, whether they are injured on the job, on the way to the job or on the way home, should have full protection and this government and the people of Ontario have to participate in the payment so that we all share the responsibility and in that way give a worker what he is rightly deserving of when he is injured, or when the woman is widowed and needs the help that should come from this government.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly to the amendment to the amendment. I regret to say that the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) started his argument pretty well but finally managed in a masterly way to destroy it. I do not think we can play with words and say that we all agree workers should be compensated but, given the circumstances and given the fact that since we have a particular structure of no-fault insurance in Ontario we cannot afford it.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour a simple question, and I hope he is able to answer us. Can he tell us how much his amendments will cost the Workers' Compensation Board, how much the 10 per cent proposed by the Liberals will cost and how much 15 per cent will cost?
I want to tell my friend the member for Niagara Falls that in the three years prior to 1983 the assessments to employers had not been increased at all; so if he feels the cost to the employers will be excessive, he is talking of something that does not exist, and the real world he is talking about is only in his mind.
Will the Minister of Labour please tell us how much the New Democratic Party amendments will cost, how much the Liberal Party amendments will cost and how much the government's amendments will cost?
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I did not have the opportunity to speak the other day on the bill. As you know -- I believe you were in the chair -- we had a very lengthy debate that took the better part of an afternoon and the whole evening. There was only one member that took part in the debate, unfortunately, so many of the comments I would have liked to have made on that evening will have to wait for another occasion.
On this amendment I want to put forward two or three things I have on my mind concerning the Workers' Compensation Board and its process, and in particular the amount of increase the Legislature will award injured workers for the unfortunate fate they have suffered in the work place.
First, I am absolutely sure that if the Liberals had proposed a 15 per cent increase, the New Democrats would have proposed 20 per cent; and if the Liberals had proposed a 20 per cent increase, the New Democrats would have proposed 25 per cent. Let us face facts as they are. You just cannot win in a bidding war with the New Democratic Party; one of the main reasons is that they are so far away from actually ever having to carry out any of their promises, it gives them a great deal of comfort in being able to outbid anybody else.
Mr. Philip: Boy, you guys haven't studied the latest poll. Have you seen the latest poll?
Mr. Mancini: No, I have not seen the latest poll. What does it say?
Mr. Philip: You had better take a look at it before you make silly statements.
Mr. Mancini: Well, I do not know. They have 30 seats, I am told, and we have 33. Is that not so?
Mr. Nixon: They get paid for 30.
Mr. Mancini: Oh, I see. They get paid for 30 seats, but they only have 22. I see; I have that straight now.
We have looked over the increases that the injured workers have been awarded over the past several years. It is true they have probably lost a couple of per cent because of inflation and because the government's increases of previous years have not been that great, but the 10 per cent increase we are offering will more than make up whatever percentage they have lost to inflation.
Furthermore, under the conditions facing small business today, as my good friend the member for Niagara Falls stated, small businessmen as well as the giant corporate citizens are having to pick up the tab all by themselves. I do not doubt that any number of members from all sides of the House could get up and make an impassioned speech about why they should get 15 per cent. There is not a person here who could not do that, as a matter of fact. Why? Because when one looks at an injured worker and one realizes the frustration, agony and pain they have gone through, no amount of money, no amount of weekly payment, no amount of pension will ever give them back what they have lost; and that is the ability to work in most cases, and in other cases hours, weeks, months and years of suffering. We will never be able to repay them for that.
What we must do -- and my friend who was a Rhodes scholar not too long ago will probably have to agree with me -- is try to come up with a reasonable and fair settlement at this time. Frankly, I am very disappointed that the Weiler report is still in stages of hearings and that no real fruit has been produced. It has gone on now for three years at least. I am very disappointed that the Weiler report is not before us and that we have to deal with this bill before the report comes in.
I recall that the member for York East (Mr. Elgie), when he was Minister of Labour, assured us before the 1981 election that there would be speedy hearings on the Weiler report and that we would be moving quickly to deal with many of the things that Weiler said we should deal with and all of us know we must deal with. Unfortunately, that has not come to pass. I do not particularly lay that at the doorstep of the minister but, ultimately, because of the job he holds, he must take responsibility for that.
In conclusion, I must say it is no use getting into a bidding war with the New Democratic Party. As I said earlier, if we offered 15 per cent, they would offer 20 per cent. If we offered 20 per cent, they would offer 25 per cent; and it would go on and on. We will just have to deal with these amendments as they come before us. Personally, I believe the 10 per cent is fair for the present time.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, the member who just spoke of course was imputing motives to those of us on this side of the House. Unlike the Liberals, who did not pluck a figure out of the air, we did some calculation and found out that over the years the workers had fallen behind by 15 per cent. That might come as news to my friends.
Mr. Mancini: Then let's raise it 30 per cent.
Mr. Martel: No, they fell behind 15 per cent. What we say is they catch up and get what they are rightly entitled to based on the fact that for a number of years when we were not raising the pensions they were falling behind. That might not seem like much to my friend, who says we cannot repay them because they are injured and they will go on suffering no matter what we do, so therefore pay them lower than they are entitled to and that makes it right. That is adding insult to injury.
Maybe my friend would like to accept our amendment in view of the fact that it is based on the calculations of what they lost over the years. If it is expecting too much to put back their purchasing power --
Mr. Mancini: That is a sleazy interpretation of what I said and the member knows it.
9 p.m.
Mr. Martel: I do not think it is sleazy at all. Is that not what the member said? I wrote it down. What he said was, "We cannot repay them for the suffering they have undergone as a result of the accident."
Perhaps my friend wants to reconsider his position. The 10 per cent his party proposes does not take into consideration what they lost over the years. Surely they should be entitled to that.
Mr. Mancini: The member should consider what he has said.
Mr. Martel: No, I am being quite factual in what I am stating. They have lost that. Surely, with all the crocodile tears I see coming from over there, they should be prepared to compensate them for that loss. That would not be expecting too much. But to suggest they cannot be repaid monetarily because of their suffering, I suggest it would ease that suffering rather significantly if they had what they were entitled to, based on the loss of purchasing power over the years.
That is what we have based our figure on. It was not based on the silly allegations by the member, who said if they had raised it by 15 per cent we would have gone to 20 per cent, and if they said 20 per cent we would make it 25 per cent. That is a new low. We were calculating the loss factor over the years. It comes to 15 per cent. The member might want to put his research staff to work, find out what it is and base it on reality.
I am surprised the minister and I are standing here tonight, as we have for the past number of years, considering amendments to this act. It was that very government sitting across the way that trundled off to Ottawa some time between 1971 and 1975, led by none other than Rene Brunelle, adamant that the federal government should put a clause in the Canada pension plan to tie it to the consumer price index. This government demanded that of the federal authorities. They said, "That has to be part of the Canada pension, as it is in the old age pension."
I have made repeated efforts over the years to get one cabinet minister to tell me why they are not prepared to introduce indexed pensions. This government itself, in its hypocritical fashion, went off to Ottawa demanding that the CPP and the old age pension be indexed but it will not index the pensions for which it is itself responsible. I suggest to the minister that is an odd way of doing business. It was good enough for Ottawa and the Canada pension but it is not good enough for workers' compensation. We would not have to go through this nonsense every year and workers would not fall behind but would keep up to the actual consumer price index increases. We would not have to argue year after year.
This government has continuously allowed the amount of increase given to injured workers to fall behind the rate of inflation. Today we are still approximately 15 per cent behind. Perhaps the minister can tell me why. They play that game with CPP and old age pensions, but they are not prepared to index workers' compensation in Ontario so that it occurs automatically as it does in Ottawa. It saves everyone a lot of anguish and, more important, it gives injured workers the protection they need so that some government that is trying to weasel out of giving them increases related to the consumer price index would not be allowed to do so and some minister who would like to give seven per cent but has been told by cabinet that he cannot, would not need the authority to do so; because it is indexed it would proceed apace.
I suggested to my friend the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) that I could go on here for about three hours if I got wound up on one particular case, but I sent the minister a note --
Mr. Di Santo: Please do.
Mr. Martel: Do you think I should?
Mr. Di Santo: Take your time.
Mr. Martel: I have a case I would like to put on the record, based on a man not having received a pension despite having lost his right hand at age 13. The member from Niagara says it is not insurance without proving fault. This young man's case was -- I am not going to go on, so the Chairman can relax.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): If you go on, I could relax further.
Mr. Martel: I am just trying to get the minister to indicate to me that he is prepared to sit down with me and the deputy minister so I will not need to put this case on the record at this time.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: that is ridiculous. The member has brought that to my attention before. I have offered to sit down with him. Now he is making a big thing out of asking me tonight whether I will sit down with him. I have already told him a dozen times I would sit down with him at any time. I do not have to listen to that sort of nonsense.
Interjections.
The Acting Chairman: Before we get any further down this road, let me say to the member for Sudbury East --
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, as I said --
The Acting Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I said that to you out in the hall a month ago.
The Acting Chairman: Order. To the member for Sudbury East, if I may, I am looking at the amendment to the amendment which is what we are debating now.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: If you would follow up instead of procrastinating, we would have some resolution.
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Minister, order, please. Let me just go over what we are doing here. We are dealing with an amendment to the amendment offered by the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella). As near as I can tell by reading it again very carefully, it strikes out certain numbers and substitutes certain other numbers within the context of the first section.
I am sure the member for Sudbury East will very closely and quickly link whatever remarks he is going to offer at this time to the substitution of one set of numbers for another, will he not?
Mr. Martel: After you have finished all that, Mr. Chairman, I was only doing that with tongue in cheek because I had sent the minister a note a little while ago saying, "You just promise to meet with me and I will sit down." But I got them all going and they just jumped at the bait. They went on and on.
I would have been sitting down by now if they had listened for 30 seconds. If the minister had not been so thin-skinned and had looked up, he would have seen I was smiling because I was just pretending I was going to go on for three hours. He just blew his stack. That is unfortunate, but I am going to meet with him. I am glad he said it. That is why I sent the note earlier. Now that they have all let off steam, I will sit down.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, this is not because the members for Dovercourt, Downsview and Sudbury East have not adequately put the case of the New Democratic Party for the 15 per cent increase. The members may recall the other evening when the member for Downsview was speaking, he said he was very angry about this paltry increase for injured workers.
I want to say I share that anger with him, as do all the rest of our caucus. The reason I share that anger is there is no doubt this is part of a deliberate and accelerating policy of this government, and of the federal Liberals too, to place the burden of the recession on the backs of the poor. I do not think there is any question about that at all.
9:10 p.m.
We have a proposed five per cent increase when the latest increase in the cost of living was 6.6 per cent. That means the injured workmen are going to have a drop in their standard of living at least 1.6 per cent now, a drop that adds up over a number of years to something like 15 per cent in their standard of living.
That is the reason this amendment is before us at the present time. This is a deliberate policy of this government. I do not think there is any question about that; the facts will bear it out.
I have had some dealings with the Minister of Labour, as most of the rest of us have, and I personally have come to the conclusion that he is a kindly, compassionate person. But I also remember that he is a member of the Tory government and there is not very much that is kindly and compassionate about that government on the other side.
Mr. Boudria: They are a real mean bunch.
Mr. Swart: Yes, they are a real mean bunch. Like the federal Liberals, they were quite prepared to put the burden of this recession on the backs of the poor and to widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor.
Back in 1981, statistics were given by Statistics Canada which showed that over the past 30 years the percentage of income going to the bottom 20 per cent of Canadian families had actually dropped from 4.4 to 3.9 per cent. Twenty per cent of the families of this nation who were on the lower income received something like 3.9 per cent of the national income in 1981. That in itself is a condemnation.
Back in 1981 there was a study done by the National Council on Welfare and the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto. I quote that report: "Restraint is not borne equally by the members of society. People who cannot protect themselves are bearing the brunt of this restraint. In Ontario, the poor have become poorer because it was government policy, not because the province could not afford a more generous social assistance program." Here we have just one further step in widening the gap and putting the burden on the poorer ones in our society.
It has been mentioned over and over again about the doctors receiving their 12 per cent increase. Here we have the injured workmen going to get five per cent according to the government's policy. That sounds as though the doctors are getting something like two and a half times as much, but when we come to dollars and cents -- and I say to everyone here, the cost of living is in dollars and cents; it is not in percentages -- it means that the injured workmen who are on full permanent disability will get something like a maximum of $750 a year increase, whereas the doctors will get on the average something like $10,000 this year, which is 12.5 times as much as the injured workmen will get.
The widening of the gap has been accelerating in recent years. It does not matter whether it is on the minimum wage, family benefits, welfare or on workers' compensation, which is really the saddest of the sad group because not only have their increases not kept up with the cost of living, with the consumer price index, but in addition they have had the pain, suffering and indignity from their injuries.
We have this government policy providing this kind of reduction in the real standard of living to the poor in our society, yet when it comes to dealing with corporations -- whether it is Consumers' Gas, Bell Canada or the banks -- we find it does not interfere whatsoever with the tremendous increases they are making even in these times of so-called restraint.
I want to conclude by saying to those to our right or to those across the hall that if they represent the Liberal philosophy in Ottawa they may think there is nothing wrong with this sort of government policy, but I want to reaffirm that we in this party do. It is why we feel so strongly and why the member for Downsview and many others have taken the time to speak on this issue before us.
We really believe what the bishops said in their report: "We firmly believe that first priority must be given to the real victims of the current recession, namely the unemployed, the welfare poor, the working poor, pensioners, native peoples, women, young people, and small farmers, fishermen, some factory workers and some small businessmen and women. This option calls for economic policies which realize that the needs of the poor have priority over the wants of the rich, that the rights of the workers are more important than the maximization of profits."
They went on to say in their fourth proposal: "Greater emphasis should be given to the goal of social responsibility in the current recession. This means that every effort must be made to curtail cutbacks in social services, maintain adequate health care and social security benefits and, above all, guarantee special assistance for the unemployed welfare recipients, the working poor, the one-industry towns suffering from plant shutdowns."
What we are talking about in this party is social responsibility. We are in a time of restraint but we say it is not necessary and with control of the economy we do not need to be in the situation we are in. If we are in this kind of period, it should not be the poor in our society who suffer. They should at least have the right to stay even with the cost of living. If there are going to be sacrifices made. and cutbacks, they should be made by the wealthier in our society, not the injured workers and others like that.
The Acting Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment to Mr. Nixon's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
The Acting Chairman: I would inform the House that not only does the amendment to the amendment stack, but also the amendment itself, which means we will either have to carry the balance of the section, if that is your wish, or move on to whatever next section members wish to debate.
On section 2:
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Nixon moves that subsection 36(6) of the act, as set out in subsection 2(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "$1,400" and substituting "$1,800" therefor.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the amendments the official opposition is putting forward to this bill increase the benefits uniformly by 10 per cent. My colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) has already pointed out that it is relatively easy and, in fact, cheap for the opposition parties to get into a bidding war in this regard, but our judgements vary somewhat in this connection and, of course, the Liberals being a party of sensible moderation we have come down with a figure somewhere in the middle.
There are those who say that is the raison d'être, as we say in South Dumfries, for our party, and moderation and careful consideration of all sides was the theme of the contribution to the debate by the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio). Frankly, I thought he was very perspicacious and persuasive in putting those arguments.
I have listened to what the more impassioned members of the New Democratic Party put forward -- those who were not making jokes about this important matter -- and I would grant as well that their commitment to this matter is one that is worthy of our respect.
9:20 p.m.
We cannot do everything at once. The suggestion from the NDP House leader that these amounts ought to be indexed is a sensible one indeed. It would mean that the minister or his successors would not have to go through this little charade just before we adjourn each summer and listen to the line-up of committed comments from the opposition parties. I really do believe in this instance it is ridiculous that the benefits are not indexed, that they are simply based on the goodwill or the responsiveness of the Minister of Labour, who changes from time to time.
Mr. Di Santo: The whim.
Mr. Nixon: "The whim" is exactly right.
Why some benefits or pensions should be indexed and others are not is, of course, a good argument, but in this instance where we are providing benefits for those people who, through no fault of their own, have to depend on whatever moneys are available as a result of this debate and as a result of the action of the government, the increases ought to be automatic.
This section, as you know, Mr. Chairman, deals with the benefits provided for widows or widowers. Having examined the various alternatives and responding, I suppose, to pressures, as all of us as politicians must, we have come down with what we consider to be a moderate and supportable alternative of a 10 per cent increase at this time.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, it may surprise my colleague and friend the Liberal House leader that we intend to support the Liberal amendment to this section for the simple reason that, if he took the time to count with his fingers and toes, he would discover that the Liberals are proposing a 15 per cent increase and not a 10 per cent increase.
It is all very nice for members of the Liberal Party to stand up and have some fun with the NDP position at 15 per cent and then themselves move selective increases at a 15 per cent level. The fact remains, and we have made the case again and again, that injured workers' incomes have fallen behind by roughly 15 per cent. What we are trying to do with our amendments is restore the purchasing power of injured workers before the Weiler reforms are brought in by the government.
Once those reforms are in, the level of pensions will be frozen at whatever they are today. If injured workers are still behind the cost of living, they will stay behind the cost of living. That is why we chose the 15 per cent figure. It is not, as the member for Essex South said, that we are trying to outbid anybody, that if the Liberals had said 15 per cent we would have said 20 per cent and if they had said 20 per cent we would have said 25 per cent. That is a cheap innuendo and I resent it very much.
This amendment before us is 15 per cent. It is a good amendment and we intend to support it.
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Nixon moves that --
Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, before you put the amendment: Is it the minister's intention not to respond at all to any of the amendments that are being moved? He chose not to respond on the first one, and it was voted on. We are now moving a second amendment and he is not here to respond. Surely, as we raise these issues, the minister should be in a position to indicate either why he is not going to support it or why he would support a particular amendment. Just to have an absolute silence seems to me to be irresponsible.
Mr. Stokes: Even an answer.
Mr. Martel: Yes. I think it is highly unacceptable that this sort of procedure is carried on.
The Acting Chairman: I accept what the member for Sudbury East says on his point of order. As he knows, all I can do is invite any honourable member who wishes to to participate in the debate. If none rise, as the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has completed, then I am obliged to put the question.
Mr. McClellan: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Who has the carriage of the bill for the government? I do not know how we can proceed to pass a bill in the absence of a representative of the government to carry the bill in the House.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Chairman, speaking to that point of order, the minister has been sitting in the House all evening, as the members well know. If he chooses to --
Mr. Di Santo: He left. He took his briefcase and left.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I am sorry, he did not leave and I can assure the member the minister is here. The fact is the minister seems to be choosing to address these points, which seem to be all the same point, when he chooses to address them. I see nothing wrong with that.
The Acting Chairman: On the same point, the member for Sudbury East.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, surely when members ask specific questions to the minister with respect to certain items in an amendment that is being proposed, there is some courtesy that should be taken into consideration in responding to the amendments that are being raised. Simply not to respond is not in keeping with the practices of this House. We are expected to vote without the minister having an opportunity to indicate whether he is going to respond. Could we just wait until the minister returns before we proceed?
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Addressing the same point of order, I think the member opposite has been around long enough. This is not the first time this has happened.
The type of thing we are voting on, the amendments, are such that the minister can address himself to these at a time of his choosing. In all fairness, I do not really think the member for Sudbury East can say that anything the minister says is going to change the minds of the members opposite. I am attempting to find the minister at the present time and I do not know where he is.
Mr. Rae: What you are basically saying is that it does not matter what we do around here.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I was not addressing myself to the member. I was addressing myself on a point of order. The minister will be addressing --
Mr. Rae: You were saying it does not matter what we do around here.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I would suggest we carry on, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting Chairman: We have been around the Horn three times on this. Does the member have something new to raise on the point of order?
Mr. Martel: I suggest we not proceed until the minister is back. Maybe the Chairman could indicate to me who is responsible for the carriage of the bill at this time, because the minister is not here and somebody should be here. I am prepared to wait until the minister returns, but I do not think we should proceed until he does return, because there is no one here with respect to this matter. I am prepared to wait until he gets back.
The Acting Chairman: At this point, unless the minister indicates to me right away that he wants to respond to the amendment, as I then would not be able to recognize any other member wishing to participate in the debate, I have no alternative but to put the question on the amendment. If there is no other member wishing to participate --
Mr. Martel: If he is prepared to respond to these issues as we go along --
The Acting Chairman: Why does the member rise?
Mr. Martel: If he is prepared to respond to those issues as we go along --
The Acting Chairman: Order.
Mr. Martel: Why does the Chairman not learn the rules?
The Acting Chairman: I think I understand the rule that the member is allowed to speak when recognized by the chair. I understand that rule very well.
Mr. Martel: What rule?
The Acting Chairman: The rule by which the chair recognizes the next speaker.
Mr. Martel: I rose on a point of privilege.
The Acting Chairman: No, the member did not. He just rose and addressed the minister.
Mr. Martel: I simply wanted to raise the issue --
The Acting Chairman: No. I would ask the member to identify why he is rising.
Mr. Martel: I simply want to raise the matter with the minister to find out if it is his intention to continue with this clause by clause and not respond to any item before we take the vote.
The Acting Chairman: Does the minister intend to respond in the debate at this time?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Not at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I will have some comments to make later on. As for my absence, I would hope there are still procedures left in this chamber that one can go to the washroom occasionally.
The Acting Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Nixon's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
The Acting Chairman: Are there other amendments to the bill?
Mr. Nixon: I was doing a little quick calculation and the amendment we stacked a moment ago actually calls for an increase of 38 per cent.
9:30 p.m.
On section 3:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Nixon moves that subsection 42(7) of the act as set out in subsection 3(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "five per cent" and substituting "10 per cent."
Mr. Lupusella moves that Mr. Nixon's amendment to subsection 42(7) of the act as set out in subsection 3(3) of the bill be further amended by striking out "10 percent" and substituting "15 per cent."
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the principle of this amendment to the amendment of the Liberal Party. As I stated before, the 15 per cent is justified and the accusations from certain members of the Liberal Party were completely unfounded.
Members of the Legislature, including members of the Liberal Party, must have witnessed our consistent position on the 15 per cent increase since last December. We are not playing games with an important issue that affects injured workers and their level of benefits. We are persisting in this because we believe injured workers have really lost purchasing power as a result of the cost-of-living increase.
As I stated before, and I will repeat, 15 per cent does not even take into consideration the loss in purchasing power of the pensions and benefits they receive from the board. I think certain positions, in particular the one taken by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), were completely unfounded. We have been consistent and I draw this to his attention because perhaps he forgot about it.
Around December 1982 when we dealt with the previous increases, the Liberal Party actually supported our amendment and it was based on a 15 per cent increase. So the change in position is by the Liberals and not us. We had taken the position that 15 per cent was the right increase and the government should have introduced it in the first place.
The minister has taken the position not to respond to the amendments moved by members of each party. I want to draw to his attention that he did not even respond to the general comments made by both opposition parties on second reading of the bill. The minister had an obligation to respond to all the allegations made on this side of the House. They concerned all the problems injured workers have been going through as a result of the act and the five per cent increase which is completely inadequate.
I hope the minister will remember each comment and criticism we raised and find the time to go through them and comment on the overall situation under which the Workers' Compensation Board is operating, the Workers' Compensation Act which the board is applying on a daily basis and the problems of injured workers who have to use the board's services.
I hope the minister will give us an indication now that the government is going to move on the new changes and that they will take place in the near future. I hope that it will not be December before a reasonable debate will take place in this Legislature in relation to the benefits.
We are talking about benefits, and when I am talking about benefits, of course, it is implicit I am not talking about a 10 per cent increase but about the 15 per cent increase suggested by the New Democratic Party. We suggested it around Christmas of last year and it was supported by the Liberal Party.
As is usual in this Legislature, we have witnessed different positions taken by the Liberal Party through the years, especially since 1975 when its positions have changed from one to another. I do not think those members have any right to interject and give us some sort of political warning that we are the ones playing games with injured workers' lives.
We are extremely concerned. We always understand the kind of criticism raised by different members in this House about injured workers, but I do not think the NDP deserves the kind of criticism which has been raised by certain members of the Liberal Party.
Mr. Di Santo: I will be brief. This is the one section of the bill that makes me extremely upset. I want to ask the minister if for once he will answer the concerns of the opposition; if he will think about the purpose served by this section of the bill, in view of the fact, from the figures given to members by the Workers' Compensation Board at the resources development committee, that there is virtually no worker who will benefit from total temporary benefits, who has been receiving benefits for the last 48 months or four years.
If the minister has in mind someone who has been receiving benefits for 48 months, then he should stand up and say the name and claim number, because it will be the only example in the province. This is the type of preposterous amendment the minister is inviting us to vote on. To me that means this government is squeezing the injured workers to the point that all kinds of injured workers who are receiving temporary benefits are being eliminated by this bill. I would like him to answer my question, because he has a moral responsibility and cannot avoid it.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 4:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ruston moves that subsection 43(8) of the act as set out in section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out "five per cent" and substituting therefor "10 per cent."
9:40 p.m.
Mr. Lupusella moves that Mr. Ruston's amendment to subsection 43(8) of the act as set out in section 4 of the bill be further amended by striking out "10 per cent" and substituting "15 per cent".
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very important because it affects a large number of people, and I am sure the Minister of Labour is aware of it. The minister's amendment takes into consideration that the amount tabled under this section "... shall be increased if the injury occurred on or before the 30th day of June, 1983, by adding thereto a factor of five per cent effective the 1st day of July, 1983, but the amounts of compensation to which a worker is entitled shall not exceed the like proportion of 75 per cent of the rate of average earnings computed under subsection 45(1) effective on the 1st day of July, 1983, for amounts accruing on and after the 1st day of July, 1983, but this subsection does not apply to a lump sum award previously made by the board under this part, including an award that was previously commuted or paid as a lump sum under subsection 4, an award under subsection 6 or an award under clause 44(b)."
I think we are faced with a serious problem. I do not think it is new in this Legislature. The minister in previous amendments took the position or moved towards the position not to have amendments that increased any lump sum which the board had to pay to injured workers when their pensions had been commuted.
The present policy of the board is that for all injured workers who are faced with a permanent disability in the range of one per cent to 10 per cent the board may decide to commute that pension under a form of lump sum. The government has taken the position that for all injured workers affected by a disability of one to 10 per cent their pensions have been commuted and they are not entitled to the increase.
We made our position clear before. We are disputing two principles in that section. One is the principle of five per cent, for which 15 per cent should be substituted. We would also like to bring to the attention of the minister and the government that a wrong policy decision was taken by the board in 1975 when increases were introduced in the Legislature. The government took the position not to give increases to lump sum pensions for injured workers which were commuted if they were faced with a permanent disability in the range of one to 10 per cent.
There is no description in the Workers' Compensation Board Act which says the one and 10 per cent disability award should be commuted. It is a policy taken by the corporate board which interpreted that section of the WCB Act. For thousands of injured workers, as a result of that policy implemented by the board, the government took the decision not to give increases for all the pensions which had been commuted. I think the government is wrong and the Minister of Labour is wrong to penalize all injured workers who have been faced with permanent disability and whose pensions have been commuted. I hope he will pursue this principle with the corporate board in order that it will reverse its decision.
The minister is not supposed to make a change in the act to take into consideration all the lump sums that have been commuted by the board. It is just convincing the board that it has taken the wrong approach and the injured workers affected by this policy should not be penalized. I hope the minister will convey the message to the board and the board will reverse its decision by increasing by 15 per cent all the pensions and benefits of pensions that have been commuted from the lump sum.
The Deputy Chairman: We are considering Mr. Lupusella's amendment increasing from 10 per cent to 15 per cent.
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 5:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ruston moves that subclause 44(a)(i) of the act as set out in subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "$179" and substituting "$188;" subclause 44(a)(ii) by striking out "$179" and substituting "$188;" and subclause 44(b)(i) by striking out "$786" and substituting "$824."
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the Liberal amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that Mr. Ruston's amendment to subclause 44(a)(i) of the act as set out in subsection 5(1) of the bill be further amended by striking out $188" and substituting $196;" subclause 44(a)(ii) by striking out "$188" and substituting $196;" and subclause 44(b)(i) by striking out "$824" and substituting "$861."
Mr. Lupusella: I think we in this party stated our position in relation to all sorts of levels of benefits on which injured workers are affected by Bill 66.
Along with the other sections, Mr. Chairman, in section 44 of the act we are dealing with the people who are affected by a temporary total disability. The NDP position to amend the Liberal amendment to 15 per cent has actually taken into consideration all the problems injured workers are affected by, in particular those affected by a permanent total disability which has been increased by this bill to $786 a month from July 1, 1983. It also deals with the permanent partial disability which is an amount proportionate to that mentioned in subclause 44(b)(i) in accordance with the impairment of earning capacity and so on.
We are talking about a serious problem affecting people who have a permanent total disability and we are dealing with injured workers affected by a permanent partial disability.
9:50 p.m.
When I read Bill 66 I realized the five per cent increase is really a slap in the face to those injured workers who suffer most from the present system. These are the cases where people are permanently and totally disabled. The government in its generosity gives them a five per cent increase when they have been suffering since the day they had an accident. That accident was the cause of their permanent total disability award.
That is not the way the government should recognize the economic contribution of those injured workers. They have suffered a loss of income as a result of their injuries. They have suffered physical disability, pain and psychological harm as well as the social consequences related to the accident itself. The government and the minister do not really appreciate the contribution injured workers made to our society when they were healthy. In return the minister decides to give them a five per cent increase.
We are not talking about doubtful claims; we are talking about clearcut cases of permanent total disability and of people who are permanently partially disabled. These are cases where a clearcut medical opinion has been expressed and where the board does not have any doubt about the degree of disability. It is there to be seen and there are also all the psychological implications related to the accident. The government and the Minister of Labour have an obligation to take into consideration the amount of money that should be properly given to injured workers to compensate them for the psychological implications and the degree of disability. The right amount of money should then be established by the board.
This section and the five per cent increase are very offensive to disabled workers, especially those who are suffering most as a result of their accidents. I hope the minister will be more generous and will be able to convince his colleagues that 15 per cent is more reasonable than the 10 per cent increase suggested by the Liberals.
Mr. Di Santo: I will be very brief. This is a very important amendment. When the minister introduced the bill he did not explain the rationale for the five per cent. Now we are faced with an amendment that gives people with total disability $786 a month. The minister does not even dare to tell us on what he bases that amount of money. Is it related to what a totally disabled person needs to survive, to the wage he was making with the increased cost of living built in, or is it an abstract figure worked out by his ministry? The people who are receiving $786 are entitled to an explanation.
The minister thinks he can sit mum while we go through all the amendments. Then, with the government's 70 votes, he will impose his bill on us. He thinks that is justice; that it is rational; that it is human. He cannot sit there. He must answer. It is his responsibility.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
(3) Section 44 of the said act is further amended by adding thereto the following:
The amounts payable as compensation under this part shall be adjusted on the 1st day of January and the 1st day of July in each year by a percentage amount equal to the percentage increase in the average industrial wage for Ontario during the preceding six-month period as indicated by the industrial composite average weekly wages and salaries for Ontario, published by Statistics Canada, and the initial adjustments shall reflect the percentage increase in the average industrial wage since 1st day of July, 1983.
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, when we rush legislation we are also rushed to make rational comments on each amendment. We have been forced into this situation by the government and the Minister of Labour even though they were warned last December they were not supposed to do that in future legislation.
I would like to tell the minister that we introduced the same type of section in December 1982 and the government decided to defeat our section.
Just for your benefit, Mr. Chairman, because I know you are paying so much attention to the contents of each section, we are talking about indexing benefits of injured workers. This principle should be incorporated in the act. It has been demanded by several groups across the province, in particular by the Union of Injured Workers since its inception, which goes back to 1972 or 1973. Such principles should now be incorporated into the act in order that twice a year such an increase will take place automatically and we would not have to wait or expect the charity of a five per cent increase by the government.
I would like to bring to members' attention, and to that of the Minister of Labour in particular, the fact that the indexing of benefits is not something new across Canada which has been demanded in Ontario. It goes back to 1965, when British Columbia was the pioneer of workers' compensation benefits being tied to the consumer price index. In the British Columbia system, there are many variations to the principle we are suggesting here in Ontario, variations on the basic system. The maximum earnings covered are tied to a variety of indexes in various jurisdictions.
In BC, some benefits are automatically escalated twice annually and some provinces, such as Ontario, adjust benefits as we have seen in the past few years on the whim of the government, on an ad hoc basis, to increase ongoing pensions for the disabled and dependants using factors related to changes in living costs.
Here we are using the principle of the average industrial wage, which should be the main indicator to calculate the increases in benefit levels. I am sure the minister is aware, when we talk about the average industrial wage, we mean the so-called unionized workers who constitute 35 per cent of the total labour force no one else.
10 p.m.
We are not taking into consideration the majority of workers who do not have a union -- those who work for the minimum and so on. Although we are going to incorporate this principle in the Workers' Compensation Act, I want to remind the minister the majority of workers across Ontario will not be greatly affected by such an indicator. At any rate, we want the government to incorporate this principle into the act by accepting our amendment. It is a fair principle to bring to the level of benefits.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 6:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ruston moves that subsection 45(1) of the act as set out in subsection 6(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "$25,500" and substituting therefor "$26,800."
Mr. Lupusella moves that the amendment to subsection 45(1) of the act as set out in subsection 6(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "$26,800" and substituting "$27,900."
Mr. Lupusella: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think our amendment is not unreasonable. It takes into consideration the average industrial wage in Ontario. I think our figure reflects more fairly the needs of workers across Ontario.
I do not want to repeat it again but the majority of workers are completely excluded, in particular those who are working for the minimum wage. They are bound to the minimum benefits levels set up by the minister and the government. Of course, the Workers' Compensation Board follows suit with what is established in this Legislature.
It is the prerogative of the minister's party to defeat our amendment, but what they are doing tonight is a disservice to the workers of the province. We faced the same situation in December 1982 and they want to take the same position they did then. They are making a political decision; they have made the same political decision about workers' benefits in the past and they persist in their wrongdoing.
The New Democratic Party views injured workers' benefits as a serious matter. We have been debating the same principles through the years and we think the government is completely wrong, especially when at the end of this evening its members will stand up to defeat our amendment.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, since the minister persists in his silence I would like to ask him a question. Can the minister tell us how many workers at Algoma Steel will be cut off by this amendment? How many of them will be penalized because of the ceiling he is imposing on compensation?
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 7:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ruston moves that clause 52(3)(b) as set out in clause 7(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "$332" and "$166" and substituting, respectively, "$348" and "$174."
Mr. Lupusella moves that the amendment to clause 52(3)(b) of the act as set out in clause 7(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "$348" and "$174" and substituting, respectively, "$364" and "$182."
Mr. Lupusella: If I may speak to the amendment to the amendment, I would like to state that, at the moment, clause 52(3)(b) of the act entitles any person to claim additional payment for any period before July 1, 1983. I hope the minister will clarify what he means, because each time legislation is enacted by the province, of course, compensation boards will interpret the legislation. They set up their own policy and, especially when there is something which is doubtful, take a position to set up a series of policies which will take into consideration the doubts that might emerge from any legislation.
It was my understanding that any particular increase which took place in the previous years had considered claims which went back to 1915. I would like to make particular reference to the amendments introduced in July 1975, in which all claims of injured workers across Ontario, going back to 1915, were affected by the increase.
As I stated, maybe it was a generous move in 1975, taking into consideration certain needs of injured workers, but they have not seen increases since 1974 and I can see, from my figures here, that between July 1, 1974, and July 1, 1975, the increase was not so great. I make particular reference to the ceiling between 1974 and 1975; the increase was just based on $3,000.
At any rate, I hope the minister will make clear to the members of this Legislature that, like the amendments which were introduced in 1975, all claims going back to 1915 will be affected. I hope he will clarify the situation and that all the claims, even the old ones, will be affected, without exclusion, even though the minister decided to exclude the lump sum awards and those previously commuted by a decision of the board, ranging from one to 10 per cent. They are completely excluded by these changes.
I hope the minister will clarify the situation and that all the claims are affected by the increase.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked,
Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that the amendment is also stacked.
Shall sections 8 and 9 carry?
Mr. Lupusella: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Members have raised the point that the minister should at least reply to the principles inherent in the amendments of the two opposition parties. It is time he made his position clear about the serious questions which have been raised as a result of the inefficient legislation he is introducing in Bill 66.
What is the minister going to do, for example, about the lump sums?
Mr. Chairman: Before the minister responds, do we have agreement that sections 8 and 9 carry without debate?
Interjection.
Mr. Chairman: No? Shall section 8 of the bill carry?
Mr. McClellan: Let the minister speak.
Mr. Chairman: I think the minister has indicated he will. You are the ones who brought forward whether we should pass sections 8 and 9.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9:
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, before the debate comes to a close I want, in a personal way, to pay tribute to our critic, the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella).
It was nearly 10 years ago that the member for Dovercourt and I first met when he was a community worker at the Union of Injured Workers and I was a lowly law student. I want simply to pay tribute to the extraordinary dedication and personal courage he has shown in the last few years in his struggle to improve the conditions of life for literally thousands of our fellow citizens in Ontario.
I think he has done a marvellous job. I simply want to put that on the record and indicate how much we in this party appreciate the dedication and courage he has shown in this fight, as in his other work, on behalf of injured workers.
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank our Labour critic, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), to whom I gave permission to be back in his riding tonight for a very important function. He has been working very hard on this bill and on the Weiler report meetings. I want to congratulate him on the excellent amendments he had prepared which I only read on his behalf.
The Deputy Chairman: Still speaking to section 9, the honourable minister.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, the leader of the third party pre-empted my opening remark and that was to repeat what I had said during a similar type of debate last Christmas when I paid tribute to the member for Dovercourt and the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) for what I believe is very serious dedication towards the cause of the injured workers. And I repeat that. Because of the dedication of these two members, which I recognize and which I acknowledge, I came into this Legislature this evening prepared to answer all questions that were put to me. I was determined that I was not going to let myself be provoked by the pious rhetoric that I have had to listen to over the past few days.
I made copious notes this evening and was fully prepared to try to answer all the questions that were asked of me. However, I am reluctant to do so -- in fact, I am not going to do so -- simply because of the manner in which these same two honourable gentlemen, who I respect for what they are and what they do, posed those questions this evening and the rude and arrogant manner in which they constantly asked me to get on my feet when I had indicated earlier in the evening that I was fully prepared to answer the questions at the end of this session. They would not wait until the end of this session.
Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that, by agreement, we are to call the votes at 10:15. It is after 10:15, even by our digital clock.
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: First of all, I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature that I was not rude in asking questions of the minister. I think there are serious implications which will derive from Bill 66. During the course of my speech, I complimented the Minister of Labour by saying that in some ways he is compassionate to the needs of injured workers. He says I have been cruel tonight, but he is cruel towards the needs of injured workers, because he does not want to show the sort of leadership and responsibility that is required by a minister of the crown.
Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with section 9 of Bill 66.
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Section 9 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that there is a 10-minute bell.
10:25 p.m.
HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS ACT
The committee divided on Ms. Copps's amendment to clause 3(1)(a) of Bill 64, An Act respecting certain Health Facilities, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 44; nays 63.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
10:30 p.m.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the amendment to subsection 1(1) of Bill 66, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 20; nays 87.
The committee divided on Mr. Nixon's amendment to subsection 1(1), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 44; nays 63.
Section 1 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Nixon's amendment to subsection 2(1), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 44; nays 63.
Section 2 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the amendment to subsection 3(3), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 20; nays 87.
The committee divided on Mr. Nixon's amendment to subsection 3(3), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 44; nays 63.
Section 3 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the amendment to section 4, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 20; nays 87.
The committee divided on Mr. Ruston's amendment to section 4, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 44; Nays 63.
Section 4 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the amendment to subsection 5(1), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 44; nays 63.
The committee divided on Mr. Ruston's amendment to subsection 5(1), which was negatived on the same vote.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 44; nays 63.
Section 5 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the amendment to subsection 6(1), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 20; nays 87.
The committee divided on Mr. Ruston's amendment to subsection 6(1), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 44; Nays 63.
Section 6 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to the amendment to clause 7(1)(b), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 20; nays 87.
The committee divided on Mr. Ruston's amendment to clause 7(1)(b), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 44; Nays 63.
Section 7 agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments and one bill without amendment.
10:40 p.m.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Just before the adjournment, I should indicated the business of the House for tomorrow.
We will begin with third readings of any bills on tomorrow's order paper for third reading, followed by second and third readings of the private bills on the order paper. We will then move to Bill 65, the Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, Bill 73, Bill 62 and Bill 40.
The House adjourned at 10:41 p.m.