role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 28, 1974

29th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L096 - Fri 28 Jun 1974 / Ven 28 jun 1974

STORMONT BY-ELECTION

HOPE TOWNSHIP GARBAGE SITE

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

TRANSFER OF SENIOR CITIZENS TO HOSPITALS

LAND SPECULATION TAX

MEDICO-LEGAL ETHICS OF LIFE-SAVING SUPPORT

USE OF ETHYLENE OXIDE

TRAINING SCHOOLS AND TRADE EXAMS

SUNDAY TRUCKING OPERATIONS

METRO WORK GROUP

AGGREGATE HAULAGE DISPUTE

BICYCLE TRAILS

DAYCARE SERVICES

ABORTION REFERRALS

RESALE OF HOME PROGRAMME HOUSES

NURSING STAFF SHORTAGE

PROXY VOTING

NATIVE TEACHERS

HIGHWAY 404

USE OF ETHYLENE OXIDE

LAND SPECULATION TAX

ST. JAMES TOWN HELP PROGRAMME

USE OF FRENCH LANGUAGE

THIRD READINGS

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT

THIRD READING

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 10:05 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

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

STORMONT BY-ELECTION

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

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Absolutely right!

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

Mr. Deans: Supplementary.

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

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

HOPE TOWNSHIP GARBAGE SITE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the House leader as well, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), is he aware of an undertaking, at least tentatively entered into by the ministry, if one can enter into an undertaking that way, to inform the House of his decision as to whether or not Toronto garbage is going to be allowed to be dumped in Hope township, a matter that has been pending now for many months?

In the absence of the minister, can he indicate what decision cabinet has made in this regard, since the people in the area are living under the threat of these thousands of tons of Metro garbage being dumped into that beautiful township 70 miles to the east of Toronto? Surely we are not going to adjourn the House without a statement being made in that regard?

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

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

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

TRANSFER OF SENIOR CITIZENS TO HOSPITALS

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh goody!

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

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

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

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

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was an

article in this morning’s Globe and Mail and an

article in Wednesday’s Star. The

article that appeared in Wednesday’s Toronto Star was not entirely accurate --

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

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The

article mentioned that 12 out of 13 senior citizens had been transferred and had died within four months.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Deans: It’s not only in Niagara.

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

Mr. Deans: Not only in the Niagara region.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth?

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

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

LAND SPECULATION TAX

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no thought that the government would extend the rate, beyond the one established in the bill, through the combination of provincial and federal tax?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Deans: Later?

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

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

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. member for Ottawa East.

MEDICO-LEGAL ETHICS OF LIFE-SAVING SUPPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OF ETHYLENE OXIDE

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

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

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

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

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

TRAINING SCHOOLS AND TRADE EXAMS

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

SUNDAY TRUCKING OPERATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They wouldn’t even listen to that argument, and said it was not acceptable. The decision was made after our representations had been made and in the face of that.

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

METRO WORK GROUP

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

AGGREGATE HAULAGE DISPUTE

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

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

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

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

BICYCLE TRAILS

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

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

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

DAYCARE SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. MacDonald: Why internal?

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

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

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

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

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

Mr. MacDonald: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

An hon. member: Wonderbook.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. MacDonald: She is destroying the system.

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deacon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since some of us recognize that there is not an endless amount of money for daycare service and there is some resistance from the public to these increased costs; and since we are aware that the minister is trying to increase the service without reducing standards; and since we don’t have the benefit of all the information, including that report in particular, would the minister make available to us, during the next few weeks, all the information, including that report?

Because some of us are going to be holding meetings in our areas to see if we can develop answers to this problem by involving others in the community that would help replace the care now provided by professionals.

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

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

Mr. MacDonald: Why not?

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

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

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABORTION REFERRALS

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESALE OF HOME PROGRAMME HOUSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NURSING STAFF SHORTAGE

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

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

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

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Higher salaries?

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, I am.

Mr. Shulman: A final supplementary --

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

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

PROXY VOTING

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

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

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

NATIVE TEACHERS

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

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

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

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

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

HIGHWAY 404

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

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

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

USE OF ETHYLENE OXIDE

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

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

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

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

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

LAND SPECULATION TAX

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

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

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

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

ST. JAMES TOWN HELP PROGRAMME

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

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

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

USE OF FRENCH LANGUAGE

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

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

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

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

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

Petitions.

Reports.

Motions.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Roy: Is that an adjournment sine die?

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

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Mr. Singer: No bills? How come?

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 22, The Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

Bill 73,

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

Bill 85,

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

Bill 86,

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

Bill 88,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Bill 95,

An Act to restructure the County of Oxford.

Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Bill 101,

An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Bill 115,

An Act to establish the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As soon as possible.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves second reading of Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a most amazing saga because I must admit that very few people, certainly very few organizations, gave anything much more than lip service to the need for the improvement of those payments. Certainly it was raised frequently in the Legislature by the Liberal opposition and the NDP; certainly it was raised in committee by individual members of the Conservative Party.

Yet somehow there was that residual feeling that the workmen’s compensation enactment was one of the best in Canada, and that even a few months ago, after the great furore over the dismissal of the previous chairman and by bringing in Michael Starr, the friend of the workman, somehow that issue was now passing away into oblivion and the government had somehow maintained itself in the minds of reason- able people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything less than an indexing to the cost of living is unacceptable. The minister has said that the level of payments will be reviewed regularly. Well, they have been reviewed regularly over the years. But I don’t believe the injured workman should expect political pressure to be brought to bear -- people falling down on the floor of the Legislature or intruding themselves and bullhorning their views through the doors or the Legislature to us. We should not put them to that embarrassment in order to give them an opportunity to have an income based on their labour and based on their rights.

There is no welfare in this. This payment is their right because they were injured in this province, working in this province under the provisions of a statute which is supposed to remunerate them properly, fairly and adequately. We should not subject them to the requirement to intrude themselves into public policy in this way. It must be indexed and anything less is unacceptable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Right.

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

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

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

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

What really gets me down is that, while they reject the cost of living concept for the injured workmen, we know they do not reject it for their employees at a higher level. As a matter of fact, the executives of the Workmen’s Compensation Board receive cost of living adjustments for their salaries. In fact, when the government settled with Mr.

Legge -- remember those circumstances where he was fired and all the rest of it? -- he was awarded a full 12 months salary without working at all, an amount of $40,950 plus --and this is the part that galls me -- he was awarded an additional cost of living adjustment in the final year of $1,807.70. The government could do that for Bruce, but it couldn’t do it for the injured workmen.

I am just telling you, Mr. Speaker, that for the people who were demonstrating here the other day and who are going to look at this bill and receive the $10 a month adjustment, or whatever it happens to be, it does not sit very well. I would say to the minister it is a further indication of the incompetence and I would say the heartlessness of the government in approaching this problem, because this bill is nothing more than an inadequate Band Aid -- which is not going to meet the needs of the injured workmen, and they very rightly have come forward with a strong protest.

The payments do not begin to cover the actual increases in the cost of living, although the minister says they will be reviewed regularly. He goes back many years in his statement, but as the Union of Injured Workmen say in their brief, since 1965 alone the cost of living has increased 55 per cent, while the proposed amendments would give an injured worker’s pension in 1965 a mere 22 per cent increase to cover the rising costs.

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

This whole consideration of so-called light work has been another embarrassment and a problem for us all. How often have people come to us in our constituencies and given us the story that is so familiar that I don’t have to repeat it to the members. They say, “I was injured. Yes, I did get my compensation properly and I was looked after adequately. I got 75 per cent of my pay and it was a great programme. But now they say that I have only a partial disability and my payments are reduced. I can’t get work because there isn’t light work here.

I can’t bend over, I can’t lift and there is no alternative for me but to come to you as the member.” We go through the appeal proceedings, we do everything we can and we try to get work for them, but it is very inadequate. I am delighted -- and I must say this -- that in the bill there is a

section for those people who have a partial disability on a temporary basis that says their payments stay up to the full level as long as they are prepared to co-operate, take training and be available for work. I say that

section is supportable.

What about those people who have gone through all of the retraining and all of the facilities and programmes available down there in order to put them back in the work force, confident that they can, in fact, earn their own living and meet their financial responsibilities as family men and women? We find that once they have gone through that routine and are permanently partially disabled, here they are out in the community with a partial disability, and the Workmen’s Compensation Board washes its hands of them. It says, “We have done everything we can for you.

Here is your partial payment which will go in perpetuity; you are on your own. If you get a job, that’s great, but if not you can get welfare and there are all sorts of things you can do.”

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

Why don’t you go out and get light work?” We know that is inadequate; we know we must assume a greater degree of responsibility than that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Deacon: Six Tories.

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

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

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

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

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

All the increases in essence are going to those who are completely and totally disabled. It looks good on the surface to have the increases going to them. But this group is a very, very small percentage of the injured workmen who are receiving pensions, so small as to be almost written down on one piece of paper in half an hour. Most of the people in this province receiving Workmen’s Compensation Board pensions by the way the government rates them are not permanently totally disabled. Some of them are 80 and 90 per cent and certainly can’t be employed anywhere.

Even those rated at 20 and 30 per cent aren’t able to be employed, and these are not that group to which the government gives the increases in the rest of the bill. There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to support this bill. We are fed up with seeing yet another few crumbs dropped to the injured workmen of this province.

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

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

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

Mr. Laughren: Right on.

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

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

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

Mr. Martel: Withdraw the bill.

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

The average is once every year and a half, and it is pitifully small each time. That’s no reassurance to us, to people interested in justice in this province or to the injured workers of this province.

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

Mr. Laughren: Perverse!

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

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

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

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

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

If he can give me an explanation for $260 that will be convincing -- well, he won’t be able to give an explanation for a $10 increase from $250 to $260 --

Mr. Martel: My God, he is generous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Martel: With the intention of rape.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Laughren: Right on.

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

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

Mr. Haggerty: Don’t suggest that.

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

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

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

Mr. Haggerty: Most misleading.

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

Mr. Haggerty: The consumer pays for it.

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

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

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

An hon. member: Deliberately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Laughren: That’s right.

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

Mr. Laughren: Exactly.

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

Mr. Laughren: Right.

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

Or, part (ii): “fails to accept or is not available for suitable employment.” I suspect that from time immemorial the means by which people got dropped from their 100 per cent pension down to the light-work, 50 per cent pension category -- half of 75 per cent of their former salary -- whenever that occurred, the reason was the doctor having to check a little box which reads: “Is he available for suitable work?” Sure, any of us, even if we’re 99 per cent disabled, if there was work suitable to that 99 per cent disability, could take it. What can the doctor do?

Sure, if there is suitable work available he’s available for it, but the doctor has to answer “yes” or “no” to: “Is he avail- able for suitable work?”

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

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

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

Mr. Laughren: Neither does the board.

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

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

I, and I think the other members of this House, are very suspicious over how this disappearance of the light work category is, in fact, going to be treated. I would suspect that really what’s happened here -- and I’d be delighted if the minister could stand up here and assure me otherwise in this

section -- is that the 50 per cent level has just completely disappeared. Now we’re going to go from the 100 per cent disability -- again still only 75 per cent of his salary -- right straight down to a pension rating which will be 20, 30 or 15 per cent, based not on his employability but upon his physical disability, of his former wages and there won’t even be a 50 per cent category halfway through in which he sits. Sure, they dropped the light work category in order that it goes from one step, from 100 per cent, down to a percentage based upon not his employability but the extent of his physical disability.

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

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

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

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

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

Further along, in a further

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

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

This Act, Mr. Minister, is to compensate injured workmen for their loss of earnings due to an accident in the workplace; to compensate for their loss of earnings until they can get back to work. What on earth is a maximum earning

section doing in here? There is no justification for it whatsoever.

Another thing in this bill which just makes one’s blood run cold is all of these picayunish -- four per cent and beyond that two per cent -- increases, based on these poor bases, wages that were paid years ago. Even those increases, however, are not going to apply to a commutation lump sum award, in spite of the fact it states, under

section 42(4) of the Act: “When the impairment does not exceed 10 per cent of his earning capacity, the board shall direct that a lump sum payment be paid.” And they do it all the time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be a government-funded and run accident and sickness insurance programme which compensates people for loss of earnings due to accidents, wherever those accidents occur -- or illness which keeps them away from the job -- with the funding to be from three different sources: public premiums; from automobile insurance if those accidents occur in automobiles; and thirdly from employers when those accidents have occurred on the job.

Until we have that sort of a scheme and abolish all the rest of this fiddling around, we are going to continue to have a problem and will continue to have a bill with which the government can fiddle all it wants on the surface, and nothing is ever really accomplished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Haggerty: It is in Hansard.

Mr. B. Newman: We welcome them.

Mr. Martel: What nonsense.

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

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

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Labour Representative Speaks to IAPA

“In a hard-hitting speech to the Lindsay-Peterborough

chapter of the IAPA in March, Henry Wiseback, secretary of the Ontario Federation of Labour Safety Committee, told a meeting that management-imposed safety programmes where workers are not consulted, are useless.

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

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

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

I don’t want to be repetitious, Mr. Speaker, but I do have a private member’s bill,

An Act to provide for the Establishment of Safety Committees in Industries in Ontario. Some time, I hope it is debated in the Legislature during the private members’ hour because I think this is the answer to reducing the number of accidents in industry in Ontario. The bill would give the employees and employers equal representation on a safety committee through legislation; they will have an input in safety matters. I think it is an important bill and hopefully this minister may move in that direction, to give the workers some input in safety matters.

Not some -- they should have input in safety matters and safety procedures in industry in Ontario. It is long overdue and I hope the minister will move in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, to sum it up, I would want to deal with one particular claim. It is claim 6150395. This was a nurse who was injured some 10 or 12 years ago; I believe it was in one of the hospitals in the riding. A stool collapsed and she fell and injured her spine. There is quite a lengthy history of the injured person. When I look at what she will receive under the present proposals -- this two per cent per year as the minister has indicated in his statement -- it’s rather disgusting that the minister should introduce a bill such as this.

I have to sympathize with those persons who were injured before 1971 because what the minister has indicated to them looks great -- that 60 per cent increase. I’ll tell the minister what that 60 per cent increase will give to this particular claimant based on two per cent. It happened some 10 or 12 years ago and she is presently classified as 37.5 per cent disabled. There is another clause in here that she is rated at only 16 per cent, but there are stipulations under the regulations or under the

interpretations of the Act so she can be raised to 37 per cent. Under the present legislation she is getting $93.75 a month and under the new legislation she will receive $97.50 per month, an increase of only $3.75. How ridiculous can we get in going along with accepting the principle of this bill?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Taylor: -- fair minded --

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

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

Mr. Martel: Right on.

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

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

There is often a very traumatic experience suffered by a workman as a result of an accident. There is a psychological impact that cannot be measured in terms of dollars and in laboratory terms. I know there are cases that are difficult to judge, because there are persons who probably feign ty