WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would advise that the Blue Jays are leading by a score of one to nothing.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved second reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, one week ago in my statement to the Legislature on introduction of Bill 99 and Bill 101 to amend the Workers' Compensation Act, I described the history of the review process that had led up to the amendments in question and discussed the reasons for the government's decision to adopt a phased approach to implementation of reform. In addition, I summarized the principal features of the government's proposals.
I stated then that the provisions contained in the two bills constitute a major step forward in advancing the equity, fairness and efficiency of the workers' compensation system in Ontario.
Tonight I would like to amplify those remarks and deal with some of the major proposals in more detail. In the process, I hope to address some of the concerns expressed by a number of the honourable members opposite following my statement last week.
Most of my comments tonight will be directed towards Bill 101, which deals with the proposed reforms of the workers' compensation system. The companion legislation, Bill 99, provides to all existing pensioners a five per cent increase in benefits, effective July 1. There will also be a corresponding increase in burial and clothing allowances.
As I mentioned last week, it is my hope that by splitting the amendments in this fashion the House will at least be able to grant passage to Bill 99 before the summer recess so that the pensioners concerned can begin receiving the higher benefits as soon as possible. I should add that workers on temporary disability benefits as of the date of proclamation of Bill 101 will receive a five per cent increase on that date.
I propose to turn now to discuss in some detail the government's reform proposals. Bill 101 contains four major changes affecting the level and structure of benefits.
First, the system of rehabilitation supplements for partial disability claimants will be improved. These are provided for in subsection 43(5) and clause 41(1)(b) of the present act.
As members are no doubt aware, under the terms of subsection 43(5) permanent partial disability pension recipients may be eligible for a supplement to their regular pensions where impairment of their earning capacity is significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of their injury. The supplement, in effect, tops up the permanent pension awarded to the level of the equivalent total disability pension. It is contingent upon the worker's co-operation with Workers' Compensation Board rehabilitation programs and on his or her availability for suitable employment. The supplement awarded under clause 41(1)(b) is based on the application of similar kinds of considerations in situations where workers are receiving a temporary partial disability benefit.
In one of his questions after my statement on the proposed amendments last Tuesday, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) cited an example of a situation that he alleged would not be addressed at all in the proposed amendments to the act. As I recollect it, his example concerned an older construction worker with a serious back injury, an injury that precluded his resuming work again in that industry.
I submit that the proposed improvements in the supplement provisions of the act have a very direct bearing on the situation of a worker such as the one described. The new provision for inflation adjustment of pre-injury earnings in the calculation of such supplements will result in enhanced payments to some workers already receiving these benefits. In other cases, it will permit workers to qualify for a supplement where previously their earnings or pension levels prevented it.
Currently, actual pre-injury earnings are compared with actual post-injury earnings in computing entitlement to a supplement. Where a considerable time lag is involved, this comparison may be unfair to the worker, since post-injury earnings will be measured in inflated dollars. The proposed change will effectively ensure that real differences in pre- and post-injury earnings are properly taken into account in determining the level of supplementary payments.
In situations where the older worker is unlikely to derive benefit from vocational rehabilitation, the proposed amendments to the supplement provisions of the act will permit that worker to receive supplemental payments up to old age security levels. Payments of this kind are not currently available under the act.
A further group of workers who will stand to benefit from the more flexible rules surrounding computation of supplements is those in receipt of Canada pension plan disability benefits. Currently, workers in this position are barred from qualifying for a supplement. Eligibility for CPP disability benefits is dependent on severe and prolonged disability that removes the worker from the work force, while eligibility for a WCB supplement is contingent on availability for suitable employment. The proposed new arrangements will consider CPP disability payments in computing supplements instead of treating them as a bar to supplement entitlement.
The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) raised some concerns about the proposal to integrate CPP benefits with WCB benefits when I announced it last week. In fact, the proposal to integrate has application only in certain defined cases. I am confident the honourable member will recognize in this particular case that the workers concerned can only stand to gain from this provision; no one will suffer a loss in benefit entitlement by virtue of the change in the way CPP disability benefits are to be treated. I intend to return to the question of CPP integration shortly, after I have described the basic parameters of the proposed new dual award scheme for survivor benefits.
I believe the changes I have outlined in the criteria for determining partial disability supplements and in the application of those criteria represent an important and necessary improvement for a group of workers, many of whom have experienced inequities in the past in the way in which their benefit entitlements were determined.
As I stated last week, and I reiterate today, the contentious and difficult-to-resolve issue of formulating an appropriate longer-term scheme for dealing with compensation of permanent disability claims is under active consideration for a subsequent phase of the reform process; it has not been rejected or shelved indefinitely. In the meantime, I am confident the amendments I have described will assist in the more immediate alleviation of those aspects of the rehabilitation supplement program that have generated the most frequent concern and comment.
8:10 p.m.
The second major element in the package of benefit proposals is the dual award scheme for surviving spouses and dependent children. Currently, the dependent spouse's pension is set at $564 per month plus a further $157 for each dependent child.
Under the terms of Bill 99, it is proposed these levels will rise by five per cent on July 1, 1984. The proposed new scheme is somewhat more complex than the old in several respects, but is intended to provide a much more equitable level and distribution of benefits for the various categories of claimants.
The magnitude of both the lump sum payments and the pensions under the dual award scheme will be a function of the age of the surviving spouse. In addition, the pension will be related to the deceased's pre-injury earnings and to the presence or otherwise of dependent children. For a surviving spouse without dependent children, the level of payments is most easily described and understood by reference to the entitlement of a spouse at age 40.
In this case, the lump sum payment is $40,000 and the pension is 40 per cent of the deceased's pre-injury net earnings. For each year of age of the surviving spouse above 40, at the time of the worker's death, the lump sum declines by $1,000 and the pension rises by one per cent of net earnings. For each year below age 40, the reverse is true.
Thus, at the extreme ends of the age spectrum, the 20-year-old sole surviving spouse receives $60,000 and 20 per cent of net earnings while the 60-year-old gets $20,000 plus 60 per cent of net. The figures quoted represent the maximum and minimum scales of payment for the two elements of the dual award scheme.
As members will see, this scheme produces a distribution of benefits in a form which is generally commensurate with basic financial need at various age levels. The lump sum, which is designed to compensate for noneconomic losses, such as loss of companionship, is larger for younger spouses.
At the same time, a lump sum benefit in these circumstances may be the most beneficial form of payment for a young spouse who wishes to make the necessary adjustments to a changed financial status and perhaps to re-establish herself or himself in the labour force.
In this regard, all surviving spouses will be entitled to utilize the vocational rehabilitation and employment counselling services provided by the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario.
Conversely, the older spouse maybe primarily concerned with obtaining a guaranteed, adequate level of continuing income in these same circumstances and may have less need for compensation paid in the form of a lump sum.
Where the spouse in question has dependent children, the lump sum payment is calculated in the same way as described above. The pension is set at 90 per cent of pre-injury net earnings, the same level as would be payable in a permanent total disability case. The minimum benefit payable in this situation, irrespective of the deceased's pre-injury net income, is $10,500 annually.
A dependent child is defined as under 19 years of age. When the youngest child reaches that age, the spouse's pension thereafter would be calculated with reference to the appropriate point on the scale used to determine the pension entitlement of a sole surviving spouse. Where a dependent child aged 19 or more continues in full-time education, an allowance equivalent to 10 per cent of the deceased's previous net earnings would continue to be payable for each such child.
In contrast to the arrangement under the present pension scheme for surviving spouses, pension benefits under the new proposal will continue after the spouse's remarriage. It is also proposed that WCB survivor benefits will be integrated with CPP survivor benefits.
As I mentioned earlier, I would like to take a moment to explain how this would work in practice and to address concerns raised about the principle of WCB-CPP benefit integration by the member for Essex South last week.
In my view, the most important feature of any workers' compensation scheme for the workers and their families who must draw upon it, is the provision of an assurance that post-injury income will be made up to a level which appropriately reflects the loss sustained.
In redesigning the current rehabilitation supplement and survivor benefit provisions with this consideration in mind, both schemes have been improved and placed on a more rational footing, with a much wider variety of factors taken into account in computing benefit entitlement. As a result, I believe that determination of benefits will be much more sensitive to need and to individual circumstances than was previously the case.
One of the wider variety of factors to be taken into account is Canada pension plan benefits. While I recognize the contributory nature of the CPP scheme, I find it difficult to support the notion that in attempting to make benefits under the WCB program more sensitive to loss we should then proceed to ignore totally the other major source of disability-related income for work place accident victims or their spouses.
It does not seem to me that the ultimate objective of placing the determination of workers' compensation benefits on a more rational, less arbitrary basis is best served by trying to perform this procedure without reference to the other prime source of compensation in respect of the same work place accident. The method chosen will ensure that the level of benefit provided can always be adjusted so as to maintain an adequate overall target level of compensation for the WCB claimant.
I wish to emphasize again that CPP integration will apply only in respect of the two compensation situations where benefits have been significantly remodelled and enhanced by the amendments I have put forward. It will not apply to existing survivor pension claimants whose benefits continue to be governed by the terms of the current compensation scheme, nor will it apply to permanent disability awards in cases where the claimant does not qualify for a supplement.
Canada pension plan benefits will be taken into account by subtracting them from pre-injury gross earnings before computation of the partial disability supplement or survivor pension. Having regard to the impact of the income tax system, this method is much more advantageous to the claimant than the alternative of subtracting directly from the pension on supplement after all of the other calculations have been completed.
As is the case with the supplement scheme, I am confident that the proposed dual award scheme for survivors will prove to be of significantly greater benefit to most recipients than would have been the case under the previous arrangements. The CPP integration feature does not change that conclusion.
The third major benefit change provides that full benefit entitlements will be calculated on the basis of 90 per cent of the injured worker's pre-injury net earnings, rather than 75 per cent of gross earnings as at present.
The net earnings principle was generally endorsed by the employer and injured worker communities when it was first put forward in 1980, and was supported by members of all three parties on the standing committee which studied the original white paper proposals last year. I might add that use of the 90 per cent figure is standard in all of the other jurisdictions in Canada which have opted for basing benefits on net earnings.
The move to 90 per cent of net will be of particular benefit to workers in the lower tax brackets, for example, those with relatively low pre-injury earnings or with a large number of dependants. It will ensure that benefits received bear a more consistent relationship to previous take-home pay than is the case under the current system.
The fourth major proposal in Bill 101 affecting the level or structure of benefits is to raise the covered earnings ceiling to $31,500. The current ceiling is $25,500. Under the terms of Bill 99, this would rise by five per cent to $26,800 effective July 1.
Last Tuesday in this House, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) queried the new level of the ceiling and implied that it should have been raised by a greater amount. An increase of the magnitude proposed ensures that more than 85 per cent of the workers who participate in the WCB accident fund will receive the benefit of full earnings coverage under the scheme. The new ceiling is not out of line with the ceilings in other provincial jurisdictions in Canada.
While some have argued that the ceiling should be eliminated, significantly raising the ceiling or removing it completely is a relatively expensive measure which benefits only a small minority of claimants. It was the government's judgement at this time that extra expenditures were better directed towards establishing many of the other amendments I have described than in further raising the ceiling.
8:20 p.m.
However, as I indicated in my answer to last Tuesday's question on this matter, the government's phased approach to reform certainly does not preclude further adjustment in the level of the ceiling in the future.
Mr. Philip: In the fullness of time.
The Deputy Speaker: Ignore him. He does not have the floor.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have discussed at some length the proposed changes in the structure and level of benefits provided under the Workers' Compensation Act. Now I would like to turn to what I believe are some equally significant reforms of an administrative nature which are also part of the package of proposals contained in Bill 101.
Several of these changes are designed to open up the board's internal policy formulation and decision-making processes to a much greater degree of external participation and scrutiny. In the longer term, I have every expectation this will exert a beneficial effect on the operational quality of those processes, while at the same time enhancing the satisfaction of all parties involved with the system's ability to respond effectively to their concerns.
The WCB corporate board will be reconstituted to include a majority of external directors to be drawn from the employer and worker communities, as well as from professional groups and the public at large. External representation on the corporate board will comprise between five and nine persons compared with just two full-time internal members, namely, the WCB chairman and the vice-chairman of administration.
The new corporate board structure will guarantee a full measure of external participation in, and influence over, the way the WCB itself operates and the policies it pursues, as well as providing direct feedback to board officials regarding community concerns with the workers' compensation system.
Last week the member for Windsor-Sandwich expressed his dismay at the retention of the clinical disability rating system. I would remind the member that under a wage loss scheme of the kind proposed by the Liberal members of the standing committee, a clinical disability rating system would be retained.
However, perhaps the member's concern was, in part at least, a reflection of his broader concerns regarding the administration and practical application of the clinical disability rating system as constituted at present. If that is so, then to the extent those kinds of concerns are shared, I would envisage that the new corporate board might wish to address this issue.
The changes in the composition of the corporate board that I have described possess the potential for initiating a wide variety of new approaches to the way in which the board carries out its responsibilities under the act.
A second very important reform of a structural and process nature involves the creation of a new tripartite appeals tribunal. Present appeal procedures are purely internal to the board, staffed and administered by WCB employees up to and including the appeal tribunal level. Beyond that stage, the appellant may carry a case to the Ombudsman.
The lack of an appeals body that is fully independent of the board itself has been the subject of frequent criticism. This perceived deficiency in the appeals process would now be corrected with the replacement of the old appeal board by a tripartite appeals tribunal, comprising a chairman, one or more vice-chairmen and equal numbers of members representative of workers and employers respectively.
The tribunal's decision on matters within its jurisdiction would be final. The opportunity for corporate board review of such a decision would be confined to a situation where the decision turned upon an interpretation of the general law and policy of the act. In that case, the corporate board would be empowered to make a determination on the issue and to direct the tribunal to reconsider the matter in the light of that determination.
The appeals tribunal would have access to the assistance of a medical assessor drawn from a roster of independent qualified medical practitioners in cases where there are medical issues in dispute. Again, this proposal addresses criticisms of the present system related to the exclusive role of doctors employed or appointed by the board in providing medical opinions or performing medical examinations in situations where there are doubts regarding the extent or nature of a particular disability.
In addition, the government proposes to establish a new industrial disease standards panel comprising up to nine members drawn from various fields, including representatives of the scientific and professional communities and the general public. The panel's responsibilities would include investigation of possible industrial diseases and their causes, the formulation of criteria for identification of such diseases and the review and development of guidelines for evaluating and adjudicating industrial disease claims.
The panel would be advisory in nature, but its findings would be made public, with the board inviting comment on the issue before making its determination. The board's final decision on the matter would also be made public.
I would like to turn briefly to the remaining reform proposals. The current office of worker adviser will be expanded and a new office of employer adviser will be created. Both will report to the Minister of Labour. The scope of the adviser function will be extended to cover claims matters as well as appeals.
Domestic workers will be brought under the scope of the Workers' Compensation Act by eliminating the existing exclusion in section 131 of the act. Full-time, single employer domestics will receive coverage under part I of the act, while part-time or multi-employer workers will receive the benefit of protections provided under part II. Workers will be provided with full wages and benefits from the day of injury through direct payment by the employer.
The protections against employment discrimination provided under the Human Rights Code will be extended to cover workers' compensation claimants.
The present exemption from civil liability with respect to industrial accidents that applies to employers and workers will be extended to cover executive officers of employers.
The board's authority to finance a variety of training programs in health and safety education will be clarified.
In recent discussion with a number of members regarding the proposed legislative amendments, the question of provision of French-language services by the Workers' Compensation Board has arisen. An internal review committee at the board has been studying this matter for some time with a view to possible introduction of bilingual forms and other services some time in 1985.
It is envisaged that the exact timetable would be dependent to some extent on the date of introduction of the legislative amendments I have outlined tonight. This way the changes can be phased in without risking any interruption to the orderly payment of claims.
It is my intention to introduce an amendment to Bill 101 at the committee stage to make provision for French-language services at the WCB. The precise terms of the amendment will be determined shortly, following the corporate board's consideration of the proposals of the internal review committee to which I refer.
As members are now well aware, the amendments contained in Bills 99 and 101 are both complex and extensive. Throughout the long process of developing and refining the amendments I have described today, I have been acutely conscious of the difficulties involved in balancing my sincere desire to inject a greater measure of equity and fairness into the workers' compensation system with a recognition that many of these changes have important cost implications.
As I indicated in my opening statement in this House last week, the government has embarked on a phased process of reform. It will continue to examine the wage-loss concept and any other workable alternatives with a view to improving the present system of compensating for permanent disability. In the meantime, I believe the measures advanced in the two bills before us tonight represent a substantial first step in the direction of workers' compensation reform.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the member for Essex South, who was asked to leave this chamber this afternoon for daring to wish to make some comments on a point of order, I rise to indicate that my colleagues and I will oppose this bill on second reading as we opposed it on first reading.
8:30 p.m.
I listened with amazement as the Minister of Labour described these changes and tried to gloss over them as being somehow major in shape. I want to indicate at the outset that I noticed the Minister of Labour dealt with a number of questions asked by the leader of the third party, by myself and by the member for Essex South.
I thought it was very significant that he did not deal with the terrible discrepancy I raised with him last Wednesday in comparing the fate of a widow with two children who is unlucky enough to have her spouse killed on the day before proclamation of these amendments and the fate of a widow with two children with exactly the same income whose spouse is killed the day after proclamation. There is a $600 or $700 a month discrepancy in their incomes.
One of the few benefit features of this new legislation that is welcome is our final admission that our treatment of widows and children has been nothing short of shameless. Colleagues from all three parties who have heard me in committee know I feel very strongly about this. The government has recognized it in the new act. Why it could not then bring itself at least to double, to 10 per cent, the payments to surviving spouses and children who live on or near the poverty line at present is beyond me.
I want to start out right where the minister left off and deal with his discussion about balancing fairness and equity with the cost of these changes. No one in this party would ever argue that the kinds of changes we have proposed in this party in our dissent to the majority report would not cost substantial amounts of money, if they are implemented in conjunction with the continuation of the same disgracefully high number of accidents in this province.
We have almost half a million accidents each year and we have 150,000 lost-time claims each and every year. I want the members to think of how many people there are in the work force. It does not take a genius to understand that we simply have far too many accidents. I am not going to point a finger. I think the blame can be fairly shared around, perhaps a little more to the employer, who is running the business after all. I know there are employees who can be negligent in an accidental way. Obviously, they do not want to be hurt. I understand there are employers who can be negligent, but I suggest if we wish to deal with the cost of the compensation system, that is the only way to go about it.
I want to remind my friend the minister what Paul Weiler argued back in November 1980. I want to read this brief quote because, while I disagree with some -- not a lot -- of the major conclusions Weiler reached, he certainly had a way with words and had some of the correct approaches. Weiler wrote in his report:
"It is illegitimate in principle to argue that the Workers' Compensation Board must tighten up on claims and cut back on benefits because its total budget is growing too large, too fast, for the economy to afford. This should be as unthinkable as would be a suggestion to the Chief Justice that the number and level of tort awards be restrained by his judges because insurance premiums are getting too high. In both cases, the same answer is appropriate: the only proper means of containing the bill for accident losses is to reduce the number of accidents themselves."
Frankly, if the minister and his officials over at the Workers' Compensation Board would worry a little more about the 150,000 lost-time claims we have each year and a little less about cutting back on nickels and dimes, and nickel and diming injured workers in this province to death, we would have a better piece of legislation and, more important, we would have many fewer injured workers.
I want to put something together fairly quickly. I want to deal with a number of issues. I am going to deal mainly with the benefit issues because I do not have major concerns about some of the structural bureaucratic changes. The independent tripartite appeal tribunal is long overdue. The new corporate board appears to be well on the way to giving us a new day in terms of the directors of the board. In looking at the bill, I notice the minister appears to have listened to some extent to our appeal that the chairman of the appeals tribunal not be on the board. He has decided to put him on, but as an ex officio nonvoting member. I welcome that.
Obviously, the minister knows I have some concerns about the workers' advisers, but I am pleased to see they are being expanded even though he has put them under his ministry, which is wrong. In our opinion, he should have put them under the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and put them in the community legal clinics.
The medical review panels are a welcome change from the board doctors. Probably every injured worker in Ontario who has ever had a serious injury has his or her own horror story about board doctors. That is a welcome change, though I must say I am concerned about the way, in my reading of the act, that the minister will allow references to the medical review panels only by the appeals tribunal rather than by either the worker or by the employer. We are going to have to take a look at that issue in committee.
By and large, those are structural changes we could have brought in two or three years ago. When one begins to look at the benefit changes, however, the really big one the minister has brought in is the abolition of the one-day waiting period. That says it all because that is probably the most significant change. The other benefit changes and some of the attendant issues are really almost disgraceful, and we in this party are not prepared to support them.
First, let me deal with the issue of total temporary benefits. Four years ago Paul Weiler suggested the level of benefits, the maximum ceiling, should be 250 per cent of the average industrial wage. He made this comment at the time:
"Theoretically, I am not convinced that there is a good case for any ceiling at all." Then he goes on: "We must respond to the practical problem of ensuring that essentially all the earnings -- not 80 per cent nor even 90 per cent -- of all the industrial workers in the province are protected by the same compensation system which takes away their right to sue."
We got through the first stage; the white paper said that was fine. We got to committee and to the arm-twisting stage. In came the business groups to say, "We cannot afford it." By this time we were beginning to forget the principle that an injured worker is an injured worker no matter what he or she was earning.
With their majority, the Tories on the committee voted to roll that 250 per cent back, not to get rid of the ceiling, which really is not theoretically a very good idea, but to roll it back to 175 per cent with small increments. We in our party said, "We are prepared to be reasonable." In the committee voting, we were supported by the third party. We proposed to start at 175 per cent and gradually wipe out the ceiling.
Then we come here to look at this new piece of legislation -- and I do not know whether $31,500 is 150 per cent of the average industrial wage, but if it is, it is just barely; I think it is about 147 per cent or 148 per cent -- and much to our dismay the government has taken another giant step backward. The minister stands in his place and says, as he said tonight, so I am just repeating it, that when 85 per cent of injured workers in Ontario receive total temporary benefits, they will be receiving total temporary benefits right up to what they were previously earning based on 90 per cent of net.
We in this party worry a little more than this government about the minority. It is grand to say that 85 per cent are going to get full benefits, but what about the other 15 per cent? Why should they pay a penalty? That is the question the minister has not yet come to grips with. Why are they paying a penalty if, very often through no fault of their own, they are unlucky enough to be injured on the job? It is in wages that they are paying a penalty. We will get to the employment benefits in a while, because the act is curiously silent there. We have no breakthrough there. We have totally ignored Weiler, the white paper and the committee. There is absolute silence on benefits.
8:40 p.m.
I want to ask the minister to stand up and justify that for the 15 per cent who are not going to get total temporary benefits; they are going to get total benefits up to a ceiling they surpassed through their skills, ingenuity, education or whatever. Why penalize them? I do not accept that. I simply do not understand it.
Mr. Shymko: Did you see Bill Wrye on TV?
Mr. Wrye: The next issue I want to deal with is the crux of the whole matter. It is the so-called dual award system that was proposed by Professor Weiler and the so-called meat chart. I have some major differences of opinion with Paul Weiler. The minister knows well from what we in this party proposed that we departed quite significantly from Paul Weiler, but I want to suggest that Paul Weiler at least recognized the problem.
Mr. Shymko: I was just commenting that you looked very good on television the other day.
Mr. Wrye: Maybe my friend from High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) would like to reacquaint himself, if he has ever acquainted himself --
Mr. Shymko: How is John Turner?
Mr. Wrye: John Turner is better than Brian Mulroney will ever be.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.
Mr. Martel: I thought we were talking about the compensation bill.
Mr. Shymko: How can John Turner handle the problems of the world?
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, maybe you can control the member for High Park-Swansea.
Mr. Martel: Why do you not just throw him out?
Mr. Nixon: Yes, throw him out.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I point out to the member for Windsor-Sandwich that had he not named the member by riding, that exchange likely would not have occurred. I invite him to address Bill 101.
Mr. Wrye: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Stokes: So much for evenhandedness. He was clearly out of order.
Mr. Wrye: I will ignore it. Maybe the member for High Park-Swansea, rather than just yapping, would like to join in the debate a little later and tell us all that he knows about workers' compensation, if he knows anything at all.
Mr. Shymko: That is excellent.
Mr. Wrye: Do not be silly.
Mr. Stokes: He is just trying to trivialize a very important issue.
Mr. Martel: Throw him out.
Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am defending the workers of High Park-Swansea before the workmen's compensation board just as often as, if not more often than, the member for Windsor-Sandwich.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.
Mr. Wrye: It is not even a good point. He calls it the workmen's compensation board. It has been the Workers' Compensation Board for a year and a half. He must be doing a lot of work.
Professor Weiler put his finger on it neatly in summing up the so-called meat chart, the clinical rating system. He said: "The central ingredient of workers' compensation has now totally lost" -- totally, not partially -- "any legitimacy which it might have ever had. People no longer tolerate the inequities in individual cases which are produced by a system of average rough justice."
That is what Paul Weiler said four years ago. He called it "entirely discredited." That is what he said about the clinical rating method.
Mr. Shymko: What is he saying now?
Mr. Wrye: I do not know what Professor Weiler says now. I know what he said last June. Maybe the government mugged him again. I know what he said last June; I remember that. I can read Hansard back to the member. Maybe I will get it and let one of my colleagues read some of it.
The point is that after four years on what Weiler called this central ingredient of workers' compensation benefits, this minister and this government have the audacity to come to this House and to the injured workers of this province and say, "We do not have a clue as to how to solve your problems; so we are going to have an active consideration."
What have they been doing for the last four years over there? Surely, with all the government's millions of dollars, its computer runs and its board actuaries, it could have figured out something. But no, it has consigned injured workers -- existing claimants, claimants injured today and claimants who will be injured tomorrow, next week and next month -- to the scrap heap of life in many cases.
With awards of 20 per cent, 25 per cent or even 30 per cent, and perhaps a small pittance from Canada pension plan benefits -- or perhaps not, since there are some qualifying rules for CPP disability benefits -- they will perhaps reach near the poverty level. They will certainly not go over it.
What is the minister's answer? "We are going to continue subsection 43(5); but if you are receiving CPP disability benefits, you are no longer ineligible to receive benefits under subsection 43(5) or clause 43(1)(b)."
That is a really big deal. The minister could have brought that in three years ago too. CPP has not forced him, has not broken his arm and said he cannot do it. It is the fellows and ladies over there and it is the WCB who have said: "Oh, no. We cannot have that. We cannot rehabilitate a worker and give him supplementary benefits, because he is receiving Canada pension plan benefits."
The government is showing its true colours, and its true colours in this case are to rob the Canada pension plan to pay for benefits that the Workers' Compensation Board, through the employers of this province, ought to be paying. The government is going to let injured workers and healthy workers pay for workers' compensation. If it is not going to do that, then it should integrate the two and mail the money back to Ottawa; but it should not steal from the Canada pension plan, because it is not fair and it is unjust.
I want to deal with the issue of the dual award. The government knows our view. It is, I think, a fair view. We would have a second wage loss system. I know the workers up in the audience tonight and a lot of injured workers are worried about the wage loss because of the so-called deeming provisions.
I want to deal with that briefly because I think it is very important that this government and the injured workers understand what we in the minority in the committee were saying. We did not just put in a wage loss; we put in protection to go with it.
We defined in committee for the first time the important words for workers going out to look for a new job. We defined the word "suitable," and we defined it very tightly. We defined the word "available." That does not mean there is a job out there. That was not just the view of our party, and indeed it was not the view of the majority of members. In fact, the committee was unanimous.
The view of all members of the committee after some very tough debate was that "available" meant not only that there was a job out there but also that it was offered to the injured worker, and that "suitable" meant it had to be within his physical and intellectual capabilities to perform that job.
I read through the bill and, not to my amazement at all, guess what is not in the bill: the definitions of "suitable" and "available." Once again workers will be put on a supplementary; it will be subsection 43(5) or whatever we renumbered it as, and one year later WCB will say: "You should have got a job. We know you are a construction worker and you can never work in heavy work again, but you should have got a job. We have not given you vocational rehab, but tough luck; you are off the rolls." The older workers, if they know the work, they may be able to get some money. But what about the worker who is 40 or 45?
In this continuation of the meat chart and in the failure to come up with any kind of meaningful breakthrough to help workers get new jobs with respect to vocational rehabilitation and not just throw them out there and say, "There is something out there and it is available; go and find it," this government has ignored Weiler and its own white paper. It has ignored my friend the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) and the gentleman who is sitting in the Speaker's chair. It has ignored in that case its own members.
I did not find the members of the government party at all times, and maybe not even at many times, to be terribly sympathetic to some of the views this party put, but even the members of the government party were moved to go most of the way with us on the definitions of "suitable" and "available."
8:50 p.m.
I look at the failure of the government to talk about employment benefits, and once again this government has attempted to pretend that it is bringing in reforms when it is doing nothing of the kind. Paul Weiler recognized the problem, and even the committee did. I would like to read from the committee's report and quote a short section of Professor Weiler's report.
"The workers' compensation system," wrote Paul Weiler, "must be designed to maintain the private benefit package previously provided by the employer, or at least to compensate the injured worker for loss of those benefits."
Why did he say this? The next line is crucial. "So-called fringe benefits now typically comprise 25 to 30 per cent of the total compensation package paid to employees for their services." Some of this is vacation pay which probably would not apply. However, we are quite willing to compromise on this issue.
The fact of the matter is that once again the government is totally silent. I do not know what happened between the release of this report on December 16, 1983, and June 1984, but I will tell the House that this government has gutted even those minor breakthroughs which could be forced out of the Tory members of the committee last September.
The Workers' Compensation Board -- which I am sure would have read the briefs of everyone appearing before our committee, starting with the Association of Injured Workers' Groups and on through the legal clinics and right on to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Organization of Small Business and a number of other independent business organizations that came in -- decided it would take another poll of the employers to find out what it should have already known, at great cost to the employers themselves.
Frankly, some of the questions that were asked offended me. I really thought it was the business of the legislators of this province. However, perhaps it is that kind of polling which led the government to make its decision.
I know a number of other members of my party wish to speak, so I am not going to go on much longer. I must say to the minister that I had hoped this legislation would be mildly progressive. As a matter of fact, as one looks back, we started with Weiler; we took a step back with the white paper; and we took another step back with the committee.
Frankly, if we knew then what we know today, I think even those groups that fought a lot of what Weiler had to say would say, "Give us Weiler and let us be done with it." This government has wiped out every progressive move Paul Weiler suggested. He must be ashamed of this government. He must be ashamed that he wasted his time to do this work. All the good work he did has been gutted by a government that is afraid to move boldly into the future, afraid to recognize the reality out there.
We are never going to get the cost of workers' compensation under control unless somebody over there and at 2 Bloor Street East decides that enough is enough, that we cannot tolerate 150,000 injuries in the work place every year which result in lost time claims. They are going to have to start going to the employers and the trade unions, saying: "Fellows, the system is going broke. Reform yourselves. Let us have a safer work place."
This is the only way we are ever going to save the money. This is the only way the unfunded liability is ever going to be stalled and begin to be reduced. It will not come about with this kind of attack on every injured worker in Ontario.
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and give you my modest contribution to this debate. I think it is a historical debate, even though it is not given the importance this bill deserves. To specify, I do not think the government is giving it the proper perspective, taking into consideration the needs of injured workers across Ontario.
[Remarks in Italian]
Bill 101 is overdue. In 1980, when Professor Weiler was appointed by the government for the specific task of reshaping the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario, I do not think he told us anything completely new regarding what injured workers across the province have been telling us and the government, that it was time the WCB was reviewed and that there were inherent problems to be taken into consideration by the government. I do not think what the government has been doing is a result of his report. Besides minor modifications, he gave us a synopsis of problems injured workers have been faced with through the years.
I sympathize with the past criticism that has been brought to the attention of the government on so many occasions on the floor of this Legislature when there was a need to reshape the Workers' Compensation Board. Previous ministers of the government had such opportunities in 1975 and 1980. The government has not moved fast enough to introduce what injured workers have been demanding through the years, the need for a change and a restructuring of the levels of benefits and pensions. It is time for the government to take immediate action and solve once and for all the problems that have faced injured workers.
If we are going to have an open scenario about specific demands that have been made by injured workers through the years, I sympathize with the other criticism that has been raised on the floor of the Legislature. The government has had ample time to act and it has never acted. The so-called god, Professor Weiler, came out with a concrete criticism about the WCB and its act, which was old and archaic, and about how injured workers have been suffering through the years. Four years after he was appointed, we are faced with a smokescreen reshaping of the Workers' Compensation Act in Ontario and nothing else.
The important task, which the minister has been saying had been delayed for phase 2 of the total program of reshaping the WCB, has been postponed for further study. I would like to convey to the minister my sense of frustration with and condemnation of the approach that has been taken by the government towards injured workers across the province.
The message given by injured workers in Ontario is "enough is enough." The time has come when the government has to act immediately so the problems of injured workers are phased out. We recognize that after many years, during which employers have complained about the cost of the changes, injured workers and their families have suffered long enough.
In 1980, the government looked at some concrete recommendations for solving new problems existing in the old act, while the new act was supposed to solve the old problems. I do not think this situation has been balanced.
We are told that as a result of Bill 99 injured workers are going to receive a five per cent increase and nothing else. The government ignored all the criticism that was raised before the standing committee on resources development last year by injured workers and the Association of Injured Workers' Groups speaking on their behalf. The government has ignored their specific demands.
9 p.m.
The present pensions of injured workers and their past injuries are not taken into consideration at all by the new act. I can see what is going to happen. The present 80,000 WCB pensioners are going to be faced with the same sense of frustration, the same sense of injustice they have faced for so many years. I do not think this government's cold approach can be justified. I am sure the injured workers will remember that some day.
Employers have been complaining about the high cost of legislative changes, based on the study done by the Wyatt Co. and presented to the Workers' Compensation Board on April 27, 1984. If I am not mistaken, the five per cent increase included in Bill 99 will cost the board something like $22 million but, again, actuaries employed by the board have been playing around with the figures.
They are considering the cost of this five per cent increase but this study has not taken into consideration all the money invested by the WCB since 1914, billions of dollars which have been stolen from injured workers' pensions. It is time the government gave back those billions of dollars to injured workers and their families across Ontario because they have been starving for so many years.
This is the kind of approach the government has to use if we want to finalize, once and for all, the injustices injured workers have faced for so many years under the regime of Conservative government in Ontario.
I would like to bring to the attention of the government and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) that it is not only the injured workers across Ontario who are fed up. I understand the board is not even trusted by the employers. The act has been condemned by injured workers for so many years. Today I received a phone call from someone telling me that an appeal before the board was postponed indefinitely.
I asked, "Why do you not proceed with this appeal?" It was an employer's appeal, not a claimant's appeal. He said he did not trust the board any more. He wants to find out how the new independent tribunal system is going to work when the new legislation is enacted by the Legislature. Even employers are fed up with the way the board is treating them in relation to the administrative aspect of the act. I think injured workers should be considered more in relation to the bureaucratic approach they have been going through for so many years.
The employers are fed up with the approach and the injured workers are very critical of the board's implementation of policies which are a result of an act which never worked in Ontario. It has created many injustices and bad feelings among injured workers and their families. Some of them have been going through a starvation period. Families have broken up in Ontario. Injured workers, after making their economic contribution to this province, are going back to their native countries in Europe; Italy and other countries.
We are faced with a very insensitive government when it comes to the problems injured workers have been screaming about. Here we are, close to the end of 1984, and we do not know if an election will be called this fall. There are more insecurities than ever in relation to the future of injured workers' reform in Ontario.
It is terrible for the government to treat injured workers in this way after they worked for so many years for the benefit and the economic development of this province. This political approach should be condemned. I want to go and sit beside the injured workers here this evening to voice this condemnation of the government's approach to their problems when it is dealing with legislative changes or the administration of policies at the board level. The government should be ashamed of itself.
In the past, we have said the Workers' Compensation Board and the act never worked in the interests of injured workers across Ontario. Bill 101 is just a bunch of clauses that are really smokescreens for the solutions the injured workers have been demanding for so many years. I remember that in 1971, 1974 and 1975 injured workers stood in front of Queen's Park -- I was among them -- demanding full compensation or job security. It was a clear message to the government.
Did the government take this demand into consideration? Here we are in 1984 talking about reshaping the Workers' Compensation Board in Ontario. Because of the election, we do not know when the new law will be enacted. Are we giving guarantees of jobs to injured workers? I do not think so.
Even when the new law is passed by the Legislature and implemented, we will be faced with the bureaucratic approach at the board level. The so-called corporate board will enact policies to counteract the legislation, and the policies will still work against the interests of injured workers across the province. As far as I am concerned, I have been critical in the past and I have a negative vision of what will happen in the future. I am really pessimistic about the new law, phases 1 and 2. I do not know what phase 2 will be besides the principle of the dual award, which has been postponed.
Why is the government not introducing the dual award now? It is not because injured workers have been rejecting this principle. We heard from the board at the committee level that the dual award would cost too much money to employers, that it cannot be implemented because the unfunded liability would increase and would put the board into bankruptcy and because employers across the province would scream about it. Because of an imminent election, whenever it is going to be, I do not think the government would like to introduce this proposal now and receive a negative reaction from employers across the province at a time when an election is looming.
That is the reality. I understand the minister when he says this clause needs more study and that phase 2 will be forthcoming. He should talk to the previous ministers. They have promised studies on changes in the Workers' Compensation Act in the past. In 1984, almost 10 years later, what have I seen? As a politician in this Legislature, I have seen regular increases only because the injured workers in the province have come to Queen's Park constantly claiming that pension and benefits levels must be increased.
9:10 p.m.
Why must injured workers go through this very difficult process? During the cold weather, despite their suffering, they try to demonstrate in a very honourable way that there is need for change and reform in the act because it is inadequate.
The Workers' Compensation Act used to be complete in 1914, but when the Liberals forced changes 10 or 20 years later, the act became inadequate. Did the government recognize this need? No. Injured workers were supposed to organize themselves, to form a union of injured workers, to try to form umbrella organizations on behalf of injured workers, appearing before a committee of the Legislature, demonstrating, being arrested, being stopped when going to the board to claim their benefits because there are certain individuals who it is claimed are dangerous. They have been threatening the chairman and officials at the board.
I would like the minister to tell us how many people cannot enter the board's premises unless they make an appointment before going there. The board's office is a public place. If injured workers have been driven to exasperation because their families have been suffering, it is not their fault.
I accuse the government of being responsible for this. How many trials have injured workers been put through because they have been demonstrating at 400 University Avenue, in front of the minister's office, requesting and demanding changes in the Workers' Compensation Act?
If we want to be fair and judge the situation in a very honest way, I think the government has been responsible for this problem. If we are talking about major reforms in the act, major reforms at the board level, let us talk about really reshaping the board without introducing certain changes that do not mean much to injured workers.
I understand the independent tribunal system was demanded by injured workers in 1970 and 1971. Mr. Starr, the former chairman of the board, made a specific recommendation, as the result of an internal study of the operation of the board 10 or 12 years ago, about the independent tribunal system that was supposed to be more fair and take the needs of injured workers into consideration. This system would try to separate that body from the board itself.
It was not an independent study. These were people employed by the board. Mr. Starr recommended this change. The injured workers were demanding that 10 years ago.
What about the independent medical review panel? Is this something new for 1984? Mr. Weiler, the big professor appointed by the government, was supposed to teach us about the independent medical review panel that was supposed to be implemented at the board level. Let us give credit to the injured workers across Ontario. They have been demanding that, not Professor Weiler.
Again, changes were requested 10 or 15 years ago. In 1984, the law is not even introduced. What is the total cost of these minor changes? This is my definition of the minor changes that have been introduced by the government at this time: not to solve the problems of injured workers across Ontario but to aggravate their problems in the future. I am speaking with a pessimistic mind, based on my past experience and the suffering of injured workers across Ontario.
The five per cent amendment, which will cost $22 million, is what the injured workers of Ontario have been demanding for so many years. Let us index injured workers' pensions to the cost living. Why do they have to come to Queen's Park every year, with their suffering, their canes, and braces on their broken backs, to demand an increase in the level of their pensions? Let us put this clause in the act to satisfy the needs of injured workers across the province. Along with that, not only do we have to index injured workers' pensions, but the board must be more generous in assessing the level of injured workers' pensions when they are called for their assessments.
We are talking about an overall historical perspective, if I can use the words of some members, to reshape the clinical rating system. Let us be more generous in the assessments, but we cannot talk about generosity with the assessments if we are not going to phase out the clinical rating system, the so-called meat chart.
Professor Weiler has come out with the alternative of a dual award by scrapping the clinical rating system. Now we are finding out that the dual award cannot be implemented for some reason. I do not really know what the intention of the government is in relation to that. As I stated before, my own interpretation is that the dual award will cost employers millions of dollars and the government does not want alienation at this time. I am sure something will be introduced in future.
In a supplementary question in the Legislature, I asked the minister whether, because of the postponement of the principle or the issue of the dual award, he was ready at this time to introduce a major change in the clinical rating system across Ontario.
Mr. Laughren: What did he say?
Mr. Lupusella: He was noncommittal. He was impassive.
This issue has been brought to the attention of the chairman of the board and the government for so many years. Injured workers have been saying to the government, "Let us scrap the meat chart across the province because it is unfair and inadequate."
We have heard as well that there is a major study in the United States in relation to the clinical rating system. The board's attitude is: "We are taking a look at it. We are following their procedure." We have qualified specialists and doctors in this province. The government has qualified people it can approach who can face the issue. Let us do something about it.
In the past the criticism from the government was: "You in the NDP are looking for a welfare system. We have been talking about being compassionate with the system, but we cannot give out money." We are talking about implementing an act which we know for a fact is not working. It works against the rights of injured workers. We know employers across the province are not faced with liabilities in case of accidents.
9:20 p.m.
The employers knew from the very beginning they were supposed to fund the Workers' Compensation Board in Ontario. They knew from the very beginning they were supposed to pay premiums every year to fund the Workers' Compensation Board to comply with the needs of injured workers in Ontario. It was not something new. It was not a new formula introduced by the government 10 or 15 years later so that the employers at a certain point told the government, "You misled us in the past because you were not talking about funding the board with our own money."
What did employers get through the years from the board? The so-called independent people were supposed to work apart from the employers, apart from injured workers, trying to be an independent body looking at injuries as a form of right for injured workers. Employers across the province got a free ride. They got cheap premiums through the years, and the injured workers across Ontario claimed that the Workers' Compensation Board was a cheap insurance scheme for the employers and not for injured workers. They were right.
I do not want to talk about statistics any more. I had ample opportunity in committee and on the floor of the Legislature to bring to the attention of the government how employers across Ontario have had a free ride on their premiums and on their contributions to the fund of the Workers' Compensation Board. I think the minister knows I do not want to play with numbers and statistics. Injured workers know and employers across Ontario are aware that employers have had a free ride for so many years.
Now that they are faced with the unfunded liability and now that we are talking about major changes in the act, they are screaming about the cost. They might have a concern, but here we are viewing the Workers' Compensation Board as a matter of right for the injured workers across Ontario. We on this side of the House are viewing the Workers' Compensation Board as something that was supposed to be modernized a long time ago.
We view the Workers' Compensation Act as inadequate, as not taking into consideration the needs of modern realities in Ontario. We recognize the inability of the government to act on behalf of injured workers, because for 44 years the Tory government has been the spokesperson and defender of employers across Ontario against the rights of injured workers. The New Democratic Party is condemning the political approach used by the government.
I am sure that in the future injured workers will come to the steps of the Legislature because they will still have a complaint, especially present pensioners, those with old injuries, about all the problems not being considered by the new act. Existing pensioners are not treated generously by this government. Each year they have been faced with a five per cent increase, a nine per cent increase two years ago being the most generous one. The government is still coming out with the position, "Even though there is a delay and no increase in the level of benefits for injured workers, at least we are maintaining the position. We have been increasing injured workers' pensions and the level of benefits."
They might have a point, but I will never understand why injured workers are supposed to demonstrate in front of Queen's Park. I did not hear a clear statement from the minister or from the government that the older pensioners are going to be taken into consideration in one way or another. What the government is doing with the new law is trying to give money with one hand to injured workers and with the other hand trying to steal money from injured workers. This approach is totally unacceptable to the NDP. We have been fighting and we are going to fight on behalf of injured workers as long as we are here as a party.
I realize that my colleagues want to get involved in this important debate. I know they would like to give their contribution. I also know the government might say: "Did your party give us concrete proposals to solve the problems of injured workers? What are you proposing instead of being critical?"
We have a dissenting report that has been drafted as a result of the majority report. We have finalized our presentation, which was unacceptable to the government members. I do not think our concern has been really taken into consideration by the government in relation to the two bills which are before us, Bill 99 and Bill 101.
I would like to tell the minister of one thing that bothers me, and I think this has been a general complaint coming from injured workers throughout the province. Each time legislation has been introduced in this parliament as starting from July 1, let us say, the law is never retroactive. The minister cannot imagine how many injured workers cannot be considered by the new law, whatever it is going to be, just because the law is not retroactive.
Let us talk about the ceiling when a person gets injured. When the law comes into effect, it starts at a certain period of time. If the worker was injured three or four days before the new law came into effect, he is not covered. Injured workers are particularly concerned about that. In fact, when the new law is introduced, the old injuries are left out. There is no retroactivity clause in the new bill which might take into consideration injured workers who were injured four or five months before the law came into effect and who might not get the benefits of the new law.
This process never takes place. People are suffering as a result of that. Although their injuries are similar, the level of benefits or compensation is completely different.
The retroactivity clause is something that must be considered by the government. We have followed the statistical data released by the board. The majority of accidents are finalized during a period of four or five months when the majority of the people go back to work after their injuries.
We are talking about 25 per cent of the people who are permanently disabled as a result of work-related injuries. When the new law is introduced, because there is no retroactivity clause, only the new injuries will be considered by the new law, and the old injuries where people were injured maybe one month before are going to be completely excluded and the level of the benefits will not be considered in the light of the new law.
On this side of the House we have been talking about the abolition of the ceiling. The government has taken the position of considering 90 per cent of the net. The New Democratic Party's position has been, along with the position of injured workers across Ontario, that the ceiling should be abolished.
As I stated, I have a great respect for Professor Weiler as an individual, but I do not think he really gave us something new in relation to the problems of injured workers in Ontario.
9:30 p.m.
The abolition of the ceiling has been proposed by injured workers and this side of the House for many years. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and other members have been talking about the abolition of the ceiling for about 15 years, and the injured workers have been maintaining the same position in relation to this particular task. The government is now taking the position of 90 per cent of the net, even although Professor Weiler makes an argument about the net and the gross income.
I will finalize my comments because other members want to get involved in this debate. I would be holding the floor for three or four days if the injured workers' problem were to be spelled out in the Legislature. It may be time I framed in my mind a new approach when I deal with the WCB on the floor of the Legislature. We may have to move an emergency debate on a daily basis until the government comes to grips with the problems injured workers face, their sufferings and the sufferings of their families and their children as a result of serious injuries taking place on the job.
Although I welcome the opportunity to send Bill 101 to a committee of the Legislature, if the Minister of Labour is really serious -- and I am sure he is serious about the problems of injured workers -- I hope comes to the position that amendments must be accepted by the government when public hearings take place and when the members of this committee finalize the recommendations on clause-by-clause reading of the bill.
I heard in the ministry statement that the minister will be introducing only one amendment, one that relates to the French language. I do not think that is enough. If this is the only amendment the government will introduce on Bill 101 after the committee of the Legislature undertakes the task of going across Ontario to have public hearings and to hear injured workers' deputations through the summer, I will be the first one to rise here and tell the minister that is going to defeat the purpose and task of the committee itself in travelling across Ontario and placing injured workers across the province under the tremendous stress of appearing before the committee of the Legislature, if we know this is just a political rehearsal and the government is unwilling to change Bill 101.
I will refuse to sit on the committee if the government is willing to undertake the task of introducing only one amendment without taking into consideration the needs of injured workers across Ontario. I hope the minister will change his mind and will change the minds of his colleagues or else I will refuse. I give this clear commitment now that I will refuse to sit on the committee if we know the whole process will be defeated by a government that is not willing to make changes. We are going to meet here again when the bill is debated on third reading.
Mr. Riddell: We could not do it without the member. The committee would not be the same without him.
Mr. Lupusella: While the committee travels across Ontario, I will make sure I am present among injured workers across the province to make political strategy for the next provincial election rather than waste time on a committee when the government is not willing to introduce any other amendments to Bill 101.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the House for its indulgence. I would also like to commend the injured workers who are sitting in the public galleries and who have been appearing before us at Queen's Park for so many years. I think we have to use the humane approach. There is a problem. The government has to do whatever it can to make sure the injured workers' problems are finalized once and for all.
Mr. Sweeney: I assume there is no speaker from the government side. Is this correct?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Sweeney: Thank you. I want to say very clearly to the Minister of Labour how disappointed we are with the presentation of this bill. I want to emphasize this by pointing out to him that it is rare in this Legislature for members of my party to oppose a piece of legislation on first reading. I think the minister appreciates that.
We have always accepted the principle that the government of the day has the right to bring in its legislation and has the right to have that legislation at least presented for first reading, to have it accepted at that stage and then to have an opportunity to have us debate it, both pro and con.
We accept this principle. We accept this courtesy. I think the minister recognizes that, by and large, with very few exceptions it is the kind of recognition and courtesy the government's legislation gets from members of my party. I say this to the minister only to emphasize how bitterly disappointed we are and, quite frankly, how angry we are with this particular piece of legislation. This is the first point I want to make.
Secondly, I want the Minister of Labour to know the respect with which he as a person and as a minister is held by members of my party. We recognize the Minister of Labour's competence, dedication and compassion. This is all the more reason why we are so bitterly disappointed in this piece of legislation.
Quite frankly, we did not expect it. We had no reason to expect it. We had the Minister of Labour join us in committee on a number of occasions. We had an opportunity to hear him express his concerns. We had an opportunity to hear him explain to us what he hoped he could accomplish. Then we get this piece of legislation.
Is it any wonder we are so disappointed, so frustrated and so angry? I have been involved with this legislation in one form or another for the past two years. For the most part, it has been a frustrating two years. However, my frustration over the last two years is a pale shadow of the frustration felt by the injured workers in this province for a much longer time. This is something I recognize. This is the third reason we felt it was absolutely essential for us to oppose this legislation, even on first reading.
9:40 p.m.
We started out so long ago, it seems, with the government of Ontario admitting and recognizing, as so many others have, that the kind of legislation we have for injured workers in this province today is totally inadequate. We all agreed on this. We all agreed something had to be done. We all agreed the injured workers of this province were owed better than they were getting. We all agreed we would work together to achieve that kind of goal.
The first step was the Weiler report. The minister will recall my colleagues and I immediately spotted the holes, the flaws and the weaknesses in the Weiler report. We recognized its advances and the benefits of some of its proposals but we also pointed out, as a loyal opposition is bound and elected to do, what we felt were the weaknesses and flaws in that report.
Then we set out, we hoped, to improve it. Yet what did we get? We got stage 2, the government's white paper. Despite the flaws and the weaknesses in the Weiler report, the government's white paper took a step back. It did not even accept all the proposals of the Weiler report with its weaknesses and flaws. We took a step back.
What happened next? We met in the standing committee on resources development and produced the majority report. As a long-standing member of that committee, I can say the majority report was a report of the members of the government party on that committee. It was not the report of either of the opposition parties.
We so violently and strenuously disagreed with the position taken by the members of the government party that each of the opposition parties wrote a detailed, lengthy and comprehensive minority report. We do not usually do that. We usually take one or two sections of the report and say we disagree with this for these reasons.
We wrote an entire minority report because the majority report of the committee not only took a step backwards from Weiler but also went further still and took a step backwards from the white paper which had already taken a step backwards from Weiler.
I do not know what kind of a dance we are doing around this place, but it seems to be a dance that only goes in one direction -- backwards. Therefore, I ask the minister why he is so surprised that we cannot support what is happening.
After the Weiler report, the government's white paper and the committee report comes the next step: this piece of legislation. Which way is the dance going now? Backwards again.
Not only does the minister not accept Weiler's report or the white paper of his own government, but he also does not even accept the majority report of the committee, which is a report solely and completely of his party's members on that committee. The government brings in a piece of legislation which is another step back.
Is the minister surprised that despite the fact there are some advances in his bill -- we recognize them, we appreciate them and the injured workers will appreciate them, to a limited extent, and I will speak very briefly to them in a few minutes -- it is another step back?
What do we end up with? We end up with a dance that is four steps back and only one step forward. Are we supposed to accept that? Are we supposed to applaud that? Are we supposed to support that? Are we supposed to congratulate the government for that?
I have not been elected to this Legislature on three different occasions by the people, the workers and the injured workers of Kitchener-Wilmot to support that kind of legislation. That is not why they elected me. That is not why they sent me here and I am not going to support it. We have made that pretty clear.
I indicated there are some advances in this legislation, and I want to recognize them. We are pleased to see that the government has moved from 75 per cent of gross to 90 per cent of net. That is an advance, freely admitted.
I do not think it is enough, however. The minister is well aware that we made what I think was a much fairer proposal, which is that we agree on the 90 per cent of net for the first three months an injured worker is away from his or her job -- because if we take into consideration the total tax benefit over a 12-month period, the 90 per cent evens out -- but after that we should move to 100 per cent. We clearly demonstrated that there is no valid reason for not moving to 100 per cent after the first three months. While I accept and support 90 per cent as being a step forward, even that is not as appropriate as it could be.
I want to support the reference to providing a supplement to older injured workers who are nearing retirement. I had a man of 63 in my office just a week ago who had been injured four years ago and who has been co-operating with his rehabilitation officer during that entire span of time. They finally agreed that there simply is no place else for this man to go. Therefore, we applied for that supplement and we were successful in getting it. I want to say to the minister that it was a good thing to do, a just thing to do, a compassionate thing to do. I am very pleased it is now going to be built into this legislation. It is a step forward; I accept that.
I am very pleased at the appeal tribunal. I am pleased at the medical review panel. I am quite pleased at the advances made in the support for spouses and dependent children. As a matter of fact, the formula the minister has put into his legislation is very close -- not equivalent, but very close, as I am sure he remembers -- to what I and my colleagues had proposed. I applaud that. It is a definite step forward, and my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich has already clearly explained why we would support it.
I want the minister to be aware of the fact that we are aware there are some good things in this legislation. Therefore, I can understand to a small extent why he might be surprised at what appears to be our total objection to it. We are quite prepared to recognize the positive things he has done. We are quite prepared to support him when he does positive things, but we cannot support this bill, despite our recognition and our support of those positive items I have listed. I very deliberately listed them; I did not want the minister in any way to think I had not noted or recognized them and would not support them. I would, but not in this piece of legislation.
The question obviously has to be why. The answer is that the true heart and soul of what we have worked for in this Legislature, in the various committees that have sat on this kind of legislation for the past two years, the very kinds of things that injured workers have been asking for and demanding, have been torn out of it. A sense of justice is not in this legislation.
9:50 p.m.
I can well appreciate that when we are introducing new legislation or making legislative advances, sometimes they have to be phased in. I recognize it, I appreciate it and often I can support it; but not in this case. What the minister has left out is the very essence of what we have been all about. We have said so often and so clearly that one group of people whose needs must be met is the existing claimants to workers' compensation, the people who in the past have been injured, penalized and unfairly treated and who continue to be.
They are represented in every community around this province. As the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) so well explained a few minutes ago, they have come before this very Legislative Building. They are the very people who persuaded us to do something which to the best of my knowledge was unprecedented, to hold a meeting in front of the building; not only to speak to them but also to hold a formal committee meeting on the steps of this building. To the best of my knowledge, it has never been done before. It highlights the needs of these people.
To the best of my understanding and knowledge -- I will be extremely happy if the minister can show that I am wrong in this interpretation -- this legislation does nothing for those injured workers who are current claimants under the workers' compensation system of this province. It is not just, it is not fair and we cannot support it. The minister must understand that. We are not trying to be small, mean or obstructive, but the minister and his government must appreciate and understand why we feel so strongly about this.
Second, as to leaving out any dual award system, in any examination of the Weiler report, the government's white paper or the committee report, anyone with any kind of open mind or any sense of trying to understand what we are all about, what we are dealing with and what we are trying to come to grips with, would have recognized that the very centre of everything we have done, the very focus of our attention and the source of what we are trying to get at, was some kind of dual award system.
The one thing we recognized was that the injured workers who have had so many problems in the past and who have not had their needs addressed were those who are permanently but partially disabled. If an injured worker is totally disabled, to a large extent we have begun to start to meet his needs. If an injured worker has a relatively minor accident, we have been able to meet his needs.
However, the one whose needs we have not been able to meet, and whose needs we continue not to be able to meet under legislation, is the injured worker who is permanently but partially disabled, the one who is said to be 15, 20 or 30 per cent disabled, whatever the figure is. They are the ones who more than any others have been unjustly treated under this system. They are the ones who have a right to cry for vengeance. They are the ones who have a right to demand some sense of redress, justice and fairness. The dual award system spoke to those people.
Each of them did not necessarily agree with the formulas of Weiler, the government or the committee. There were many objections. I can appreciate that, but the fact remains that they all agreed some kind of dual award system had to be put in place; it could not continue to be delayed. They could not accept, and were not prepared to accept, the government saying, "We have to study it further." As my colleagues from both opposition parties have already said more eloquently than I, it has already been studied too long and they have suffered too long.
A dual award system speaks to the two elements of the problem when people have been physically and psychologically injured. They have been damaged, they sense that damage and there must be some redress in our society for that damage. That is the first element of a dual award system. The other is, because they are both permanently and partially disabled, the majority of them, or at least a very large number of them, have difficulty earning a living wage.
There must be a second component of some form of wage loss system. I am quite prepared to debate its form. I accept the premise that many people disagree with some of the formulas that have been suggested. I am prepared to debate that, as my colleagues are prepared to debate it, but we are not prepared to debate the principle. The principle itself must become sacred. The principle must be accepted in law, in fairness and injustice. Whenever the government brings in a piece of legislation that does not include that principle in some form, we cannot support it.
We have had a clinical rating system for far too long in this jurisdiction, or, as it is vulgarly explained sometimes, a meat chart system, that has been totally unacceptable. I can recall in committee the minister himself saying, "It is not just, it is not fair and it must be changed." A good two years ago there was a clear expression stated of finding some other way. That other way does not necessarily have to exclude some form of clinical rating.
As a matter of fact, most of the people who appeared before our committee, including representatives of injured workers, accepted the premise that we would probably have to continue to have some form of clinical rating, but it would have to be more humane and more understanding of the needs of human beings. We were not dealing with robots or machines. We were dealing with human beings who had feelings and backgrounds, who had bodies that had been maimed in one way or another. Somehow we had to come up with a fairer, more just clinical rating of how they had been affected, how they had been injured.
A number of proposals were made. For example, I remember -- I think I am quoting the jurisdiction correctly, although I am going from memory -- reference was made to the state of New York. A doctor appeared before our panel. I cannot remember whether he was a doctor from the ministry itself. He indicated to us that state had a better system than we had and it was well worth looking into. It could very well be adapted to Ontario. I do not know to what extent that was the case, but there is nothing in this legislation that lets us deal with it, and deal with it we must. We cannot continue the way we are now. The present clinical rating system is unfair and inhumane.
10 p.m.
We have known for a long time that there are two things workers in this province want, demand and require. The first is not to be injured at all. We have a responsibility as legislators, and industrialists and workers have a responsibility to do everything possible within their power to prevent accidents. That is number one.
The second is, if by accident an injury does occur, workers in this province want the right to be able to return to earning their own living. They want the right to be restored to the personal dignity of being able to support themselves and their families. That speaks to a much better rehabilitation system than we have now. I do not see anything in this legislation that refers to that, yet it is fundamental. How can we support a piece of legislation when something so fundamental is not even referred to in it?
We know there are some employers in Ontario who discriminate against injured workers coming back even into their own places of work. We spent quite a bit of time on this as part of our committee hearings, and we have said there has to be a responsibility. In a no-fault system such as we have in Ontario, there must be a responsibility or onus on employers to take injured workers back to their place of work and, if necessary, to provide some additional training as the job changes.
Finally, there is the total absence of any reference to indexing annual increases. We have said over and over again that as the annual or average industrial wage changes in Ontario, as the general spectrum of workers in this province gains from that increase in the average industrial wage, so must injured workers who would have benefited from it had they been in the workplace, and they are not in the work place through no fault of their own. This is a no-fault system; therefore, we have to build into our program and legislation a form of indexing that recognizes changes in the average industrial wage. That has not been done.
I have tried to indicate to the minister what we recognize as the benefits in his legislation. I have also tried to suggest to him the glaring, fundamental weaknesses and omissions in this legislation that lead us to say we cannot support it.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the previous speakers in this debate for their contributions. They have said some wise things. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague the member for Dovercourt. I personally believe there is no one in Ontario who has been more closely attached, not just in this Legislative Assembly but before he got here, to the cause of injured workers in Ontario. I know I will embarrass him by saying that, but I do not care. He has done a good job.
When I saw this bill, I was very surprised because I had heard we were going to get a massive piece of legislation, a very thick document that would weigh us down and that we would have great difficulty getting through. Members can imagine my surprise when what we got was this rather thin excuse for legislative reform.
The title of Weiler's report is Reshaping Workers' Compensation for Ontario, yet we get this piece of legislation. There really was a great deal of promise and rhetoric in the last couple of years about reforming workers' compensation in the province. There has been a lot of effort by members of this assembly.
I sat on the standing committee on resources development, and members of the committee from all three parties worked very hard on our standing committee report. I feel cheated by the legislation that supposedly flowed from the work of that committee. I think of the effort put into appearances before the committee by injured workers' groups and by employers.
Everybody worked hard to reshape workers' compensation in Ontario; however, we do not have a reshaped workers' compensation system with this legislation. It is a diluted version not only of the standing committee's report and of the government's own white paper but also even of the Weiler report.
I look at this bill and I am very disappointed. I look at what is not in this bill. There is no lump sum for permanent partial disability. Quite simply, if I can translate it, that means we still live under the meat chart in Ontario. That is what it means.
If there has been one thing that has been a red flag to injured workers in the province, it has been that meat chart, because that meat chart is an arbitrary decision on what that injured worker's income will be regardless of whether he has a job. That is what the meat chart has represented all these years. The minister knows that is a reprehensible part of the workers' compensation system but he chose not to change it. I do not know why he chose not to change it, because there were certainly options for doing that.
We still do not have indexing for permanent disability pensions. I find that outrageous. There is no guaranteed access to vocational rehabilitation, and there is no right to the old job back for an injured worker.
I admit there are some improvements in this bill. The new provisions for survivor benefits are the biggest improvement in the bill and long overdue. If ever a government was moved not by compassion but by guilt, it was to make this change in the legislation. I do not know how this government ever lived with itself with the previous level of survivor benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act.
When I look at Bill 99, the bill that was supposed to precede this one and that increases benefits as of July 1, 1984, and I look at the increases in survivor benefits, I think to myself, "How can the government bring in Bill 99," which we will be debating tomorrow, "which increases the level of survivor benefits on July I to a still disgraceful level, and at the same time have this bill in front of it which raises them up to a more decent level?" I do not understand how they can do it. It is beyond my comprehension. I do not know what went through the minister's head when he was doing that.
I see nothing in this bill that is going to do anything about the problems of the injured workers who appear in front of the Legislative Building every year. I do not know what it is going to do about that. It cannot continue to ignore those people. That is where a lot of the anger resides at the present time, and justly so.
I tried to talk about the benefits. I see a more independent board because of this. That is a benefit. I see a more independent appeals tribunal. I see that as being a benefit. I see the establishment of the industrial disease standards panel. I see that as a benefit.
I wonder whether at any point when he was considering that industrial disease standards panel, those rotten, disgusting television commercials on the dangers of asbestos flashed through the minister's mind. I do not think I have ever seen anything that turned my stomach like those asbestos advertisements that are currently on television. That the minister allows them to continue says a great deal about where his head is at. That is an absolute disgrace, and he should take those off and not allow them to be shown.
I see the workers' advisers. That is a plus. I would not have wanted them associated with the Minister of Labour, but at least it is a plus.
We applaud the inclusion of domestics under this act as well.
10:10 p.m.
Despite some of those improvements, we simply must vote against this bill because it is not enough. I believe this bill is mean in spirit, because it takes away from some workers to give other workers some improvements. Of all the groups in society out there, if the government wants to take away from some to give to another, why must it take away from injured workers to give to other injured workers? What is the government's justification for that? Robin Hood had a reason for what he was doing, but this government is taking away from the poor to give to the poor. What kind of nonsense is that?
I am not dragging that out of the air when I look at the 90 per cent versus 75 per cent the government is taking away from some injured workers to give to other injured workers. In some cases it is being taken away from themselves, such as the Canada pension plan offset. That is what it is doing. I do not know how it can select a group of people in society and say, "These injured workers are now going to have to offset the Canada pension plan benefits."
If there is any group in society that can be least accused of getting more out of the system than it puts into it, it is injured workers in Ontario.
The government seems to think that because an injured worker is not working, some kind of financial penalty therefore has to be attached. That is what it seems to believe. Otherwise, why would it take away from them on the 90 per cent versus 75 per cent? Otherwise, why would it say the Canada pension plan must offset the benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board? I do not know how the government can come to that conclusion.
I should know better. I remember when the member for York East (Mr. Elgie) was the Minister of Labour. He did not like it when I said it. but if there is any one piece of legislation in Ontario that indicates bias against workers it is the Workers' Compensation Act. More than any other act I can think of, this is what separates the government from the working people of Ontario.
I think of the ceiling. Talk about paying a penalty! If the government does not believe that what this act does is penalize people for getting injured, it should look at the ceiling. How does the government justify penalizing someone financially because he is injured on the job?
If the government does not believe that, why does it have a ceiling? If people are on bonus if they are on high steel or if they are bonus miners and get injured on the job, they are penalized because of this ceiling, which is absolutely arbitrary and mean in spirit. How does the government justify that?
I have never had a minister of the crown justify penalizing workers because they get injured on the job. Some day the government should have to answer for that. It never has so far. It never has had to answer to that. I only hope that some day it will have to.
The problems of workers' compensation in the province remain the same even with this bill. It remains an adversarial system. The onus is still on the workers to prove, for ever, the condition they are in. It is an impossible situation for workers with a partial disability.
I want to give an example of a worker I went to the Sudbury Workers' Compensation Board office with last Friday because I was so angry. By and large, we have good people in the Sudbury office of the Workers' Compensation Board. This worker is probably in his late 40s. He has a 15 per cent residual disability with his back. He was on permanent disability temporarily as of last fall. In June 1984 they told him his level of disability had reached its 15 per cent level. They told him they were taking him off temporary benefits and he would be back to his 15 per cent level of disability.
He said to his doctor, "Can I have a back-to-work slip?" The doctor said: "You can go back to work but not on full duty. You can only go back on partial disability. We cannot send you back for full duty. You must go back on light duty." The company said: "We have nothing for you. There is no light-duty work available."
This man with 15 per cent income, three children in a post-secondary institution and 25 years at Inco must now somehow exist on a 15 per cent disability pension. How does the minister advise this person to pay his bills and send his children to university on a 15 per cent income? The company told him it had no light duty and the Workers' Compensation Board said it was paying him up to his level of disability.
As long as the minister has that system in place, he deserves every brick that is thrown at him because he has not taken seriously the problems of injured workers. All those crocodile tears stand for nothing. He has the power to put in place legislation that would compensate that person fairly for his loss of income, but he will not do it. He had an opportunity, but he chose not to do it.
As long as he is putting in place the kind of legislation that discriminates blatantly against those people who least deserve to be discriminated against, then he does not deserve the support and respect of this side of the House.
The day has come when this government is going to have to realize that only three basic things are required of a compensation system. One is accident prevention, two is income maintenance and three is rehabilitation. We ask for nothing more; the injured workers ask for nothing more. Is it beyond the minister's wit to provide that? It is provided in other jurisdictions, but he cannot provide it. Ontario is one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in the western world and he cannot provide those three basic, very simple principles to the injured workers of Ontario.
He can cry poor all he likes and he can cater to the whims of the employers' council; that really shows his true colours. When this bill was being prepared, guess who the minister discussed it with? Did he discuss it with the injured workers of the province? No. Did he discuss it with the labour movement in Ontario?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Laughren: Did he discuss it with the employers of Ontario?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Laughren: Yes, he did, but not with the injured workers in Ontario. As long as there is that attitude on the part of the Minister of Labour there should be and will be no trust on the part of injured workers in Ontario.
We simply cannot support this legislation in its present form. It is going out to committee. We will be debating it over the summer and I suppose into September. What disappoints me the most is that here was an opportunity to reshape the compensation system in Ontario and the minister chose not to do it.
For him to throw into his introductory statement the fact that this is a phased program is a lot of nonsense. Does he expect us to swallow that? I could use stronger language than that. If ever I have heard of simple stalling, that is it. He can say they are phasing it, and then every time anyone criticizes him he can say: "Here is my statement. I told you we are phasing it."
There have been 40 years of phasing and the injured workers are justly angry. I do not know how he has got away with it as long as he has. I have said before, and I will repeat it, as an elected member of this assembly I am through with trying to cool down injured workers who are angry at the Workers' Compensation Board. For years I have said to them: "Cool down. We will see if we can get your benefits. We will see if we can get you a decent answer."
When I deal with the injured worker I dealt with last Friday and I hear the board saying, "No, you can get by on 15 per cent; we are not having anything to do with you," then I am not going to cool down that worker any more. That is the minister's responsibility and he should live with the consequences.
Ms. Copps: I have a quick point of order, Mr. Speaker. To reiterate what has been said by my colleague:
[Remarks in Italian]
Mr. Shymko: [Remarks in Italian]
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments. I will attempt to answer the various points that were raised by the honourable members opposite in answer to my opening statement.
I want to commend the member for Windsor-Sandwich, the member for Dovercourt, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) and the member for Nickel Belt for what I consider to be fine presentations this evening. They left no doubt about where they stood as far as the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act are concerned. I respect those views.
I want to make two or three comments. At one point, the member for Dovercourt said the injured workers were saying, "Give us Weiler or give us nothing." That was not the message I was hearing. That was not what I was reading on the placards outside this Legislature. That was not the message I was getting when I met with them on numerous occasions.
They were indicating they did not want what Professor Weiler had proposed and particularly did not want it at this time. That was the message I was getting and the message that was on the petition they handed to me that was almost a mile long.
The member for Kitchener-Wilmot has correctly pointed out there were objections to the dual award and we were not able to come up with a satisfactory resolution. Rather than holding everything else up, we decided to do it on a phased basis.
I also want to comment for a moment on the remarks of the member for Windsor-Sandwich, because I agreed with him completely when he said accident prevention and safety in the work place are the most important part of workers' compensation. I totally agree, but I must leave him behind when he makes claims that our record in Ontario does not stand up in comparison to other jurisdictions.
Coincidentally, just last week a slide presentation was made to me by Dr. Nethercott. It was about a report he was going to submit the next day to the district health council. I asked him for the hard copy. I do not have it here today but I will bring it to committee. It shows that Ontario stands remarkably well in comparison with other jurisdictions on its frequency of accidents and safety in the work place. I was amazed by the figures I saw in that slide.
I cannot stand here tonight and let the reputation of the Workers' Compensation Board be destroyed in the manner in which some honourable members have attempted to destroy it. The reputation of the Workers' Compensation Board in the jurisdictions across Canada and the United States is very high indeed. With respect, I would suggest to the members that when we had New Democratic Party governments in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, there were no changes similar to the changes being made here. I have not seen any changes in Manitoba similar to those being made here. The present Workers' Compensation Act is superior to the acts in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia.
There are two points I want to make. The member for Dovercourt stated the injured workers have to come here every year to demonstrate on the steps in order to --
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The minister should be aware the injured workers of Manitoba are not demonstrating on a yearly basis.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is exactly the point to which I was attempting to come. The member for Dovercourt stated the injured workers have to come here every year in order to get their increases, that they have to demonstrate on the lawn and the streets outside in order to do so. That has simply not been the case. Each year since I have been minister, I have in this Legislature committed myself to an increase months before the date of July 1.
There is one final point. It was suggested by the member for Nickel Belt that I discussed the proposed legislation with the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation but did not do likewise with the injured workers' groups. That is simply incorrect.
Mr. Laughren: No, it is not.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is incorrect. I discussed with the injured workers to a considerable degree what we were thinking of proposing in the suggested legislation and I discussed it in the very same manner with the employers' council. I did not run by all the suggestions to the employers' council --
Mr. Laughren: Nonsense. That is not true.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: -- any more than I did with the injured workers. I want to make that point abundantly clear.
Those are the points I would like to make.
The House divided on Hon. Mr. Ramsay's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McLean, McMurtry, Mitchell;
Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling. Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.
Nays
Allen, Boudria, Bradley. Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip, Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruston, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.
Ayes 61; nays 42.
Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business for tomorrow afternoon. We will begin after routine proceedings by dealing with the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 77. After that, we will do second reading and committee of the whole on Bill 99. It has been agreed that we will hold all the votes at 5:45 p.m.
The House adjourned at 10:45 p.m.