A REVIEW OF SOCIAL PB

Trade unionists across Canada are
asked to focus attention on the develop-
ment of a cohesive social policy for Can-
ada. Donald MacDonald, president of the
Canadian Labour Congress, announced
that this would be the theme of the Con-
gress’ Annual Citizenship Month which is
observed each February.

During the month organizations affili-
ated to the CLC will be asked to make
social legislation a subject of discussion
at their meetings. Members will be asked
to sign and send postcards to Health
Minister Munro seeking ‘a review of the
entire system of social security to deter-
mine its adequacy as to coverage, ben-
efits and allocation of costs” as well as
the need for effective integration. The
cards will also voice support for ‘‘an ade-
quate guaranteed minimum income for all
Canadians.”

The Canadian Manufacturers’ Associ-
ation in their publication, INDUSTRY in
May 1968 use as their quote of the month
a Statement credited to Prime Minister
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, at the Liberal
leadership convention, April 4, 1968. “In
the field of social welfare programs it is
my belief that we have enough of this
free stuff ....We have to put a damper
on this revolution of rising expectations
. .. We must not be afraid of this bogey-
man, the means test. We must be more
selective, to help those who live on un-
economic land or in city slums... .”

The infelicitous statement deserves a
proper answer. Few of the important
social legislation is free, in effect, most of
it bares too heavy a burden on the lower
income group. The statement credited
to the Prime Minister belongs with the
collection of familiar hairy charges made
by the special vested interest groups
everytime there is a social demand for
legislation to alleviate the social hard-

ships created by the economic system.

The trade union movement, since its
inception has been spotlighting these
social evils and has been the strongest
advocate for corrective measures. An
examination of the public records will
prove that at all times they have to en-
counter well financed campaigns launch-
ed by influential vested interests opposed
to the proposed measures. These special
interest groups have always used the
same worn-out arguments. “The econ-
omy of the country cannot justify the
cost.” “We will price ourself out of the

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER

market.” “You will destroy the incentive
of people to work.” “The recipients of
the welfare measures will be encouraged
to seek a life of leisure and laziness.”
“The poor will not accept their own re-
sponsibility etc., etc.’”’ Let us examine the

Workmen’s Compensation Acts were
one of the early pieces of social legisla-
tion brought about by the agitation of
trade unionists supported by other ele-
ments of society who showed a great con-

cern for the social unrest created by in- .
dustry accepting no responsibility for the

victims of industrial accidents. This
brought about commissions of inquiry
which led to the first compensation act
being passed in Ontario in 1914 to be
followed by other legislation, in other pro-
vinces. The financing of compensation
payments are a direct charge to labour
costs and does not involve spending of
public funds. In the original conception
of these acts it was estimated that an
average of 2 to 22 per cent of the payroll
of industry would be sufficient to pay
minimal payments to injured workmen.

Since this inception, organized labour
has kept up an insistent pressure for im-
provement in the benefits payable under
these acts. Today in Canada our com-
pensation acts are considered equal to
national standards anywhere in the world

_ although there is still room for improve-
ment. After over 50 years of operation of
these acts the percentage cost has been
substantially reduced. Industry’s assess-
ment is based on only that portion of the
payroll which is subject to workmen com-
pensation coverage, the maximum being
$6,500.

The average assessment on that pay-
roll is in the neighbourhood of 1.5 per
cent although it must be remembered that
industries with a higher accident fre-
quency rate pay a higher percentage.
Another important factor as a result of
workmen compensation laws has been a
greater emphasis on the safety of the
work place, thereby reducing in a real
way the number of victims of industrial
accidents. Another very important side
effect of the workmen’s compensation
laws has been the millions and millions of
dollars made available from the accident
funds (to insure pension payments) for
investment in federal and provincial gov-
‘ernment bonds.

(ceria ee
| OLD AGE SECURITY ACT — 1926 |

L

In 1926 the Federal Government passed
the first Old Age Security Act which pro-
vided for a minimal pension to the senior
citizens subject to a means test.

In 1951 an act to provide old age se-
curity was passed providing for a monthly
pension of $40.00 to all senior citizens
who had attained the age of 70. Under
that act special provision was made for
the establishment of an old age security
fund and based on a 2 percent Sales Tax
plus a 2 per cent tax on the taxpayers
income with a maximum of $60.00 plus

a ,

a 2 per cent corporation tax. In effect
this meant two regressive forms of taxa- —
tion, one the sales tax which bears un-—
evenly on the poor and middle income —
groups and secondly, only those with
$3,000 taxable income or less would pay
the full 2 per cent as $60.00 was the ©
maximum payable. Af

In 1963 the act was amended to provide ©
a monthly pension of $75.00 per month
and the income tax portion increased to —
4 per cent on the first $3,000 or less, the
maximum being $120.00. B

As of January 1, 1970 a universal pen-
sion of a minimal of $75.00 a month plus ©
a cost of living adjustment payable to all
senior citizens 65 years of age and over,
The adjustment in 1969 increased the
pension to $78.00 per month. In addition, —
subject to the means test, supplementary
payments payable to an additional max-
imum of $31.20. It is financed from a 3

In 1968 the total tax collections ear-
marked for Old Age Security were ap- )
proximately 800 million dollars from in- —
come tax, 150 million in corporation tax ©
and 545 million in sales tax, the total bene-
fits paid were one billion, 400 million, °
leaving a balance in the fund of approxi-
mately 535 million.

a

per cent tax on corporation incomes and
a 4 per cent income tax on those with
$6,000 taxable income or less, the max-
imum being $240.00 per year.

i

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE o>

}
\ i
bay 2 eee

_The depression of the 1930’s empha- —
sized the urgent need for a nation-wide
unemployment programme. In 1940 the
Unemployment Insurance Act was passed