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