The House resumed at 8 p.m.
EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resumption of the adjourned debate in committee of the whole House on Bill 139, An Act respecting Employees’ Health and Safety.
On section 4:
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. When we rose at 6 o’clock it was the impression of the Chair that the hon. minister had something to say. We are dealing with section 4, subsection (1).
Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, my only remark was that we had introduced an amendment to section 4, subsection (1) and I was a little concerned about the route of management of that amendment in view of the fact that the hon. member for Nickel Belt had introduced an amendment which covered the entirety of section 4. I was asking for guidance on the deliberations in this area.
Mr. Chairman: It is the intention of the Chair to deal specifically with the amendment, in particular subsection (1). We are going to get ourselves into a great deal of difficulty if we deal with the total of the amendment at this time and then have to go back to other subsections of section 4 where there are amendments proposed by the minister. We are dealing specifically with section 4, subsection (1).
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I have already spoken on the sub-amendment which I have placed. I would only suggest to you and, through you, to the minister and to the Liberal Party that if it is their wish to treat section 4, subsection (1) separately from the rest of section 4 it might make it easier in terms of debating it and in terms of voting on the sub-amendment.
Mr. Bullbrook: We’ve had the opportunity over the dinner hour of speaking with the minister and with the critic of the New Democratic Party. If you’ll permit me I want to think out loud, and if I’m voicing anything of confidence I trust immediately that someone who feels it is an intrusion of confidence will advise me so.
I had stated prior to dinner that I appreciate very much the intention of the New Democratic Party members in proposing their amendment. I felt, frankly, that playing the numbers game was arbitrary at best and ineffective at worst, and I just can’t advise my colleagues to go along with the New Democratic Party amendment. I frankly feel that there might be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of employees in the province of Ontario who might be deprived of the efficacy of the legislation because of the fact that we exclude those establishments with fewer than 10 employees.
I had anticipated an amendment which would have said and, if you would permit me, which would have in effect made it mandatory upon the minister to provide for a health and safety committee where an employee, group of employees or the collective bargaining agent representing the employees requested same, the intention being that where you have in being a health and safety committee established voluntarily, one would anticipate that it would be more efficacious because of the voluntary nature of same, than one structured under the committee.
Therefore, I wanted to ensure that those who had over decades established committees of that nature would not be compelled under some mandatory word in the section to have the minister impose a new committee upon them. Therefore the use of the word “shall” in the universal sense was not attractive to myself and my colleagues. We, therefore, anticipated that it would be mandatory for the minister to invoke her statutory powers only where requested by the employees and so on.
On the other hand, as a result of discussions over the dinner hour it seems to me reasonable that to put it in the singular invites perhaps undue intrusion where intrusion isn’t needed.
On the other hand, I want to say that’s what section 2 was all about, and I’ve got to voice that again, because it’s the individual employee judgement, under section 2, that is really the causa causans of the whole legislation. Frankly, I’m prepared myself to consider the propriety of having the minister act in a mandatory fashion where a majority of the employees request the imposition of the statutory health and safety committee.
Then it’s been brought to my attention that there might be times where a majority of employees, as a result of inertia on their part, perhaps as a result of outside influence, might not seek the request and the Minister of Labour under this legislation and complementary legislation is placing in her own hands not only the power but the duty, the duty to see that the employees are protected, and with that I totally subscribe, and were I that minister I would not want by reason of words to be divested of the ability to exercise that responsibility. That’s why I feel, frankly, the numbers game doesn’t satisfy either the minister or myself and I think in the long run the critic for the New Democratic Party.
So we’re caught up in a strange dichotomy that we all want to resolve and I don’t know the words to resolve it. I voice this out loud, through you, Mr. Chairman: Where there is a happy situation prevailing, where there is a health and safety committee satisfactory to a majority of employees, satisfactory to management, why intervene? There is the need of absolute intervention, mandatory intervention, where a majority of the employees want or the employer wants intervention. Thirdly there is the ability, based on criteria established in the statute, for the minister to intervene when there isn’t such a request and when there isn’t a health and safety committee.
She can then truly exercise that discretionary judgement, or on the basis of information rendered to her from her ministry, statistical or otherwise, she can say: “I am not content with the health record or safety record in that plant. Even though a majority of employees have not requested it, I will exercise my function under the purview and within the parameters of the criteria established under the statute.” Surely there must be among the 125 of our peers someone with enough intelligence to write that down. I can’t. I am going to try to write it down, but I haven’t been able to yet.
I am very interested in the point raised by my colleague, the member for Nickel Belt, and the hon. minister responding. Supposing there is a group in society that looks with great disdain -- almost anathema -- on the concept of mandatory imposition of a health and safety council. Surely we can relieve them -- nay, more than that, surely we have a duty to relieve them -- if we can say that a majority of employees have requested this. If it becomes a situation that’s insurmountably administratively complex -- and here both the member for Nickel Belt and the minister have educated me -- then let the minister come back in March or April and say, “I am sorry, my colleagues, it can’t work. I just don’t have the administration to respond to these requests.”
I will be the first to try to lead the debate in changing it back, but frankly -- and I will close by repeating this -- we don’t render discretion to the incumbent minister. We never have. We never will. We don’t leave it to Hon. Bette Stephenson to exercise her responsibility. When we give discretion, we should give it to cabinet ministers exercising this portfolio for as long as the legislation might be there -- for a decade or more. Frankly, in the light of the tenor and intention of the legislation, I don’t feel we can do less than assure those who wish to have a health and safety committee, no matter where they work, that on the basis of the democratic process in their establishment they should have one.
Mr. Laughren: If I might respond to the member for Sarnia, it seems to me that the member for Sarnia and the minister and I and others all agree we are striving for the maximum protection of workers on the job in such a way that it’s pragmatic, that’s it’s possible, that we are not building some kind of nightmarish model that won’t work. We don’t want that any more than anyone else. I get the impression from the minister that she thinks that is what we are suggesting in our amendments.
We are not. We have thought through our amendments carefully. We have checked other jurisdictions and we feel that our amendments will work. If we are talking about maximum protection for workers, and at the same time building it into a structure that’s pragmatic, then I see no reason why making the safety and health committees mandatory for places of work with over 10 employees imposes any kind of burden on the ministry. The onus is upon the employer to establish the committees.
Secondly, if we are worried about the numbers game and the fact that employees in places of work where there are fewer than 10 employees might be discriminated against, I would draw your attention to our amended section 6. It says that if there’s a problem in a work place with less than 10 employees, the minister shall designate that there be a safety and health committee in that particular work place.
Finally -- the member for Sarnia touched upon this and I agree with him -- if there is a problem when we enact this bill between the time the bill is proclaimed and the time that the omnibus bill is introduced and debated, then we also would agree with any kind of amendment that would make it workable. If any part of this bill we’re bringing in turns out to be nightmarish then we would have nothing to gain by continuing to support something that was not workable.
[8:15]
I would suggest to the minister that she seriously think about who it is that would find it anathema to have mandatory committees. The workers in the province of Ontario? I doubt that very much. The only people who will find it very difficult to live with are some of the employers in the province of Ontario who simply don’t want what they regard as a management right taken away from them. We don’t believe that’s a management right and the minister doesn’t really believe it at this point in time either, or this bill would not be before us and we would not be debating it. Obviously she thinks that occupational health and safety should come under the purview of the workers as well as management.
Therefore, I would suggest to her that she not be deluded or misled into thinking that because we would make health and safety committees mandatory in places of work where there are more than 10 employees, or in places where there are less than 10 employees when there is a problem in the work place, we’re trying to create an unworkable structure. That’s not the case at all. I don’t believe the employers in the province of Ontario have a thing to worry about, unless their place of work is unsafe.
Mr. Haggerty: I just want to speak on the amendments put forward by the minister and by the member for Nickel Belt. I’m a little concerned about the proposed amendment that says the minister may by order in writing require an employer to establish a joint health and safety committee. I believe on second reading of the bill I suggested to the minister she should have something in the bill to the effect that where it is requested by an employee or a group of employees where there is no safety committee, one be established. I think that’s rather important. Perhaps that is the crux of the understanding of this particular section of the bill.
With regard to other ministry staff that are speaking throughout Ontario and other countries, I want to quote something from the IAPA magazine of November, 1976. One story is headed: “Government’s Role in Safety, Health Should Have Limitations, Says Labour Ministry Official.” Mr. Hushion was addressing a workshop on safety and health in the chemical industry, co-sponsored by the Manufacturing Chemists Association in Washington, DC. He told the workshop delegates: “People in government feel that effective control can be improved by having employers and employees establish and run their own monitoring programmes in accordance with government standards for monitoring.” He said that means “we can rely less on the routine inspections and concentrate on the post-audit function established and run on a priority basis.
“There are and indeed should be limitations on the role of government in a field such as occupational safety and health. Government’s role is to facilitate and ensure compliance with well-conceived standards, not to stand over the shoulder of every employer and employee. The remainder of the responsibility for compliance must rest with labour and management.”
If you look at that particular section where it says “the minister may,” you have to wonder how the two policies you’re trying to head for are going to solve the problem of health and safety in industry. It’s not going to do it if you use the word “may” there. There should be another word there, perhaps “mandatory,” as suggested by the member for Sarnia. There’s got to be something different from “may.” You must provide an opportunity for other persons to join in a health and safety programme or a safety committee in industry in Ontario.
I suggest that what you intend under section 4 of the bill, speaking from that article in the IAPA magazine, is in direct conflict with one another. Surely if you’re going to have that, you’re going to have difficulties in administering this Act in every industry in the province of Ontario.
I can’t quite go along with the amendment proposed by the NDP where it requires 10 or more to make it mandatory. I can’t accept that. In my past history of working in industry in the Niagara Peninsula I have seen a number of industries -- small industries with three to five personnel employed -- dealing with toxic chemicals. All they are doing is mixing the concentrate, putting it from one container into another and mixing it and it is shipped out. It is just like a warehouse but the chemical is deadly. In some cases they only have three or four persons there doing the job and I think they should be protected under this Act. On the recommendations of an amendment put forward by the NDP, this isn’t going to cover every workman in the province of Ontario and I can’t quite accept that.
I am not satisfied with this section. I think there must be some way for a person to request to join a health and safety committee or have one established in any plant or industry; they should have that right. I sense, by reading the comments of the IAPA and your suggestions here, that you are going to leave it up to industry to decide. I think you should have more input from the Ministry of Labour and not depend on labour and management to see that this is going to be done properly. You have to have the watchdog there. That’s what many other employers can look forward to -- if they are not satisfied with what’s going on in the industry they can report to the Minister of Labour themselves and that door should be open.
I suggest that perhaps the comments of the member for Sarnia are a more reasonable approach to it, and hopefully you will accept it.
Mr. Mackenzie: There are only two or three things I want to say on this section. I want to make it very clear that we said from the start on this bill that if there were two sections we would divide on, they were 2 and 4. We considered them to be a key to the bill and certainly the mandatory committee aspect is one of them. We welcome, I think, the changes the minister has brought in to date in some of the sections. They are not all we want but they are helpful; certainly in this section there are changes which should be made.
I would like to point out to the member for Sarnia that having mandatory committees does not necessarily mean the dissolving or booting, if you like, of all the existing committees. There is no reason we can’t work with them and I think the intent of the legislation is that we do. I think it’s one of the games, quite frankly, that the member for Sarnia has been playing in this whole issue.
He’s been talking about the numbers game all night. We’ve listened to the rhetoric and we’ve done enough penance.
Mr. Shore: You straighten it out. You will be all right.
Mr. Swart: Are you speaking as a Liberal or a Conservative?
Mr. Mackenzie: We want this bill. We’d like it through and we think it should be through this evening. I say to the Liberal members if they want to cut the rhetoric and take a look at these issues --
Mr. Reid: After all the nonsense we have heard -- you’ve got a nerve. I have heard hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness, but you are overdoing it.
Mr. Swart: You practised it, too.
Mr. Mackenzie: It hurts, doesn’t it, when you’re caught playing games?
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: We have a lot of work to do in this committee tonight. Will you stick to the principle of the amendment to the amendment without interruption?
Mr. Mackenzie: That’s very simple. I am simply saying that if they want to put their vote where their mouth is, let them vote with us on it; if not they can defeat us and vote with the government as I expect them to. I think it’s time we got on with the bill and put the amendment and voted on it accordingly.
Mr. Singer: He is out of order again.
Hon. B. Stephenson: I have listened very carefully to the arguments put by the hon. members for Nickel Belt, Hamilton East and Sarnia. I have also listened very carefully to the arguments put by the representatives of employer groups during the standing committee hearings.
I think it is important to recognize that the purpose of this bill, as the hon. member for Nickel Belt has said, is to protect the workers. In order to do that I think we must have the co-operation of all groups involved. If we introduce legislation which is entirely antagonistic to the wishes of one group or another, it would seem to me we are prejudicing the success of this portion of the interim bill.
I am wondering if the problem might be in some way improved or corrected to a degree if, as I suggested earlier, we were to omit the phrase, class or group of employers as defined in the order and, under section 2, which I have to go to right now -- in spite of the fact that I have complained about considering other sections than simply section 4(1) -- under section 2, amend that section by adding “the minister shall consider,” and adding a clause (c) which states “the request of a majority of the employees in an establishment” as a part of the criteria which the minister must consider in the process of establishing a health and safety committee. That would renumber clauses (c), (d) and (e) as (d) (e) and (f) as a matter of fact, and I’ll write that out for you in a moment.
It seems to me that this would ensure that the minister must consider the various criteria in section 2 but still have the power to make that consideration on the basis of the request of a group of the employees in any establishment so that indeed we will not be playing the numbers game, so that indeed we will be able to establish committees where it is necessary to do so on the basis of record or on the basis of the concern of the employees that whatever system is presently functioning is not working sufficiently satisfactorily.
I’m wondering if -- now he’s gone -- the hon. member for Sarnia --
Mrs. Campbell: He has gone to find out if he can find a typist to type out the amendment.
Hon. B. Stephenson: It would be helpful if he were here, because we had discussed this specific concern of his.
Mr. Peterson: Just keep talking.
Hon. B. Stephenson: I am concerned that indeed if we do move at this stage to mandatory committees we may lose the co-operation of a very important segment within this cooperative effort, and that is the co-operation of employers. We heard from every single employer group during the hearings on their opposition to the concept of mandatory committees at this time.
We certainly heard from the representatives of the unions that they would be happier with mandatory committees, but they did not, in fact, state specifically that this was the only way for this legislation to go. What they said was that they wanted to see this legislation passed as rapidly as possibly without being watered down.
In no way would the addition I am suggesting as an amendment to this section be considered a watering down. It would, in fact, strengthen that section because it would ensure that the minister would have to consider the request of employees in addition to other factors, or perhaps solely as the criteria for establishing a committee. It would seem to me that this is a rational way in which to move, in this interim period at any rate. If we find that it doesn’t work, then indeed when the omnibus legislation is introduced we can most seriously consider the possibility of introducing mandatory committees, but I should hate to prejudice the potential function of this piece of legislation by introducing a concept which is entirely in opposition to the stated position of almost every single employer in this province. I think that would be extremely unwise, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bounsall: Posturing.
Mr. Sweeney: A question to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman: Madam Minister, going back to what you just said, does that mean where there is, in fact, a health and safety committee already in existence and it is deemed to be satisfactory by the employees, then you as the minister would not intervene?
Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s right.
Mr. Sweeney: Thank you.
Mr. Bullbrook: Recognizing that for me to put a motion is out of order, I would put it in this context: I asked our colleagues to consider, if they would, the possibility of a motion which rendered it mandatory to the minister to impose, where a majority of the employees have requested the imposition, which provides in new section 2 that notwithstanding the mandatory provisions of subsection 1, the minister may require the imposition of the committee where in her discretion the criteria as now in 4(2) are established. So in effect, the intent of that amendment would be that where a majority of employees request she must act, and even where a majority or any employees do not request she can order same on the basis of the criteria in the statute now. I ask members to consider the propriety of that type of amendment.
[8:30]
I say this -- and our colleague the member for Nickel Belt has said this -- if this imposes an undue administrative burden, let’s come back and show us that it does. But frankly, the intention of this legislation is a two-way street and we can’t be beholden to any group, be it employer or employee. We want to assure that where employees feel the necessity of a health and safety committee, that there can’t be any ambivalence under the statute, there must be action by the minister in that circumstance.
Mr. Laughren: I really don’t want to unduly delay the debate, but it seems to me that if we’re serious about maximizing protection to the employees, we can’t fool around with safety and health committees. Either we believe in the principle of mandatory safety and health committees on the job or we don’t believe in mandatory safety and health committees on the job.
You cannot, it seems to me, build into legislation the proviso that committees are mandatory if the majority of employees want them. There are, I imagine, innumerable examples in which employees would not muster a majority of support for the establishment of safety and health committees, say in small groups of employees; earlier I referred particularly to lumbering companies. In small operations, the employees simply would not come forward to support the establishment of safety and health committees. While the minister might be somewhat dubious about this, I can assure her there are work situations in the province of Ontario in which employees are indeed hesitant to step forward. In small organizations, I can assure her, the employer would know within an hour which employees had indicated they wished to support a safety and health committee at that particular place of work.
We could not support an amendment to this amendment that would make it discretionary if there was a majority of employees on the job. If we’re serious about it, we establish mandatory safety and health committees where there are 10 or more employees, and for less than 10 employees when there’s a problem in the work place. We too are concerned about creating the kind of structure that’s not workable, but I don’t see that making it at the discretion of the majority of workers is the answer. We’re saying there should be safety and health committees in all places of work, so let’s get on with it.
The committee divided on Mr. Laughren’s amendment to the amendment that section 4(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “(1) Every employer of 10 or more employees shall establish a joint health and safety committee or committees for a work place or any part or parts thereof,” which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 24; nays 64.
[9:00]
Mr. Chairman: We will now deal with Hon. B. Stephenson’s amendment that section 4(1) of the bill be amended by striking out “or a class or group of employers as defined in the order” in the second and third lines thereof.
Those in favour will please say “aye.”
Those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
I declare the motion carried.
Order, please. We are dealing now with section 4(2). The hon. minister has an amendment.
Hon. B. Stephenson moves that section 4(2) be amended by deleting the word “may” in the second line and substituting therefor the word “shall” and by adding section 4(2)(c) “the request of a group of the employees or the trade union representing the employees in a work place.” The following sections would therefore be renumbered.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: That deals with section 4(2). We now have an amendment to subsection 3. Will the minister move her --
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member doesn’t even understand what it is -- you rub sticks together --
Mr. Chairman: Order. Does the Minister of Housing want to be made Minister of Natural Resources or something?
Hon. B. Stephenson moves that section 4(3) of the bill be amended by striking out “at least” in the second line thereof.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Wait a minute, there was an amendment to section 4(3) put earlier this afternoon. If I put the question on this, that section carries. What’s your wish on that?
Mr. Nixon: It only carries if the amendment is defeated.
Mr. Laughren: I am confused, Mr. Chairman because there is also an amendment to section 4(2).
Mr. Nixon: It doesn’t carry.
Mr. Chairman: Subsection 2 is carried. You have an opportunity if you wish to re-put your amendment to section 4(3) as an amendment to the minister’s amendment, if you so wish.
As an amendment to the amendment, Mr. Laughren moves that section 4(3) be amended by the following: “The members of the committee shall elect two of the members as co-chairpersons, one of whom shall represent the employees and one of whom shall represent the employers.”
Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, could I ask whether that amendment as presently presented is meant to substitute for the present subsection 3? If it is, it gives no criteria for membership of the committee.
Mr. Davidson: No, it is not meant to.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you have an amendment that you have put to us indicating that the minister wants to put the phrase “at least” in. I would suggest --
Hon. B. Stephenson: No, delete it.
Mr. Nixon: You take it out or something.
Mr. McClellan: Glad you clarified it.
Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have.
Mr. Nixon: I would suggest that you could clear that out of the way. Then the subsection as amended could be further amended. As I understand it, it’s only when an amendment is defeated that the section carries and then it’s away from us.
Mr. Hodgson: You are a great leader yet, Bob.
Mr. Chairman: If it is the wish of the committee, with that understanding I’d be happy to put the minister’s amendment. Shall the minister’s amendment to strike out “at least” in section 4(3) carry?
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Laughren moves that the members of the committee shall elect two of the members as co-chairpersons, one of whom shall represent the employees and one of whom shall represent the employers.
Mr. Bullbrook: I think our colleague means to add that phrase. If he would just rephrase that, then --
Mr. Chairman: Do you wish to add that to section 4(3) as it presently stands?
Mr. Bullbrook: Have you any objection to that?
Mr. Laughren: That is acceptable.
Mr. Bullbrook: If I might just speak to that for a moment. I see no inherent objection to it, except the general objection. We seem to be structuring things for people unduly. However, I don’t know why the minister should have any violent objection; I think we can support it.
Hon. B. Stephenson: I have no violent objection except that it seems to me to be less than practical to have two people leading any one horse. I would think it would probably be more sensible if one chairman were elected. I really feel that we should permit a degree of flexibility. If the group wants to elect co-chairpersons, that’s perfectly fine. If they want to elect one chairperson, that’s fine too. I don’t think we should build in rigidity.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: What about “chairman”?
Mr. Laughren: The main reason we have included this amendment is that where it has been experimented with in the work place by safety and health committees, it has worked quite well. I think it indicates that the entire question of occupational health is a dual responsibility in the work place and for that reason I think that the amendment should stand.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s amendment will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the motion defeated.
Mr. Hodgson: Is the member for Sarnia standing with the NDP?
Mr. Chairman: Will we stack that?
Mr. Bullbrook: I want to see if you are the same fellow I had dinner with.
Mr. Davidson: Get back in your seat and do your job.
Mr. Chairman: Do you want to stack that one?
It is stacked.
We are still dealing with section 4, subsection 4. The member for Nickel Belt has a further amendment.
Mr. Laughren moves that subsection 4 of section 4 should read:
“It is the duty of a committee and it has power to,
“(a) identify situations that may be a source of danger or hazard to employees;
“(b) make recommendations to the employer and employees for the improvement of the occupational health of employees;
“(c) establish and maintain programmes, measures and procedures respecting the health and safety of employees and monitor their effectiveness;
“(d) obtain information from the employer or other persons respecting,
“(i) the identification of potential or existing hazards of materials, processes or equipment, and
“(ii) health and safety experience and work practices and standards in the same or similar industries;
“(e) maintain and keep minutes and records of its proceedings and it shall make the same available for examination and review by an inspector or engineer.”
We’re going to get ourselves into difficulty if the minister doesn’t move her amendment to section 4, subsection 4(c), which I had hoped that she would have done first.
Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, had I had the opportunity to, I should have been pleased to.
Mr. Germa: You are so bashful.
Mr. Bain: You are no wallflower.
Mr. Chairman: Order please.
Hon. B. Stephenson moves that clause (c) of subsection 4 of section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
“(c) recommend the establishment, maintenance and monitoring of programmes, measures and procedures respecting the health and safety of employees.”
Hon. Mr. Kerr: That will carry unanimously.
Mr. Chairman: We will deal with the minister’s amendment to section 4(4)(c) first and we’ll treat Mr. Laughren’s amendment as an amendment to the amendment. So we will deal with the minister’s amendment.
Motion agreed to.
[9:15]
Mr. Chairman: We will now deal with Mr. Laughren’s amendment as read earlier. Any discussion?
All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s amendment will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the motion defeated.
We have further amendments to subsections 5, 6 and 7, and the addition of a new subsection 8. If the hon. member for Nickel Belt will place those amendments before the committee, we’ll take them all as one, if that is the wish of the committee.
Mr. Laughren: If I might make a suggestion at this time, Mr. Chairman, I could move these amendments and then perhaps vote on the stacked amendments, as I indicated earlier.
I move section 4(5):
“(5) It is the duty of an employer to provide such information requested under clause (4) of subsection 4 as is in his knowledge or possession.
“(6) An employer shall post and keep posted the names and work locations of the committee members in a conspicuous place or places where they are most likely to come to the attention of his employees.
“(7) A committee shall meet during working hours at least once a month or when either of the co-chairpersons or two or more members deem necessary.”
The new addition:
“(8) A member of a committee is entitled to such time from his work as is necessary to attend meetings of the committee and all time taken for committee work shall be deemed to be work time.”
Mr. Chairman: Could we have some order, please? It’s very difficult for the Chair not only to hear, but to determine the way in which he will put these amendments to the committee, because ifs not indicated in the amendment before the chairman whether this is an addition. Are you amending the section by adding the following or substituting?
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, it might help if I indicated to you that when the amendment was drafted, the entire section 4 of the bill was to be struck out and these sections substituted therefor. Therefore, it would appear that when we get to the individual sections, the intention was that they would replace the existing sections, with the exception of section 8, which was an addition.
Further, on a procedural matter, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would ask your guidance while so many members of the chamber are here as to whether we could proceed with the vote on the amendment on section 4(3) if that’s acceptable to the committee.
Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, is that the amendment that was stacked?
Mr. Chairman: Yes. There was an amendment to section 4(3) that was stacked. But we’re dealing now with subsections 5, 6 and 7, and a new subsection 8.
Mr. Bullbrook: You want to deal with those before a vote on section 4(3), I take it?
Mr. Chairman: Yes. Is there any discussion of Mr. Laughren’s amendment, which deletes and replaces subsections 5, 6 and 7, and adds a new subsection 8?
All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s amendment will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the amendment defeated.
Mr. Bullbrook: In connection with the vote on section 4(3), I am wondering if our colleagues would consider the last recorded vote as carrying this vote also?
Mr. Chairman: What is your wish? The hon. member for Nickel Belt indicated he wanted a vote on section 4(3) at the same time. Now it’s stacked.
Mr. Laughren: Yes. The only reason I hesitated is that I understood the spokesman for the Liberal Party to indicate he was supporting us on that amendment.
Mr. Bullbrook: I said frankly that it made no difference to me.
Ms. Gigantes: Then let’s vote on it.
Mr. Bullbrook: Frankly, there is no rule that I know of that when I feel a degree of non-commitment I have to vote either way. I have decided and I trust my colleagues will go along with me, that in view of the lack of the other section carrying. It would not be appropriate to the structure of the section for this subsection to carry.
Mr. Nixon: A very reasonable position.
Mr. Bullbrook: I would therefore ask them to vote against the subsection.
Mr. Chairman: It’s stacked until the members are called in.
Mr. Laughren: They are already here.
Mr. Davidson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: There is no point of order; everything is in order.
Interjections.
Mr. Davidson: Can I ask a question of the Chair? Is it possible for the Minister of Housing, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, to vote sitting in a seat that is not his in the Legislature? If he is doing that, is he not out of order?
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, on a point of procedure, would it aid the process of the committee if we accepted the previous vote on section 4(3) in order to prevent calling in the members at this time?
Mr. Bullbrook: Agreed.
Mr. Laughren: Would that expedite the matters of the committee?
Mr. Chairman: The amendment is lost.
Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right.
Mr. Laughren: That’s correct. I’m talking about section 4(3), in view of the fact that the critic for the Liberal Party has indicated that they are not supporting our amendment.
Mr. Chairman: I declare Mr. Laughren’s amendment to section 4(3) defeated.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
On section 5:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that section 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
“The minister may, by order in writing, require an employer to cause the selection of one or more safety representatives for a work place, or any part or parts thereof, from among the employees employed at the work place who do not exercise managerial functions and may from time to time give such directions as the minister considers advisable concerning the functions of a safety representative.”
Mr. Laughren: I assume that this amendment is to remove the class of employers from the existing bill. Is that correct?
Hon. B. Stephenson: The amendment simply ensures the safety representative in any work place will be one of the employees employed at that work place.
Mr. Bullbrook: Who does not exercise managerial duties.
Hon. B. Stephenson: And who does not exercise managerial duties, yes.
Mr. Chairman: We are going to get ourselves into great difficulty here and this always happens when the Chair is given a list of proposed amendments in advance of the fact. If we are going to discuss the minister’s amendment and vote on it, you are going to be precluded from moving an amendment that the Chair inadvertently knows about. If you have an amendment to the amendment, you had better put it now or forever hold your peace.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I don’t think that need trouble you as much as you indicate -- unless the minister’s amendment is defeated of course and if an amendment is --
Mr. Chairman: But I can’t anticipate that.
Mr. Nixon: No, but if an amendment is defeated, the section carries.
Mr. Chairman: That’s right.
Mr. Nixon: But if an amendment carries then that section as amended can be further amended and it needn’t trouble you.
Mr. Chairman: It won’t trouble me in any event, it might trouble some members of the committee.
Mr. Nixon: It won’t trouble me either. Why should it trouble you at all? Whoever gets the floor moves ahead with the thing.
Mr. Chairman: That’s right, it doesn’t trouble me at all.
Mr. Nixon: Good.
Mr. Chairman: I’m just alerting the committee to the fact that if the amendment carries the section carries.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Nixon: No, only if the amendment is defeated does the section carry.
Mrs. Campbell: If the amendment is lost.
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: You see, I can’t anticipate what’s going to happen. We have been going all along by the system that if there were two amendments, we consider one an amendment and another an amendment to the amendment. That’s the way we have been handling it.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for me to move an amendment?
Mr. Chairman: Yes -- an amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Laughren: That’s what I thought you meant.
I move that subsection 1, 3, 4 and 5 of section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
“(1) Every employer of 10 or more employees shall establish the position of one or more health and safety representatives for a work place or any part or part thereof from among the employees who do not exercise managerial functions, and may from time to time give such directions as the minister considers advisable concerning the duties of a health and safety representative.”
Subsection 3, of section 5: “The duties of the health and safety --
Mr. Chairman: No, I don’t want you to go any further than that. We’re dealing with 5(1), and we’ll deal with the amendment to the amendment to section 5(1) that has just been moved by Mr. Laughren. Is there any debate?
Mr. Bullbrook: I just want to reiterate if I may my understanding of the intention of our colleague from Nickel Belt. But frankly since we’ve rid ourselves of 4 and attempted to come to some reasonable conclusion, this is really a reiteration of the principle enunciated in 4 and applied in the context of 5. I think it’s too late in the evening to get into the merits of that again and it would be my intention to recommend to my colleagues that we don’t support the amendment of the New Democratic Party, that we support the amendment of the government.
Mr. McClellan: We are having a live caucus meeting here.
Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on the amendment to the amendment?
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, just so the member’s colleagues understand what they are voting against. I would just merely suggest that this does indeed --
Mr. Ruston: We know.
Mr. Conway: We are voting against you, Floyd.
Mr. Laughren: Oh, argumentum ad hominum, you shouldn’t do that.
Mr. Bullbrook: Criticize my leadership.
Mr. Laughren: That does indeed follow the establishment of mandatory health and safety committees, following it up with mandatory health and safety representatives on the job, which we think should be in tandem with committees.
Hon. B. Stephenson: The principle I think has been established that the minister should have the responsibility, for at least the period of the interim bill, of appointing safety representatives. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that they should be called “health and safety representatives” rather than simply “safety representatives” and I’m perfectly willing to accept that part of the amendment.
I think it would be inappropriate however, at this time, with the philosophy that has been established under section 4, to insist that for every employer of 10 or more employees that safety representatives be appointed by the ministry. I think the need for appointment is one thing which should be considered, the size of the establishment is another and I think that some rational and logical basis upon which the employee should be appointed is one which should he exercised by the minister upon the advice of the occupational health and safety authority within the ministry.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s amendment to the amendment will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the motion defeated.
We’ll now deal with the minister’s amendment to 5(1). Any discussion?
Mr. Haggerty: I hope the minister in her amendment is going to include the word “health.” That’s going to be in your amendment?
[9:30]
Hon. B. Stephenson: Right.
Mr. Haggerty: Is the chairman aware of that -- that the words are “safety and health”?
Hon. B. Stephenson: Right. I indicated, Mr. Chairman, that I would most certainly agree to the inclusion of the word “health” --
Mr. Haggerty: Where?
Hon. B. Stephenson: Preceding “safety” -- health and safety representatives. Since under the definitions the individual is called a health and safety representative, it would be logical to make that change in the text of the bill.
Mr. Chairman: So that the third last word in the amendment will be “health”?
Hon. B. Stephenson: “Health and safety”
-- and also in the second line.
Mr. Chairman: In the second line as well?
Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: Is everybody familiar with those changes to the minister’s amendment? Shall the amendment carry?
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
“(3)(a) A health and safety representative has power to identify situations that may be a source of danger or hazard to employees and to make recommendations or report his findings to the employer, employees, a trade union or unions representing employees and a joint health and safety committee, if any, for the improvement of the health and safety of workers.”
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I accept your direction here but it seems to me the amendment I would like to place would replace the minister’s amendment. I assume I have to word it in such a way that it amends the minister’s amendment Is that correct?
Mr. Chairman: Yes. Mr. Laughren moves:
(3) The duties of the health and safety representatives shall include (a) the regular inspection and monitoring of the work place and reporting of its findings to the committee; (b) the identification, investigation and reporting to the committee of any employee complaint of any health or safety hazard in the work place; (c) the advising of the committee of any steps to be taken to reduce or remove any existing hazardous condition affecting the employee, and (d) the investigation of every accident at the work place that causes serious injury or death to a person therein or thereat, the reporting of its findings to the committee, and the full participation at an inquest into any accident that the health and safety representative has investigated.
Is there any discussion on Mr. Laughren’s amendment to the amendment? Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s amendment will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
We are now ready for the amendment as proposed by Hon. B. Stephenson.
Shall the amendment carry?
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Haggerty: I think in section 5 and 2 of the bill, where you have “safety representatives,” the intent is to carry “health and safety” wherever it’s within that --
Hon. B. Stephenson: Right.
Mr. Chairman: That’s what was read.
Mr. Haggerty: Not in section 2, sir.
Hon. B. Stephenson: Not in section 2.
Mr. Chairman: That’s what was read.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I guess it’s a small point but unless something is done about it, section 3 is going to begin A safety representative may inspect,” et cetera.
Mr. Chairman: No, the hon. minister has improvised --
Mr. Nixon: Then subsection 3(a) is presented to us, which refers to a health and safety representative. Somebody, and it’s probably the minister, is going to have to have a motion cleaning that up a little bit.
Hon. B. Stephenson: I apologize. I suggested that that should be done editorially throughout the bill, since the definition on the first page was of a health and safety representative, and that it would be appropriate to change that name all the way through the bill.
Mr. Davidson: No, you have to put the continuity into it.
Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the suggestion of the hon. member, but if it’s necessary to move that that appropriate change be made, I shall do that at this point.
Mr. Chairman: It can be done editorially.
Shall the minister’s amendment carry?
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Laughren: On section 5(4), the only change in the amendment was the word “health.” In view of the fact that the minister has editorialized “health” into the remaining sections of the bill when dealing with safety, we would accept that.
Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed by the committee and understood by the legislative draftsmen?
Agreed.
Mr. Chairman: Any further comments or amendments to section 5 of the bill?
Mr. Laughren: Yes. The numbering has become a bit horrendous at this point, Mr. Chairman, as I’m sure you know. I have a subsection 5 here which indicates “It is the duty of the employer and employees to afford the health and safety representatives such information and assistance as may be required for the purpose of carrying out his duties as set out in subsection 3.”
The last amendment which I was going to put is not necessary because of the word “health” being in there already.
Hon. B. Stephenson: That duty of the employer and the employee is implicit in section 5(3) as the bill is presently written.
Mr. Chairman: So you won’t put your amendment to section 5(5)?
Mr. Laughren: No, I will not put those amendments, in view of the fact that they are implicit in the other sections.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 5 of the bill carry?
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
On section 6:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that section 6(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
“(1) Where an inspector exercises the powers conferred upon him under section 8(1)(a) of The Industrial Safety Act, 1971 or section 6(1)(a) of The Construction Safety Act, 1973, or an engineer exercises the powers conferred upon him under section 618(1)(b) of The Mining Act, the employer shall afford to a health and safety representative, if any, an employee authorized by a trade union or trade unions, if any, to represent it or them and, where there is no trade union, an employee authorized by the employees to represent them, the opportunity to accompany the inspector or engineer during his physical inspection of a work place or any part or parts thereof.”
Motion agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
On section 7:
Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with section 7 of the bill now.
Mr. Laughren: I move that the present section 7 --
Mr. Bullbrook: You are wilting under the pressure.
Mr. Laughren: No, not at all. I move that section 7 be renumbered and the following substituted therefor:
“Where an inspector gives a direction in writing under section 10 of The Industrial Safety Act, 1971, or an order in writing under section 11 of The Construction Safety Act, 1973, or an engineer gives a notice in writing under clause (a) of subsection 1 of section 16 of The Mining Act, or an inspector or engineer issues a report of his inspection to an employer, the employer shall forthwith cause a copy or copies thereof to be posted in a conspicuous place or places where it is most likely to come to the attention of the employee, and shall furnish a copy of this direction, order, notice or report to the health and safety representative and the committee, if any, and the inspector or engineer shall cause a copy thereof to be furnished to a person who has complained of a contravention of The Industrial Safety Act, 1971, The Construction Safety Act, 1973, or part IX of The Mining Act or any regulations thereunder.”
Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with section 7 of the bill. That deals with section 8 of the bill.
Hon. B. Stephenson: It is renumbered.
Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with section 7 of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Auld: I think the change was adjusted by definition.
Mr. Nixon: Floyd, did you change it to “health and safety”?
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, it has been drawn to my attention -- I believe it is correct -- that if the words “health and” are put in with “safety,” that will be sufficient.
Mr. Bullbrook: May I have your understanding, Mr. Chairman? Am I correct that we have all agreed that where the word “safety” is mentioned, the words “health and” antecede it. Is that correct?
Mr. Chairman: Yes. So far as the Chair can be absolutely certain of the amendment just moved by the member for Nickel Belt, may I have a copy of his amendment?
Mr. Laughren: Yes, I’m sorry. I thought you had them.
Hon. B. Stephenson: You haven’t one exactly the same.
Mr. Bullbrook: The copy I have isn’t the same, either.
Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the member for Nickel Belt is exactly the same as the present section 7 except for the addition of the words “health and” before “safety representative,” and this we have already agreed to.
Mr. Nixon: No problem.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 7 of the bill be carried as amended?
Hon. B. Stephenson: It is not amended.
Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order. So we understand, if it is carried as amended, it carries in conformity with what was read by the member, and not what the chairman has in front of him. I think I have what the chairman has in front of him, and it’s not what the member read.
Mr. Chairman: That’s right.
Mr. Bullbrook: Okay. Good.
Mr. Reid: That’s why he asked for a copy of the statement.
Hon. B. Stephenson: Can’t we just correct this?
Mr. Chairman: Just so there can be no misunderstanding, I am going to read what is before me:
Mr. Laughren moves that the bill be amended by adding after section 7 the following sections:
“8. Every employer shall notify in writing every employee who works in work places ... ”
Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is the next amendment to be before us.
Mr. Chairman: That’s what you just handed me.
Mr. Laughren: I’m sorry. I thought that’s what you asked for.
Mr. Bullbrook: It is really getting complicated.
Mr. Nixon: We need an inspector.
Mr. Chairman: Will you give me a copy of the amendment you just placed before the committee, please?
Mr. Reid: Better add “health, safety and sanity.”
Mr. Chairman: It is almost an unsafe place to be chairman.
Mr. Reid: It is an insane place to be chairman.
Mr. Bullbrook: You know who the bad employer is, eh?
[9:45]
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Laughren moves that the present section 7 of the bill, renumbered as section 8, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
“Where an inspector gives a direction in writing under section 10 of The Industrial Safety Act, 1971, or an order in writing under section 11 of The Construction Safety Act, 1973, or an engineer gives a notice in writing under clause (a) of subsection 1 of section 618 of The Mining Act, or an inspector or engineer issues a report of his inspection to an employer, the employer shall forthwith cause a copy or copies thereof to be posted in a conspicuous place or places where it is most likely to come to the attention of the employees and shall furnish a copy of such direction, order, notice or report to the health and safety representative and the committee, if any, and the inspector or engineer shall cause a copy thereof to be furnished to a parson who has complained of a contravention of The Industrial Safety Act, 1971, The Construction Safety Act, 1973, or part IX of The Mining Act or any regulations thereunder.”
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I think that you read that the way it’s supposed to read, but it still should read “section 7” and not “section 8.”
Mr. Chairman: The numbering will be picked up by the editors.
Mr. Haggerty: The only change made there is “health.”
Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the section you have just read is exactly the same as section 7 in the present Act, the only difference being the addition of the words “health and” before “safety representative.” Otherwise, it is precisely the same as the present section 7.
Mr. Ruston: We don’t need the amendment.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, you’ve been most indulgent with us, but since we have an almost universal understanding of health and safety we’re certainly not going to be burdened, as much as we admire our colleagues, by continually amending things purely to put in the word “health and.”
Mr. Haggerty: It is in the preamble.
Mr. Chairman: I appreciate those comments but because of the renumbering section 6 there was confusion as to what section of the bill we should have been dealing with. That’s why I wanted to be satisfied in my own mind as to the section we were dealing with.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
On section 8:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that subsection 1 of section 8 of the bill be amended by inserting after the word “cases” in the sixth line the phrase “that required medical aid.”
Hon. B. Stephenson: This is simply to clarify the delineation of information which must be supplied by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. If we simply said “cases” it would be impossible to provide that information because the board does not know about all the cases, it knows only about those that require medical aid.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Laughren moves an amendment to the amendment that the present section 8 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
“The Workmen’s Compensation Board upon the request of an employee, a committee, or a trade union shall send to the employee, committee or trade union and the appropriate employer an annual summary of data relating to his employer in respect of the number of work accident fatalities, the number of lost workday cases, the number of lost workdays, the number of non-fatal cases without lost workdays, the number of occupational illnesses, the number of occupational injuries and such other data as the board may consider necessary or advisable.”
We will deal first with the amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Laughren.
Mr. Bullbrook: I want to speak to it, if I might. Do you have that copy? Because I don’t.
Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.
Mr. Bullbrook: I’ve been able to follow, I think with some degree of alacrity, what has happened. But perhaps our colleague could just tell us the wordings that have changed because I don’t have a copy of it.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I think the section that the member for Sarnia was talking about was numbered section 11. Am I correct? The amendment that the member for Sarnia has? We are saying that in this section it’s an obligation on the part of an employer to notify all employees when there is a dangerous work place. What triggered this in our minds was the asbestos mills in the province where you might very well have a case that the place would be dangerous and that the employees should be notified just what the danger was.
Hon. B. Stephenson: If I may, this is the wrong section.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, there certainly could be some confusion in the mind of a layman examining this. The hon. member is saying the import of his amendment would be to inform the workmen of a dangerous situation. But as nearly as I can tell from following his amendment, it really just means the Workmen’s Compensation Board, upon request of the employee or trade union or the committee -- and he just inserts the word “committee.” I can’t see any objection to that but I don’t think it does what the hon. member explained that he thought it did.
Mr. Laughren: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is quite right. The purpose of the change was to ensure that the committees were informed of the information.
Mr. Nixon: Nothing wrong with that, surely.
Hon. B. Stephenson: The purpose of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Nickel Belt is included in section 8(2): “It is required of the employer that upon receipt of the information provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, it shall be transmitted to the committee, if any, and to the trade union or trade unions representing the employee ... and to the employee.” So I can see no purpose at all in the amendment which was suggested by the hon. member.
Mr. Bullbrook: Floyd, I’d fire Ted if I were you because it’s a downhill course.
Mr. Haggerty: I’m rather confused about this particular section. My main concern in any accident or work injury is that there is a record kept that the employee has access to. What I’m trying to say to the minister is that in a number of cases I’m aware of the work accident record that is kept by many companies disappears. I think they wipe them clean after a period -- maybe after seven years or something. In many cases there may be a recurrence of that accident or disability, and when you come back to the industry and the Workmen’s Compensation Board there’s no record.
Sometimes it’s not reported to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. It’s reported to the company’s safety committee or the safety programme that they have -- to their particular first aid attendant. He keeps a record there. Sometimes that record is wiped off. I think that some place along the line we must have all records of injuries available to that employee -- perhaps to an employee, an employer and the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I think you should be watching this particular section to ensure that we do have a complete record of all accidents or occupational health.
I can quote you an instance in the International Nickel Company in Port Colborne where there are different opinions about the working environment. I think it was in the Globe and Mad not too long ago where you have two criteria set -- one for the mining part and one for the smelter part -- that you can relate to the sintering operations at Inco.
But I think there isn’t enough of a work log kept for an employee. Take somebody in maintenance work who travels throughout different parts of the plant. Sometimes he gets into places where there are toxic agents or gases. They say, “Your work environment is the shop.” But he works in the shop and he’s out in all this area where the potential hazard is. I think some place along there we should have a complete work record of that person employed in industry.
Hon. B. Stephenson: There is nothing within this Act to preclude the health and safety committee or the health and safety representative or the employer or the employees from keeping such a record. This section deals specifically with the responsibility of the Workmen’s Compensation Board itself to provide such records as it keeps through the employer to the employees to the health and safety committee or to the trade union in order to ensure that they are given all of the information which the Workmen’s Compensation Board has.
Mr. B. Newman: The minister moved an amendment at the end of line six which reads, “after non-fatal cases that require medical aid without lost workdays.” Am I correct? There is an amendment on the floor then?
Mr. Chairman: We have an amendment to the amendment to section 8(1) moved by Mr. Laughren.
All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will say “nay.”
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the motion defeated.
All those in favour of the minister’s amendment will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion the ayes have it.
I declare the motion carried.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
On section 9:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that section 9(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
“Where an employee complains that an employer has contravened subsection 1, the employee may either have the same dealt with by final and binding settlement by arbitration under a collective agreement, if any, or file a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, in which case any regulations governing the practice and procedure of the board apply mutatis mutandis to the complaint.”
Motion agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
On section 10:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that section 10 of the bill be amended by striking out “contravenes section 9(1)” in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof, “fails to comply with a provision of this act.”
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Laughren moves that the present section 10 of the bill be replaced as amended and the following substituted therefor:
“Every employer who
“(a) fails to comply with an order made under section 4(1) or 5(1) or
“(b) fails to comply with section 9 or
“(c) fails to provide any assistance or information it is his duty to provide or
“(d) contravenes section 12(1) is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable on a first offence to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 12 months or to both and on a second or subsequent offence is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years.”
[10:00]
Mr. Bullbrook: I want to speak to that, if I may. I can’t support either the lettered subsections because my understanding is that the minister’s all-embracing amendment would cover that. Frankly, I have never been and I hope never to be, an advocate of minimum sentences. It has been my limited experience that there are circumstances where a court must have discretion; there can be very technical defalcation on the part of individuals without serious intent, without malice, without bad faith. If you don’t give a court the ability to assess all circumstances and impose in their judgement the proper penalties, then you make a great mistake. I would not support a minimum. Certainly the maximum is adequate for the latitude of the judge.
Mr. Laughren: If I might speak briefly to that, the purpose of the amendment is to indicate we are indeed very serious about the whole question of occupational health in the province of Ontario. I don’t really quibble with the concern of the member for Sarnia regarding the minimum fine. We are merely saying to the employers in the province of Ontario, we attach a great deal of importance to this Act and any contraventions to it will be dealt with in a serious manner.
Mr. Bullbrook: I appreciate that, and I don’t want unduly to elasticize the discussion, but may I say to you that if a maximum fine of $10,000 doesn’t convey the seriousness of this Legislature, I don’t know what would.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s amendment will please “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion defeated.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
On section 13:
Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, just one very minor omission was made here. In section 13 the word after “industrial” should be “chest,” to read, “industrial chest diseases.”
Mr. Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that section 13 of the bill be amended by inserting after “industrial” in the fifth line “chest.”
Motion agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to. Bill 139, as amended, reported.
[Applause.]
Mr. Bullbrook: Well done, Mr. Chairman.
An hon. member: The peoples’ coalition.
FARM INCOME STABILIZATION ACT
House in committee on Bill 131, An Act respecting Farm Income Stabilization.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of Bill 131? If so, what section?
Shall the bill be reported?
Mr. Makarchuk: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. There was a House leaders’ conference and the decision was that we would not proceed with the farm bill until tomorrow at 3 o’clock.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Makarchuk: That was the agreement among all the House leaders.
Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, that was my understanding, but I was told to be on standby tonight in case the other bill was finished in time for us to proceed.
Mr. Laughren: We are glad you are here.
Hon. W. Newman: I’ve been here all evening.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I would confirm that it was our expectation that the bill that has just been dealt with by the House, Bill 139, would likely take this evening and that a vote in committee, if required, was going to take place about 10:15 this evening. My understanding is the Minister of Agriculture and Food has commitments and was planning to be in Ottawa tomorrow evening. We had understood that immediately after the question period tomorrow we would proceed with Bill 131 to convenience the minister. I would think that since the various critics who might be interested in this bill were not expecting that it would be called this evening, it perhaps would be best if we could have the committee agree to rise and report and then Bill 131 would proceed as has been anticipated first thing tomorrow after the question period.
On motion by Hon. W. Newman the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.
Report agreed to.
THIRD READING
The following bill was given third reading on motion:
Bill 139, An Act respecting Employees’ Health and Safety.
On motion by Hon. W. Newman, the House adjourned at 10:10 p.m.