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

December 13, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L136 - Mon 13 Dec 1976 / Lun 13 déc 1976

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

LUNG CANCER COMPENSATION CLAIMS

HYDRO RATES

SALE OF LIQUOR

BRUCE SAFETY REPORT

URANIUM PRICES

MINING CLAIMS

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

HAMILTON GROUP HOMES

LUNG CANCER COMPENSATION CLAIMS

APPOINTMENT OF QCS

HYDRO POWER REDUCTION

MILK IMPORTS

ARDA PROGRAMMES

TAX REBATES ON CONDOMINIUMS

REPORTS

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT ACT

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT (CONTINUED)

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Germa: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Despite the issuance of your warrant on Thursday last, it is my feeling that the rights and privileges of every member of this Legislature have been very seriously eroded in that the interim injunction was granted to the Ontario Medical Association in an effort to restrain the Ministry of Health and the general manager of OHIP from supplying the public accounts committee with certain information it had requested.

I bring this to your attention so that you might contemplate what your office can do to grant the power that a Speaker’s warrant should have, and which we presumed it did have, to protect the rights and privileges of the entire Legislature in seeking and having information which is required in order to do its job.

Mr. Renwick: If I may comment on the same point of privilege: In view of the imminent prorogation of the session of the assembly and therefore the disruption of its work caused by the granting of that interim injunction this morning, would you take into account what steps it is possible for this assembly to take in order that its work will be completed by the time at which the prorogation is scheduled to take place?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, before you respond to the point of privilege, it might be worthwhile if the chief law officer of the Crown, the Attorney General, would be prepared to give his views to the House in this connection. Since we have a Speaker’s warrant for the production of this information balanced at the present time by an interim injunction of the court of appeal, it might well be that the only quick course of action would be for this House to pass legislation making that information readily available to the public accounts committee before prorogation, perhaps later this week.

I think perhaps the Attorney General might give us the benefit of his views in connection with the problem that faces us all and particularly you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments from the Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I share the concern that has been expressed by the members of the Legislature in relation to the Speaker’s warrant that has been issued. The matter is presently before the courts, of course, as has been stated, and the court of appeal has indicated its intention to hear the matter on Wednesday afternoon.

As I understand it, the argument put forward by the Ontario Medical Association is firstly -- in very general terms -- that there is a conflict between The Legislative Assembly Act and The Health Insurance Act. In our view there is no such conflict.

Secondly, even if there were conflict, it’s my respectful view that The Legislative Assembly Act would prevail.

Thirdly, it is open to this House, I think, to pass legislation to clarify the matter if that is the wisdom of the House. In many respects, I can say, as the senior officer of the Crown I’m very much in the hands of the House as a whole, because I think this is a matter which should be of considerable concern to each and every member of the legislative assembly.

With respect to the standing committee, I suppose -- I certainly am not an authority in this area -- it may be that the House could create it as a select committee so that its work can continue after the House prorogues at the end of the week, if that’s what’s going to happen. I think at this time, pending the decision of the court of appeal, that taking any specific action this afternoon might be premature because we are confident that the court of appeal will, in effect, adopt the position put forward by counsel representing the Ministry of the Attorney General -- namely, that the Speaker’s warrant is valid and that the documents should be produced.

Mr. Speaker: I thank all the hon. members for their comments. It is rather a new turn of events. The warrant was issued on Thursday. On Friday there was an application for an injunction, as I understand it, which was denied and now that decision of that judge is being appealed. I presume that is in order, and it’s on Wednesday, I understand, that they make the final decision.

I shall seek further advice but at the moment it seems that unless the members decide to introduce legislation -- maybe that’s the answer; maybe it isn’t but we’ll have to take it under advisement.

Statements by the ministry.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have previously mentioned that the federal Minister of Justice and I have agreed on the establishment of a unified family court project in the city of Hamilton for a period of three years beginning in 1977. Later on this afternoon I will be introducing The Unified Family Court Act. This bill will establish the new unified family court in Hamilton and endow it with comprehensive family law jurisdiction.

The unified family court results from a provincial initiative taken some time ago which also involved a series of negotiations with the federal government. The negotiations with the federal government have been long and protracted because of the rather difficult jurisdictional and constitutional issues involved in any major restructuring of the courts.

We initially asked the federal government to amend The Divorce Act so that divorce jurisdiction could be conferred upon judges of our provincial court, family division. The federal government refused to adopt that approach and we therefore then discussed the approach of dual appointment whereby a federal appointment as a county judge would be conferred upon a judge of our existing family court so that the judge would hold a dual appointment -- one from the federal government and one from Ontario.

Although there are precedents for dual appointments, the federal government again refused to adopt the approach we suggested. In order to cut through the legalistic red tape involved in the appointment issue, I met personally with the federal Minister of Justice and reached an agreement with respect to the appointment of unified family court judges. The judges will be selected by the federal government from the existing judges of our provincial court, family division. The judges will resign from the provincial family court bench before receiving their appointments from the federal government.

The Unified Family Court Act will confer upon the federally-appointed judge all the jurisdiction of the judges of our family courts. Thus the federal objection to dual appointments will be overcome and the judges of the court will exercise the fullest possible jurisdiction from each source of appointment. The selection of the three individual judges will be a matter for the federal government under the normal system of appointing county judges.

Under the agreement with the federal government there is no dual appointment and the choice of the three members of the court rests entirely with the federal government according to the normal procedure for appointing county court judges, upon the understanding, I stress, that they will be chosen from among the judges of our present provincial court. We have agreed to the approach on the clear understanding that we are not compromising our original position with respect to provincial appointments when the day comes for considering a province-wide expansion of the court.

I cannot leave the topic of the federal-provincial understanding without expressing my gratitude to the federal Minister of Justice for his co-operative and practical approach to this whole issue. The development of this unified family court project is a good example of the kind of positive co-operation that is possible when a provincial and federal minister both are prepared to cut through legalistic red tape in order to achieve court reform.

In the result, we will have united in one person the authority to exercise the jurisdiction of the provincial, county and Supreme Courts in family law matters. For the first time it will be possible for one judge in one court to deal with all of the issues in a family law dispute, whether they be questions of property, support or custody of children.

The court will have jurisdiction to try divorce and nullity cases, applications relating to property, support and the matrimonial home under the new Family Law Reform Act, proceedings for protection, adoption, custody and guardianship of children and charges against minors under The Juvenile Delinquents Act. It will also be able to try cases within the jurisdiction of a magistrate under the Criminal Code so that charges such as assault of a spouse and failing to provide necessaries of life to family members can be tried either in this court or in the regular criminal courts, depending on the circumstances.

The statute is designed to establish a new court for a period of three years and will be effective only in the judicial district of Hamilton-Wentworth. Nevertheless, if the project proves itself a success, as I am confident it will, it will be a relatively simple matter to amend the statute so as to make it applicable across the province.

This bill is an important step forward in the rationalization of the court system as it relates to family disputes. We believe the answer to the problem of fragmentation of jurisdiction is the unification of that jurisdiction in a court operating functionally at the level of the provincial court, and that is what we have attempted to do in this statute.

I sincerely hope that as the project proceeds the federal government will become convinced of the correctness of our approach and that we will have its co-operation in extending some form of the unified family court at the end of the demonstration project to the other judicial districts of the province at the level of the provincial court, family division.

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

LUNG CANCER COMPENSATION CLAIMS

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Labour: Given that there is now mounting and somewhat frightening evidence of a link between workers in coke ovens and cancer, will the minister take on the responsibility, that previously appears to have been shunted off to the unions and to private individuals, to seek out those people who have been employed in coke ovens and to find out the relationship between their deaths or their suffering -- for those who may still be alive -- and the employment they previously had; and direct the Workmen’s Compensation Board to act swiftly to compensate them for the losses they are suffering?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there has been a major study done by two qualified researchers, Dr. Redmond and Dr. Lloyd in the United States and in Great Britain, involving 25,000 steel workers, of whom approximately 4,000 worked in relationship to the coke ovens. There have been certain epidemiological factors established as a result of this study and those factors are very well known to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Indeed, they are the factors upon which the board makes its decisions on applications for pensions or for compensation related to the development of carcinoma in coke oven workers.

I was interested, if I might say, to see an

article in the Globe and Mail on December 11 which cited an investigation by the United Steelworkers of America. I should be very pleased if a copy of that study carried out by the United Steelworkers of America were delivered to me so that I might peruse the findings which they have apparently established, as related in this newspaper article.

The establishment of nominal rolls related to coke oven work has begun. It was begun in several -- at least, two -- of the unionized plants in this country several years ago and I think it will be of great value to the Workmen’s Compensation Board in the investigation of claims.

Mr. Davidson: Will the ministry take over the role of finding the people?

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question. Notwithstanding the work done by the United Steelworkers of America and the cases they have uncovered, will the minister and her ministry undertake to conduct a proper study, employing physicians who are known to have expertise in the field, to determine whether or not there is a definite link between lung cancer and work in the coke ovens?

Will she look at those particular people, those particular cases found by the United Steelworkers of America, and will she then move toward establishing an overall finding operation which will locate the people who have been in the plants and determine whether or not they are suffering or dying as a result of inadequate levels of safety in the plants over the years?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As the hon. member for Wentworth knows very well, the United Steelworkers of America have complimented several of our Ontario plants on the level of improvements in those plants. Some of the situations which occurred which were detrimental to workers’ health were a very long time ago. Listing workers’ names related to exposure to coke ovens is something which I know at least two of the plants have been carrying out during the last several years.

Mr. Deans: Why is the ministry not doing it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: At the moment we do not have any of the names, which the United Steelworkers have apparently developed into a list which I should be very pleased to examine.

Mr. Warner: They are doing your work for you.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I should be very pleased to look at the relationship in their exposure to the coke ovens. As I said earlier, the relationship between exposure and the development of carcinoma has already been established. Specifically, there isn’t any question about that.

If there is a unique problem related to the Hamco plant in Hamilton, this will undoubtedly come out as a result of the kinds of information which the United Steelworkers are producing and we shall most certainly investigate that. One of the high priorities of the Advisory Council on Occupational and Environmental Health is the coke oven emission problem. That is most certainly one of our priorities as well, and it is one which we shall pursue with vigour.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that, rather than waiting for fortuitous information to come our way, as happened with the coke ovens, and rather than waiting for the United States to provide some experience, there should be a massive infusion of funds here in this province for case finding, and tracking down people who have been in various questionable working environments, or even living near plants, such as NIOSH does in the United States?

As the most highly industrialized province, would it not be in our own interest to put a massive investment into that form of research in Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would hope our attempts would be a good deal more successful than the NIOSH attempts have been.

Mr. Deans: You are not making any attempts yet.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There is no doubt that the development of nominal rolls for coke oven workers is an important activity which, as I said, has already begun. We shall be very pleased, and we’ll most certainly pursue this problem with as much vigour as it is possible to muster.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Given the 13 claims now before the board as of today for deaths from lung cancer at the Hamco plant and at least a dozen others the Steelworkers are now checking out and running around getting affidavits from fellow workers and so on -- something the board obviously was aware of -- would the minister not undertake a tracing of all of the workers that worked at the Hamco operation at least to see what pattern exists and how terrible the situation is?

Hon. B. Stephenson: From the newspaper report it would appear there is a terrible situation, as the member for Hamilton East has outlined. If in fact there is a different situation which prevailed at that plant from all of the others which have been studied carefully by experts in other areas, then we must pursue that problem as well. The development of nominal rolls again is something which it is important to do. The member is telling me that 13 submissions have been made to the board. I am informed that the board has thus far received one.

I will be very pleased to examine all of these submissions as soon as they are received. Then I shall be pleased to tell this House precisely what detailed activity we are prepared to carry out.

Mr. Mackenzie: If one can again say to the minister, with regard to this plant, there is an obvious case. We have some of the names. Tracing them down is difficult. It could very well set a pattern for the other older coke oven operations --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr. Mackenzie: -- if we do not follow through with these workers.

Hon. B. Stephenson: As I said earlier, one would anticipate that the results, which were unfortunately pursuant to work within the Hamco plant, would be very much the same as in other coke oven establishments throughout various years in other jurisdictions. The statistics which are allegedly stated in this

article in the newspaper bear very little relationship to the kinds of epidemiological statistics which have been validly established by other studies. If there is a unique problem related to this plant, we shall pursue it, there is no doubt about that at all. We shall attempt to produce nominal rolls of workers in steel plants.

Mr. Davidson: By the time you get around to it they will all be dead.

Hon. B. Stephenson: One of the things I must say is that, unfortunately, there is a statement in this

article which I find very disturbing. It says that in four of all of these cases listed there is absolute verification from physicians. That’s four out of 22. I would hope that we would have much more solid, factual information upon which to base any kind of claim than we apparently have at the moment.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you go and look for it?

Mr. Warner: Go find it.

Mr. Davidson: It is your job to find it.

Mr. Laughren: Would the minister not agree that when there is an increased incidence of industrially-related disease in any given work place that’s statistically significant, all such workers should be considered compensable for that particular disease?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No. As I have said on at least two or three occasions in this House, there must be some valid, scientific, evidential support for making any kind of compensation or pension payment to workers who have been exposed. It is quite possible that a worker who worked in a coke oven for six months will never develop any kind of problem.

Mr. Davidson: The worker gets the benefit of the doubt does he?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It depends on the length of time the worker is exposed and the place within the coke oven area in which he is employed. There are a number of important epidemiological studies which support that kind of statement, and I would hope that any agency of this government or any other government would act totally responsibly in allowing claims for compensation and pensions in this difficult kind of area.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Yes, thank you. I have another related question for the minister. Since she seems to rely on the unions to do her work for her, who is going to conduct --

Mr. Yakabuski: Question, question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Proceed with the question.

Mr. Deans: I thought that member was taking a sabbatical.

Who is going to inquire into the conditions of those people who worked in the coke ovens in plants that are not unionized, Dofasco being an example? Who is going to conduct those studies of former employees, and employees who are still there, to determine effects on them as a result of the employment they have had?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly obvious that the unions of this country are not doing the work of the Workmen’s Compensation Boards, nor of the --

Mr. S. Smith: Nobody is.

Mr. Deans: It’s true.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- nor of the Ministries of Labour or of our occupational health protection branch.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That was indeed a poor statement, to say the least. However, in the situation specifically mentioned by the hon. member for Wentworth, there are records being kept at this time by those plants which are not unionized, related to previous experience or previous exposure to coke ovens of the people employed in those plants. That kind of information is now available and is going to be more freely available to us.

But it has to be recognized that in the past the relationship between carcinogens within coke oven smoke and emissions, and the development of any kind of carcinoma was not clearly seen, it was not visible to many of the examiners, and therefore the kinds of work-related records were not kept. We are aware of the problems and those kinds of records are now being kept. It will be very much easier, in the future, to develop the kinds of links which are necessary to make rational judgements.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Is the minister requiring those companies which are non-unionized, or for that matter companies which have coke oven operations, is the minister requiring them to provide the Ministry of Labour and the Workmen’s Compensation Board with lists of all of the persons who have been employed in those operations over the last 30 years?

Hon. B. Stephenson: At the present time, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deans: At the present time, yes.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are not --

Mr. Deans: Why?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are not requiring all of the companies in which there are potential carcinogens to keep lists of all of their employees and their previous employment at this time. This is a programme which we are examining very carefully, and hopefully we shall be able to produce some kind of sensible approach to the development of nominal lists for all toxic substances.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Can the minister explain to me why she wouldn’t then go back into historical records and find the names of those who have been employed, and use them as the example in terms of whether or not there has been any disease contracted by virtue of having been employed in those coke ovens? Surely the ministry is not going to wait another 30 years and study the pattern of those who work there?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that’s precisely what I did not say. What I said was that we are keeping lists at this time.

Mr. Deans: That’s precisely what the minister didn’t say and precisely what she meant.

Hon. B. Stephenson: If it is possible to provide the information, or to obtain the information, about the exposure, the length of exposure, the kinds of plants in which they work, that is precisely what we shall attempt to get.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: We will allow one supplementary. We have had 14 minutes on the question now. The hon. member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Mackenzie: In trying to trace these workers, is the minister prepared to check whether a similar gas-producing operation existed at Consumers’ Gas or any other municipal gas works?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Energy: Given that the minister said on November 25 of this year that the government had not yet decided whether it would intervene in the process of the establishment of the rates for Ontario Hydro in the years 1977 and on, and given that Hydro have now indicated that they have raised their rates without any government action; is it not a function of cabinet and the government to review Hydro’s application for rate increases and to review the recommendations of the Energy Board, and to come to some decision about what the public can reasonably afford?

Has the minister given any further consideration to the prospect that Hydro might adopt a smoothing operation to ensure that the increase to be imposed on the public of Ontario is not as overbearing as it now is?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member well knows the process of setting of Hydro rates involves public hearings at the Energy Board; and following the completion of the Energy Board hearings and the filing of a report by the Energy Board, a decision by the Ontario Hydro board. The government has had under consideration for some time the suggestion that we should somehow intervene and direct that some form of smoothing, as it is called, be carried out. Looking at the implications of that and looking at what a number of the utilities to date have indicated they can do with the proposed bulk power rate increase, the government has decided not to intervene in the process.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Am I to assume that the minister believes that the 20-plus per cent that will be passed on by the utilities to their customers across the province is within the reasonable scope of what the public of Ontario can afford at this time, given that the minister could quite easily alleviate it and still not overburden them in years to come?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think we have gone through this a number of times before in the chamber, in question periods and in debate.

Given the implications of a rate-smoothing process in terms of additional borrowings required, in terms of the effect on the financial integrity of Hydro and what that could imply in terms of borrowing costs; given the implications for rates not that far down the road, that in fact a smoothing process would result in higher rates in a couple of years’ time; given what the utilities are doing, as well as Ontario Hydro, in trimming their administrative costs to the bone and keeping expenditures to a minimum; the decision has been that it would not be in the best interests of the people of this province to carry out the kind of policy which the member’s party has put forward.

We think that would be irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; the member for Windsor-Walkerville first of all.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the Minister of Energy considering an energy supplement to those on limited fixed incomes, and senior citizens, to alleviate the abnormal increases in energy costs to them?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The original question had to do with phasing-in of the increase in Hydro rates. This is an alternative suggestion which is really not part of the question.

Mr. B. Newman: Well, that is part of phasing-in.

Mr. Speaker: If the minister has a short answer we will let him give it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows the benefits provided by the government -- not just benefits for the elderly but for all ages and groups of people -- are reviewed from time to time and energy costs, like all living costs, are considered in those calculations and in determining new levels of support.

Mr. Deans: From time to time two years later.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: May I ask the minister, why the secrecy? If on November 25 he indicated that the government hadn’t decided whether it was going to intervene, and today we smoke out the fact that it has been decided the government is not going to intervene, when did he decide that the government wasn’t going to intervene, and why didn’t he inform the world?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The decision was taken only in recent days and there is no secrecy involved around it.

Mr. MacDonald: Remarkable that we should be hearing about it only now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. A final supplementary; the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Yes. In connection with the minister’s original answer and what he has just said, why is it that Ontario Hydro sent out an announcement just today informing rural users -- that is direct customers of Ontario Hydro -- that their increase would be in excess of 25 per cent when there is no public utilities commission to do any smoothing or assist them in any way?

Would the minister not think that a part of his decision not to involve himself in the rate structure at this time could have been amended to assist and in defence of those direct users who must buy the power from Ontario Hydro without any intervening commission to give them any assistance as far as smoothing or any other control of rates is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows, that is a fair bit less than the bulk power rate increase to the 353 municipal utilities and to direct industrial customers.

Mr. Nixon: You think that 25 per cent isn’t too bad?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In fact, in both cases Hydro is bound to abide within the spirit and intent of the anti-inflation programme and to apply the various applications, as the member knows.

Mr. Nixon: I know you have said that before.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let him check with his friends in Ottawa and he will find out that I am correct.

Mr. Nixon: The minister has changed position on that and so has Hydro. He is not going to do anything for the farmer.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Any further questions? We have now been 20 minutes on the first set of questions.

The member for Hamilton West.

SALE OF LIQUOR

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Will the minister please provide the House with further information concerning the remarks made by his colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), on CBC television news on Saturday, concerning the possibility of privatizing the sale of liquor in the province?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I haven’t seen the comments and I haven’t had a chance to talk to the Treasurer. I’d be glad to talk to him and see what information can be provided to the House.

Mr. Nixon: Are you going to put it in the grocery stores?

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, can the minister explain how it is that the Treasurer would make a statement of this kind on television without even discussing the matter with the minister involved? Is that what usually happens in the cabinet?

Mr. Moffatt: The Treasurer doesn’t ask anybody.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t know what the Treasurer said; I’ll be discussing it with him, obviously.

BRUCE SAFETY REPORT

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Energy -- a brief question: Will the minister make public immediately all background documents exchanged between the Atomic Energy Control Board and Ontario Hydro regarding the Bruce reactor safety report?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I haven’t seen all those documents myself. I understand that a number of them are the property of AECL, not of Ontario Hydro; and that, in fact, in a number of cases they involve having to have the permission of the AECL since they involve both security and proprietary rights. But I’ll check into that and give the member a reply.

URANIUM PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: Another question -- perhaps a brief one -- of the Minister of Energy, on a different topic: Could he tell this House what Ontario Hydro is paying for uranium with regard to delivery from 1980 to 1985, and could he compare that price with the price being paid by Japanese interests for delivery at the same time from Denison and Rio Algom?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, I don’t have those figures readily at hand. I’ll check them and, at the same time, find out the quality of the ore and the length of the contract, because those two things do have a bearing.

MINING CLAIMS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Natural Resources regarding Lake Wanapitei: Does the minister still insist that he has agreement from the claim holder in that lake, which contains Sudbury’s water supply -- does he still claim that he has agreement from them not to go ahead and work on those claims, despite the fact that we spoke to Mr. Arena again today and he still denies having given the minister such an undertaking?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Must have been when the bells were ringing.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I did some more investigation on this particular matter and I did find that while the Hollinger people agreed to postpone and defer any drilling for at least a year until all the questions with regard to the environment were settled, Mr. Arena has not. In fact, he was to get back to us by December 3. My staff have continuously tried to reach him to finalize this agreement. A work order was issued and was cancelled. Mr. Arena has no work order at the present time. If he calls, he will be told there are 10 conditions that the Ministry of the Environment will set out in the work order; so Mr. Arena does not have a work order.

Mr. Nixon: But he had one.

Mr. S. Smith: It was issued last week.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He had one for about two days and it was cancelled. The conditions will make sure that the water quality of Lake Wanapitei will be fully protected, and that the water supply will be guaranteed.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, could the minister explain to us the legal means by which these claims will be held by the claim holder, even though work will not be done on the claim? Is he not aware that if work is not done on a claim, the claim is forfeited? And can he tell us what legal means he intends to use to keep those claims from being forfeited, or is he hoping that he will allow them to be forfeited in this manner and open himself up to lawsuits?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The claims to which the hon. member refers have a specific period of time -- on filing with the mining recorder and on being properly recorded -- a specific period of time to do assessment work. The claim holder should apply for a work order, and in the work order he will be given the conditions with which he must comply.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary: Has the minister asked the Atomic Energy Control Board to refuse to grant permission to anyone drilling in the vicinity of Lake Wanapitei to move any ore samples without the express permission of the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Natural Resources?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think I indicated to the hon. member before that the Atomic Energy Control Board does not have any jurisdiction when there is exploration going on. When there is mining actually going on and the ore comes to the surface is when the Atomic Energy Control Board comes into play.

Mr. Laughren: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Directly related to that?

Mr. Laughren: It’s in connection with that, yes.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. Laughren: Is the minister not aware that the Atomic Energy Control Board must grant permission to anyone who wishes to move any of the ore, even if it is in the form of an ore sample, which would be the result of drilling and exploration?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I pointed out just a moment ago, a work order has to be applied for, and the conditions will be on there. A sample of ore is not considered uranium ore per se --

Mr. Laughren: According to the control board it is.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and the Atomic Energy Control Board does come into play when an ore body is extracted and hits the surface of the ground.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, why did the minister tell my leader last week that he had consent or agreement from all claim owners, when apparently his ministry had not even been in touch with the individual mentioned today; or is it that the minister didn’t even know? Why would he tell us that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, that is not entirely correct, because my staff did meet with the Hollinger people, with Mr. Arena and his lawyers there.

Mr. Roy: You just said they hadn’t been in touch.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They were in touch. They were at a general meeting where Hollinger was present --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It was out in the middle of the lake, through the hole.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and Hollinger agreed. Mr. Arena was to get back to my staff by December 3, as I just pointed out to the hon. leader. We tried to get in touch with him; we have not and the work order which he had was cancelled. He must comply with Ministry of the Environment’s requirements.

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a brief question of the Minister of Health: If, as he tells us, he has no objections and his ministry has no objections to Browndale’s profitability, no matter how much profit it wishes to make, can he explain to this House why he bothered to order an expensive audit of its financial dealings, if it didn’t matter at all what it did with its money, or how much profit it made?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the other day I answered the member by saying it was my understanding that they did not have to be a non-profit company. They are, that part we agree upon.

Mr. S. Smith: Why bother auditing them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The question the member asked me was whether a company had to be non-profit in order to be qualified to provide services in the province. I said they didn’t have to be. I sat down and quite honestly I wondered if I was correct. That does happen, you know, once in a while.

Mr. Peterson: Seriously?

Mr. S. Smith: That you sit down?

Mr. Nixon: And you were quite definite about wondering.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have asked that question and to this point in time I haven’t got an answer. No one on my staff can tell me whether they must be non-profit in order to qualify. But they are determining whether that in fact is a precondition of anybody providing service for children’s mental health. If I am wrong, sir, I shall tell the member so.

Mr. McClellan: Would the minister not agree that if the requirement for non-profitability is not in existence, it should be?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member’s thoughts and mine are not the same on that matter. I don’t believe non-profit means low cost.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, the Browndale matter has been a question that has come up in the House very often, and supplementary to what the leader of the Liberal Party has asked, I am interested too.

Some hon. members: Question.

Mr. Yakabuski: I am wondering if the expensive audit we are talking about --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this in the form of a question?

Mr. Yakabuski: -- will tell us who the directors of Browndale were from the days it came into being, and if any of those directors were sitting members of the Legislature and had a conflict of interest?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was just counting, Mr. Speaker. The period of the audit didn’t go far enough back to answer the questions the hon. member has proposed.

HAMILTON GROUP HOMES

Mr. S. Smith: This will be, I hope, a brief question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Has she had an opportunity to study the excellent brief presented by the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton and District regarding group homes? If so, would she agree with the contention in it that there’s a great deal of overlapping clientele in the group homes operated by the various ministries -- by Health, by ComSoc and by Correctional Services?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. leader of the Liberal Party, yes, I have read that brief; I’ve also met with the people who presented that brief. Yes, I do agree there’s a great deal of overlapping and duplication of services. We intend to have a very close look at them.

[2:45]

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: I appreciate the minister’s answer; would the minister agree that some of this overlapping is detailed in the interministerial committee report which we have been asking for since February of this year, and which she has not released? Would she agree that if such overlapping is the case, then the people of Ontario are spending approximately $65 a day for children to be taken care of in health facilities, and about $32 in ComSoc facilities and we’re probably overspending in Health, and possibly underspending in ComSoc? Would she not agree that report might indicate that the group homes under the Ministry of Health are a very expensive rip-off in Ontario today?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’m not prepared to make that comment at this time, but I can assure the hon. member we are studying the whole issue of residential services for children very carefully.

LUNG CANCER COMPENSATION CLAIMS

Mr. Mackenzie: I am wondering if the Minister of Labour can tell this House whether or not she feels that the Workmen’s Compensation Board has an obligation to assist in initiating claims or in gathering affidavits of medical records necessary in a tragedy such as the Hamco case?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The first thing I would say is that I am not in possession of factual information which would make me believe the Hamco case is a tragedy. I do not know at this time what the situation is because factual information is not presently at hand.

Mr. Swart: It is your initiative to get it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I believe the Workmen’s Compensation Board has been doing a valiant job in attempting to resolve some of the problems related to the relevance of permitting compensation and pensions for certain diseases which have never ever before been compensated for. I think that is the primary role of the board. There are other agencies which might in fact be more appropriate for the investigation of the potential problems in certain work situations than the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

If those other agencies cannot do it, if it is impossible to have another agency capable of providing that kind of information, then I would think by default the board might have to do it. I would think their primary responsibility is to establish the relevance of claims.

Mr. Mackenzie: Given the information that has been dug up by the Steelworkers’ Union in the Hamco case, what ministry or what government department would the minister recommend we ask for assistance in chasing down the names of the people and gathering the records that we’ve been pulling together? Or is it going to be left entirely up to the union?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would hope that the hon. member would know very well that he should ask the Ministry of Labour for that kind of assistance.

An hon. member: He already has.

Hon. B. Stephenson: He has not.

APPOINTMENT OF QCS

Mr. Peterson: Has the Attorney General received a letter from Mr. Allan Mintz, barrister at law in this city, applying for a QC for this year?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Is this of urgent public importance?

Mr. Roy: To some lawyers it is.

Mr. Peterson: May I ask the minister what his response to Mr. Mintz is, and secondly, what basis and what criteria will he be using this year, over the new year, to award the QCs that he will be awarding in this particular year?

An hon. member: Listen to the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can’t recall my particular response to Mr. Mintz. I have received hundreds of applications. But I can assure the member opposite that the criterion will be, as it was last year, related to excellence in the practice of law.

Mr. Reid: And being a one-time Conservative.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister would consider taking the advice of the Law Reform Commission, and many other learned groups, and either abolish the QCs or have a list this year of those from whom the honour is removed?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Spoken as a non-lawyer.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The list will speak for itself.

Mr. Nixon: It always does.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would like to say to the former leader of the Liberal Party that a good friend of his has applied and I think he might even be awarded a QC this year.

Mr. Nixon: As long as I don’t recommend it.

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

HYDRO POWER REDUCTION

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On Friday the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) if he would inquire of me if priority could be given by Ontario Hydro to industrial customers to avoid the loss of jobs during the current peak load demand.

I would point out to the member that only interruptible contracts have been cut and this is the purpose of this type of contract. Industrial companies which have interruptible contracts receive discounts on their power rates and in return for this discount agree, should it be necessary, that service will be cut for a specified maximum time, for a specified number of times per month and maximum hours per year.

I would point out that some customers have saved as much as $25,000 per month on their hydro bills under this type of contract. While they were receiving these discounts many of them were never cut. Between 1972 and 1975 inclusive there were no cuts at all for class A customers. From 1972 to 1975, there was a total of only 32 cuts to different customers with class B interruptible contracts. The actual percentage of cuts made as a percentage of the permissible cuts under the contract was less than one per cent. I would refer the member to Vol. 9 of the costing and pricing study which was tabled in the Legislature recently and which gives all of these data.

This year, due to a combination of circumstances including cold weather, low water flows and some breakdown in the coal-fired station at Nanticoke, more cuts are necessary. However, the industrial customers with interruptible contracts know the risks they are taking. They willingly enter into the interruptible contract to make a major saving in power costs. Up to this year, their risk has been minimal and their saving has been significant. No one likes to have power shortages or layoffs of employees; however, companies with interruptible contracts know the risks they take and are expected to have contingency plans should it be necessary to have an interruption under their contracts.

I would point out that the system of interruptible contracts is under review as part of the costing and pricing study. As I mentioned previously, it is Vol. 9 of that study which I will refer to the Ontario Energy Board in January for public review. In that study there are recommendations for a revised system of interruptible contracts which will be of greater benefit to the industrial customer and to Ontario Hydro as a tool for controlling peak loads.

Mr. Kerrio: A supplementary, through you to the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: There was one part of my question that’s gone unanswered. The great concern I had in posing the question was what can the minister do about industry foregoing expansion in Canada and going to the United States not only because of power cutbacks but power interruptions? That was the major part of my question -- further jobs in the industrial sector throughout the Niagara Peninsula and many heavy power users.

Ms. Gigantes: Nationalize them.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I indicated to the hon. member, last Thursday I believe it was in this chamber, I don’t believe any prudent planner of an industry would base a decision to expand or not to expand on a difficulty which is confined to a few weeks in December, 1976. We have an unusual collision of circumstances -- the low water levels in the north, the difficulties of the Nanticoke station and unduly low temperatures causing brand new record peaks. I don’t think that will influence --

Mr. Ruston: They closed down the plant in Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- the future expansion plans of industry in this province.

MILK IMPORTS

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Since radio station CHLO in St. Thomas has confirmed that the Carnation plant in Aylmer is operating on a significant flow of milk supply from the Carnation plant in Alexandria, which in turn has bootlegged milk from the province of Quebec; and since the chairman of the OMMB has indicated a growing concern about this kind of practice in many plants across the province of Ontario, would the minister give us, instead of the erroneous information he gave us earlier, a picture as to what the practice is across the province, how prevalent it is and what he’s going to do about it instead of passing the buck to Gene Whelan?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to look at the way that question was worded to see if the hon. member might want to retract part of what he said today.

Mr. Nixon: What? He said the minister was erroneous.

Hon. W. Newman: But in answer to his question, he was talking about bootleg milk and interprovincial milk moving across interprovincial boundaries. It is not a provincial matter except that it concerns us and we have to draw it to the appropriate people’s attention.

Mr. MacDonald: Would the minister answer my question?

Mr. Breaugh: I think the Minister of Natural Resources wrote that.

Mr. MacDonald: How widespread is that practice?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: To our knowledge very little if any; we have looked into it.

As far as it concerns Carnation bringing milk to its various plants from other areas of the province of Ontario, there’s nothing illegal about doing that in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: If the hon. member wants specific details on it, we’d be glad to get them for him.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: Since the minister claims this is a very small practice, in spite of the OMMB having said that it is widespread and his colleague from Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) giving him documented facts which deny the validity of his original statement in this House, will he table, from his own audit from the milk industry branch which audits the receipts of milk in each plant in this province, the receipts of milk and how much of it came from outside the province for the month of November?

Secondly, does he not think it is his responsibility to protect the interest of Ontario farmers, who are frozen into quota limits for sales, when an increasing proportion of the milk being processed by Ontario plants is coming from outside the province -- or at least raise his voice about it?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously the member for York South doesn’t really understand the milk problems --

Mr. MacDonald: I understand.

Mr. Bain: You enlighten us, Bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: Don’t raise your voice on the subject.

Hon. W. Newman: He doesn’t understand. We’re talking about --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor to answer the question.

Mr. MacDonald: It is all irrelevant.

Hon. W. Newman: -- distribute to the producers in this province on a pro rata basis. Every province was treated equally under the national milk agreement on a pro rata basis, as long as the member understands that. If he doesn’t, I’d be glad to explain it in more detail.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask you did the minister answer my question as to whether he’ll give the information for the month of November?

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t listen quite that closely.

Mr. MacDonald: Did you hear that?

An hon. member: No, he didn’t.

Mr. MacDonald: Did he answer it? That was my question. Will he provide the receipts --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. W. Newman: The member should make sure he does it right.

Mr. MacDonald: You are not going to provide it?

Hon. W. Newman: Just don’t play games with the farmers of this province.

Mr. Speaker: We’re getting into a debate here. The member for Renfrew North.

ARDA PROGRAMMES

Mr. Conway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the same minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, having to do with the ARDA winter works programme:

What, if any, remedial action is he preparing before the cabinet to alleviate the very drastic impact of the cutbacks in the forestry employment projects for the Renfrew county area; cutbacks which have reduced employment opportunities from roughly 90 last year to 27 jobs this year? What remedial action if any, is he proposing?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, under the total ARDA agreement each project that comes through first has to have approval. As members know, it’s a joint programme, sponsored 50-50 on the financing by both the feds and the provincial government. Our agreement runs out March 1, 1977. I was in Ottawa last week talking about a continuation of our ARDA agreement. We have several ARDA programmes going on, and if the member would like any details on a specific ARDA programme we’d be glad to give them to him.

Mr. McClellan: They should go and see Paul.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: I’m wondering why officials in the ministry informed me last week that, having regard to the federal restraints and having regard to the budgetary restraints provincially, a further $73,000 was removed from the Algonquin district allocation because, “it was needed in more needy areas”?

Mr. Warner: Such as Renfrew South.

Mr. Conway: I wonder how the minister arrived at that and what remedial action he is prepared to provide, on the provincial side of this issue, to help those people in Renfrew county, who are certainly looking for those jobs that have disappeared? How is the minister going to respond to that?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think we are confusing two different programmes. The ARDA programme is a jointly-funded programme, and in many instances the individual owner or person who is in the programme pays a portion of the cost.

We have our northern assistance budget, which runs at about $420,000 a year, which is distributed to the various districts in the province of Ontario and the farmers themselves decide how that money is distributed.

Mr. Conway: Am I to assume there is no further money coming?

Hon. W. Newman: No. The hon. member is not to assume anything.

[3:00]

TAX REBATES ON CONDOMINIUMS

Mr. Drea: A question to the Minister of Revenue: In the light of the minister’s concerns and remarks on Friday concerning the rebates to condominium owners, would the minister consider submitting this controversial issue to the Kealey committee on condominiums so there may be a recommendation --

Mr. Roy: Stay away from that.

Mr. Drea: -- for a fair and equitable solution of this problem?

Mr. Roy: Don’t do anything, that’s it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Not only would I consider it but I did consider it when the Kealey committee was appointed. There is a representative on that committee from my ministry with the express purpose of advising the committee on the matter of assessments of condominiums. I am certain they will be looking at this particular matter when they are looking at all the other problems concerning condominiums.

Mr. Moffatt: Did the minister write the question?

Mr. Bullbrook: Great minds work alike.

Mr. Speaker: The time of the oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Wells presented the annual report of the Education Relations Committee.

Mr. Breaugh, on behalf of Mr. Lawlor, from the standing administration of justice committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee recommends that the following bills be not reported:

Bill 140,

An Act to reform the Law respecting Property Rights and Support Obligations between Married Persons and in other Family Relationships.

Bill 141, The Marriage Act, 1976.

Bill 85,

An Act to reform the Law respecting Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 189,

An Act to establish the Unified Family Court.

Motion agreed to.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 190,

An Act to amend The Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This amendment, as is evident from the bill, is to increase the complement of the High Court of Justice for Ontario from 36 to 37. This is by reason of the appointment of Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt to the chairmanship of the environmental study that was announced by the Premier on Friday. In view of the fact that it is estimated Mr.

Justice Hartt may be absent from his duties for upwards of two years or more, the Chief Justice of the High Court made the request that it would be necessary, in view of the very heavy list and the onerous responsibilities related to that court, that there be an appointment to replace Mr. Justice Hartt. This is the reason for the proposed amendment to The Judicature Act.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I notice there are still 57 questions on the order paper and I understand there may be only a few days left in the session. There were 198 questions, so over one quarter are still unanswered. I wonder if the House leader could inform us whether we can expect an answer before the House rises?

Mr. Speaker: Rather than a point of personal privilege I think just a straight question would have been in order. Does the hon. House leader have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I suppose it’s a matter of a point of view. If one member of the House wants to emphasize the number unanswered, I’d like to point out to the member, although she’s a new member, there’s a substantial number of questions that have been answered and I have five more today. I think hardly a day goes by that we haven’t had a fair number.

Mr. McClellan: Where is 67? Will we get them all before we return?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can’t undertake that. Some of these questions require a tremendous amount of research. Certainly we’re making every effort to do all we can before we prorogue.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 140, 144, 145, 146 and 178 standing on the notice paper.

Ms. Bryden: That leaves 52.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT (CONTINUED)

House in committee on Bill 139,

An Act respecting Employees’ Health and Safety.

Mr. Chairman:

Section 2 is still open and I believe the hon. Minister of Labour had an amendment to that section.

section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that

section 2 of Bill 139 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“2. Where an employee in a work place has reasonable cause to believe that a machine, device or thing is unsafe to use or operate because its use or operation is likely to endanger himself or another employee, or a place in or about a work place is unsafe for him to work in, or the machine, device, thing or place is in contravention of The Industrial Safety Act, 1971, The Construction Safety Act, 1973, or

part IX of The Mining Act, or any regulations thereunder as the case may be, the employee may refuse to use or operate the machine, device or thing, or work in the place.”

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the minister for bringing in this section. I think it’s a step forward. I think it makes a great deal of sense and indicates the ministry understands a little more now than it did when the bill was introduced about how strong the employees feel about protecting one another as well as themselves.

I’m concerned about one aspect of this amendment and it doesn’t deal with the wording in the amendment, but I wonder if I could slip in a question here, if the chairman would permit me.

Mr. Chairman: A question is permissible at any time in committee.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does the minister see this section, this amendment or any other

section of this bill as being appropriate and indeed having jurisdiction over federal government employees, or employees who are designated as being responsible under the jurisdiction of the federal government -- such as railroad employees, such as communications employees, such as miners at Elliott Lake?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I believe it does give us jurisdiction over the safety of the work place for the miners at Elliot Lake. About the others I am not specifically sure because there are certain sections of The Canada Labour Code for which the Ministry of Labour in the province of Ontario is responsible. At this time, I cannot give you factual information about those specific employees which that portion of The Canada Labour Code covers.

Mr. Laughren: I wonder if I could pursue that for a moment? Could the minister have someone within her ministry, hopefully today, find out for us what is the jurisdiction and who is going to be able to say, of the uranium mines of Ontario, “Jurisdiction is with the Ministry of Labour; there is jurisdiction and they are responsible under Bill 139”? I am very worried about jurisdiction in uranium mines in particular because there is no group of employees in the province that needs the protection of this bill more than uranium miners.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would certainly ask for that specific information about those employees who are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour in the province of Ontario and who fall under -- I think it’s

part IV of The Canada Labour Code. I will be pleased to provide that information for the member.

Mr. Bullbrook: I see nothing but reason in the amendment and I would supplement the comments made by my colleague from Nickel Belt that the briefs from organized labour express support for the principle of the section; express a desire, especially in the brief from the Ontario Federation of Labour, for the extension of the principle to protect not only the person making the subjective evaluation but his fellow employee. I felt the extension proposed by the New Democratic Party was meritorious to some extent, based on the implications of it.

The obligation of the Ministry of Labour is not only to assure that the work place and working conditions are safe; there is also the propriety of assuring that business can be carried on, which certainly is a function of government.

Frankly, it was my opinion and the opinion of this caucus that the extension expressed by the Ontario Federation of Labour -- I think I might, in parentheses, point out to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that I voiced this in the presence of the Ontario Federation of Labour -- although, as I say, the

section is acceptable and somewhat meritorious, I was one who voiced -- and I think perhaps the minister voices to herself -- some degree of trepidation about this section. There is the continuing obligation on the trade union movement, the individual employer and, collectively, the employees, not only to assure that business be done in a business-like fashion -- that is secondary -- but that the subjective evaluation and concurrent activity by an employee doesn’t render unsafe the work place for his fellow employees.

Frankly, in the assembly-line type of production, in what can be characterized as the stream type of production, the unilateral activity of one employee can adversely affect those on the line or those in the stream. That has caused me concern and I voiced that concern in committee. I tell you frankly I voiced that concern to my caucus colleagues in the Liberal Party.

Recognizing that this can be construed somewhat as interim legislation -- it’s a beginning and a good beginning -- we have decided to support the principle of it, also recognizing that we are going to have to give it time to see what happens.

As to the wording itself, I want the minister to help me because I am concerned about the wording of it. As I read it, if I can go over it with you, “where an employee in a work place has reasonable cause to believe” is the end of the operative aspect of the legislation. If I can move down, what is causing me concern is a question of drafting. “Where an employee in a work place has reasonable cause to believe ... ”; that is the operative aspect of the section. Then we go down to the fourth line “ ... a work place is unsafe for him to work in ... ” -- and this is the tough part -- “or a place where hazardous emissions are above the allowable standards … ”

[3:15]

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is not our amendment. That is the NDP amendment.

Some hon. members: That’s out.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry. I don’t think I have your up-to-date amendment then.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Could we send you a copy?

Mr. Laughren: You are supporting ours today. You wouldn’t on Friday. Hey, Sweeney, did you hear that? He would have supported it.

Mr. Sweeney: He didn’t say it yet. Wait till he finishes.

Mr. Bullbrook: Let me look at this again, if I may.

I apologize to you. It was the NDP amendment that I was looking at and, frankly, it was completely improperly drawn. Not only was it a question of not accepting the principle, but whoever drafted it for him has absolutely no ability to draft legislation. It was conjunctively disjunctive.

Mr. Chairman: It was at least in order

Mr. Bullbrook: That, Mr. Chairman, is the best that could be said for it: It was in order. I entirely concur. I appreciate your indulgence. I just wanted to view this again. I hadn’t had a copy of it previously. This particular amendment is properly drafted and we will support it.

Mr. Bounsall: I would like to say a few words. In terms of the effect of the minister’s amendment, I can’t see that it differs in intent that much from the one we had proposed. Where we had proposed “may cause a hazard for another employee”, the minister is saying that “the use or operation of this machine, device or thing is likely to endanger himself or another employee”.

Mr. Bullbrook: We could explain it.

Mr. Bounsall: As far as I read it, there is little difference at all between the two. It is certainly quite acceptable and an amendment which we will wholeheartedly support; we have no problem with it.

I want to say one other thing to the minister about something that is of a little concern to me. This

section as it stood certainly raised the expectations of all workers in Ontario in terms of them being able to withdraw themselves from an unsafe work place or from the operation of an unsafe machine and so on. Here we have gone one step further in the amendment in which, if he feels it is likely to endanger another employee, he can claim the machine is unsafe.

I am worried about the expectation which this

section raises, particularly now that the expectation has been raised even higher, with respect to the support that that employee is going to get. That is, when he withdraws himself and we go through the procedure in the bill, will there be sufficient funds expended by this government to meet those expectations? Will there be sufficient inspectors provided in this province to meet the expectations which this

section is quite rightfully drawing from the workers right across Ontario?

I think there are all kinds of indications that when The Mining Act is being policed by the Ministry of Labour now, with respect to -- well, okay, in this bill you quite clearly indicate the provisions under which people working in the mines can expect to receive help in terms of an unsafe place or unsafe conditions. They may now refuse under this one as well; under this bill they may now refuse.

You’ve indicated that you’re hopefully providing some 80-plus inspectors in the mining area to accommodate this. The Ham report spoke particularly and only to the mining area. In that area the government obviously appears to be responding with sufficient additional inspectors of one type or another, so that that Ham report, in its specific recommendations, can be carried out effectively for miners in this province.

But, of course, this

section speaks to everybody in the province: construction workers, industrial workers. I’m really concerned, as perhaps you are too, Madam Minister, that there are sufficient additional funds provided and, therefore, additional inspectors in the construction industry and in the manufacturing industries to in fact give force to this

section in terms of the situations that will be claimed to be unsafe under it. This would give to the industrial worker and the construction worker the feeling -- not just the feeling but the actuality -- that his complaint can be dealt with.

I guess maybe this is a long way of asking whether the government has indicated to the ministry that in fact there are going to be sufficient funds forthcoming and sufficient inspectors in the industrial and construction areas that one can in fact implement in actuality this clause now that it’s been upgraded in particular?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I might respond by stating that in fact the specific provisions mentioned by the hon. member have been included within The Industrial Safety Act since 1971, and The Construction Safety Act since 1973. The expectations, I think, were raised at that time, and I think those expectations have in fact been met.

But I think I should say that, indeed, it is not the primary purpose of this bill to ensure there will be great hordes of inspectors throughout the province. What we are attempting to do is to provide a mechanism whereby solutions to these problems can be found through co-operative effort between employers and employees within the work place. Indeed, in many instances no inspectors will ever need to be called, because the employer and the employees will have resolved the problem without calling an inspector.

However, we are committed to producing an adequate number of inspectors in order to provide the service as rapidly as possible, and hopefully, on the basis of the record which we have established within the construction industry in the last two years, at the rate of an inspection within 45 minutes of the request being submitted.

Mr. Bounsall: Just one other question on this point, then. Can the Minister of Labour tell us how many inspectors, in addition to those it already has in the field, the ministry would contemplate needing in the industrial sector field in order to give full implementation to this

section 2?

For example, in the mining industry we hear there are some 80-plus applied for and so on.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It was not 80 inspectors.

Mr. Bounsall: Well, it was 80-plus when we were in the committee stage a few short weeks ago. I don’t know whether you’ve changed your mind on that commitment; I’d be interested in hearing that. But how many are you contemplating needing, in addition to what you have, in the industrial sector?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I apologize that I cannot give the exact figures because, indeed, the implementation team is still refining those figures with the assistance of experts in the various fields and the responses of the Barrett committee, and next week with the help of the new assistant deputy minister for occupational health and safety, who will be in place at that time. The figures, I am sure, will be available early in the new year, but right at this point I can’t tell you exactly how many. I have told you what our goal is, that we shall be able to respond within a relatively short period of time to all requests for assistance from inspectors.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended agreed to.

section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Laughren moves that

section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“3(1). Where an employee in a work place refuses to use or operate a machine, device or thing, or refuses to work in a place therein because he has reasonable cause to believe that the machine, device or thing is unsafe for him to use or operate or may cause a hazard for another employee, or a place in or about a work place is unsafe for him to work in, or a place where hazardous emissions are above the allowable standards, or a work practice may cause his work to be unsafe, or the machine, device, thing or place is in contravention of The Industrial Safety Act, 1971, The Construction Safety Act, 1973, or

part IX of The Mining Act, or any regulations thereunder, as the case may be, he shall forthwith report the circumstances of the matter to his employer or the person having control and direction over the operation of the work place, who shall forthwith investigate the report in the presence of the employee and, if there is such, in the presence of either a health or safety representative or member who represents employees or another employee authorized by the employee or the trade union that represents the employees.”

We will take this amendment to subsection 1 before proceeding on to other subsections of the section, because the minister has an amendment to

section 3(2).

Mr. Laughren: Could I speak to your ruling, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. B. Stephenson: In light of the amendment which was accepted to

section 2 it is obvious that the same amendment should be included in

section 3(2). I don’t have a copy because I’ve given them all away -- the copies of the amendments -- but the specific change which was made to

section 2 should, in fact, be copied into

section 3(1).

Mr. Chairman: Has the minister indicated that she is prepared that those sections that were passed in

section 2 should be adopted in

section 3(1) of the bill?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, could I speak to that?

Mr. Bullbrook: Before you do, on a point of order, has the minister’s staff provided her with a copy of the amendment to

section 3(1)?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, as a matter of fact, they haven’t.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think we’d better get organized. First of all, the staff should provide the minister with the appropriate amendment so we can look at it.

Mr. Chairman: There is no amendment before the committee other than the one presented by the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Bullbrook: But my understanding is that the minister is saying, to complement the amendments to

section 2, we will require from the minister an amendment to

section 3(1). I think, in fairness to the minister, she should get that and we should have a copy of it, because we have to read it since we’re passing laws.

Mr. Chairman: That’s right.

Mr. Conway: An eminently sound idea.

Mr. Laughren: I very much wish that the minister had accepted our resolution on Friday which embodied the same principle as her resolution today except we then would have been able to adopt our version of the remainder of

section 3 which already had that principle built into it.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I hesitate to put

section 3(1) independently in view of the fact that all of the sections are interrelated; there is a relationship between each subsection.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has amendments to sections 3(2) and 3(3). It’s my intention to put the minister’s amendment first and any other amendments as sub-amendments, whenever they are present. Unfortunately, we don’t have a government amendment to

section 3(1) before the committee. That’s our dilemma. I think one is being prepared by the legislative counsel at this time.

Mr. Conway: The government doesn’t know what it is doing, as usual.

An hon. member: Why don’t they tell the minister that?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, could I beg your indulgence and the indulgence of the members of the House that we might move to

section 3(2) and return to

section 3(1)?

[3:30]

Mr. Chairman: That’s permissible.

Hon. B. Stephenson moves that subsection 2 of

section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “refuse to return to work” in the 14th line and inserting in lieu thereof “continue to refuse or operate the machine, device or thing or work in the place unless a collective agreement binding the employee expressly provides otherwise.” There are other amendments; do you wish to put a sub- amendment to that?

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Would it not be appropriate to have skipped over subsections 1 and 2 until the wording of the result of the amendment in

section 2 was built into subsections 1 and 2, because I believe that our caucus could support subsections 1 and 2 if the amended

section 2 was built into it?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed. All right, the minister has an amendment to subsection 3 of

section 3.

Hon. B. Stephenson moves that subsection 3 of

section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “refuses to work” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “continues to refuse or use or operate the machine, device or thing or work in the place or having returned to work in compliance with the express provisions of a collective agreement binding the employee, files a grievance concerning his right to continue to refuse to use or operate the machine, device or thing or work in the place.”

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, the reason I was shaking my head toward the minister was that we have a copy of her amendment from last week, but I believe that one goes beyond the copy that she sent to us last week.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it doesn’t.

Mr. Laughren: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, we have amendments to subsections 3, 4, 5, 6 -- well, some new amendments to the section. I would ask your guidance when you wish to deal with those?

Mr. Chairman: I think you should put your amendment to the amendment.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, if I might say, the amendment to

section 3(3) was included in the bundle of amendments which was submitted to the opposition parties last week.

Mr. McClellan: But they have been revised since.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it has not been revised.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have what you sent here, but it’s only half of that in both of these cases.

Mr. Bullbrook: For clarification, the minister did give us two sets and pointed out that the second set was amending the first set.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have only got one.

Mr. Bullbrook: Did our colleague from Nickel Belt only get one set of amendments?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, there was only one additional amendment amending the first set of amendments which was distributed on Friday and it was an amendment to -- I’ve forgotten which one -- I think it was

section 3(2). The only additional amendment today is the amendment to

section 2 and the subsequent amendments which must be made as a result of that amendment to

section 2. All of the other amendments which the government proposes were indeed passed to the members opposite last week.

Mr. Chairman: We have the minister’s amendment to

section 3(3). The member for Nickel Belt also has an amendment. If he wishes to place it before the committee, now would be the time to do it.

Mr. Laughren: This is part of a new

section 3 as we would amend it.

Mr. Chairman: This is an amendment to the amendment?

Mr. Laughren: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: We have to treat it as such.

Mr. Laughren moves that subsection 3 of

section 3 be amended to read:

“

(3) Where the employee refuses to return to work and there is a committee in the work place, the committee shall expeditiously consider the grounds for the refusal to work and require that the health and safety representative take and report to the committee the results of any tests required by either party or by the committee itself and

“(

a) advise the employee to return to work on the grounds that the machine, device or thing or work place is safe;

“(

b) advise the employer as to the steps to be taken to remedy the unsafe machine, device, thing, work practice or work place and when these steps are followed advise the employee to return to work on the grounds that the machine, device, thing or work place is now safe; or

“(

c) where the employer fails to take the required steps to remedy the unsafe machine, device, thing, work practice or work place, the committee shall notify the appropriate inspector or engineer as the case may be.”

Mr. Laughren: May I proceed with subsection 4, Mr. Chairman? I ask your direction. Do you wish me to proceed with the rest of the amended subsection 3?

Mr. Bullbrook: I’d prefer not.

Mr. Chairman: Just down to clause (c).

Mr. Laughren: I’ve finished clause (c).

Mr. Chairman: That’s all that’s required. Anything further to that is

section 3(4).

Mr. Laughren: Exactly.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll deal with it subsection by subsection.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, because our amendments are sequential and involve a completely different approach to the entire section, I just want to make it clear that it makes no sense to be dealing with

section 3(4) in isolation from sections 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3). It would seem to me to make sense to proceed, in introducing our amendments to this section, to introduce them sequentially from subsection 1 right through to subsection 8 so that we could then argue our alternate approach and attempt to persuade the House of the wisdom of that direction rather than to chop it all up into pieces that make absolutely no sense out of context.

Mr. Chairman: I’m inclined to agree with the hon. member. It would be a lot easier for the committee and for the Chair if we were to keep these in order. Has the minister any indication of how long it would take to place before the committee the amendment to

section 3(1)?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I don’t have any specific indication of the length of time right at the moment, but I think it can be done in about five minutes or so. However, it is a very simple amendment. If one substitutes for the first nine lines of

section 3(1) the amendment to

section 2, and then proceeds with the remainder of that section, that’s all there is to it. It’s simply an amplification of the responsibility.

Mr. Chairman: We’re dealing with a fairly complex bill and we want to make sure we don’t get ourselves into a dilemma that may be difficult to extricate ourselves from.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I speak to the point of order, which I think is a valid point, except I think our colleague from Bellwoods was trying to point out that

section 3(3) and those following they regarded as a package. I don’t think he was objecting to our delay with respect to sections 3(1) and 3(2).

Mr. Laughren: That’s right.

Mr. Bullbrook: Frankly, I’m not married to any situation, as far as that’s concerned. If the New Democratic Party feels it can explain more ably by going to

section 3(4) and onwards, I have no objection to it. I doubt it because it seems to me the principle of their change is in 3(3) and the other is just an application of it. If they want to read 3(4) now, I don’t think the minister would object, would you? Let’s go ahead and read them.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Laughren moves:

Subsection 4: Where the employee refuses to return to work and there is no committee in the work place, the employer or person having control or direction over the work place shall notify the appropriate inspector or engineer, as the case may be.

Subsection 5: Any test result under subsection 3 shall be made available to the engineer or inspector at this time. Or the engineer or inspector may carry out any test required by either party at this time.

Subsection 6: Where the inspector or engineer as the case may be receives a notification under clause (

c) of subsection 3 or under subsection 4 he shall expeditiously investigate the matter in the presence of the employer or person having control and direction over the operation of the work place, the employee, and, if there is such, either a health and safety representative, a committee member who represents employees or a person authorized by the trade union that represents the employees.

Subsection 7: The inspector or engineer shall, following his investigation make a decision whether the machine, device or thing is unsafe for the employee to use or operate or the place is unsafe for the employee to work in, or the machine, device, thing, or place is in contravention of The Industrial Safety Act, 1971, The Construction Safety Act, 1973, or

part IX of The Mining Act or any regulations thereunder as the case may be, and shall notify the employee of his decision.

Subsection 8: Where an employee refuses to work or continues to refuse to work, the employer shall not allow another employee to replace him until such time as he has been advised to return to work under clause (

c) of subsection 3, clause (

a) of subsection 7, or

section 6.

Mr. Laughren: At your direction, Mr. Chairman, I would speak to that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to explain the reasons for her amendment before we deal with the amendment to the amendment?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The reasons for our amendment are simply that in many work places, under the collective agreement existent in those work places, there is a mechanism already set up for dealing with this problem.

It would seem to us that in those areas in which this is set up and in which it is functioning effectively, it would be unwise to tamper with it. What we are suggesting is that where an acceptable mechanism under the collective agreement has been established, this Act should not take precedence over that agreement which has been decided upon between the two parties within that work place specifically.

That is my comment about mine. If you’d like me to comment about some of those amendments suggested by the opposition party, I would be pleased to do so.

Mr. Bullbrook: Go ahead. Do it.

Mr. Chairman: So that we can expedite matters -- since we’re going to vote on the amendment to the amendment first, all comment until we take that vote will be restricted to comment on the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman -- I think.

We have moved this amendment because we believe that the health and safety committees have a major role to play in the whole question of occupational health. What subsection 3 does is establish or insert in the process, after a worker refuses to work, the role of the health and safety committee. The minister’s bill does not do that

This bill would have the health and safety committee come in to play a role at that point, when the worker decides that the place is unsafe. The worker then would go to the health and safety committee; the health and safety committee would investigate the conditions and either advise the employee to return to work or advise the employer what steps to take in order to improve the conditions. If the problem is still not resolved, if the employee still refuses or employees still refuse to work, the committee notifies the appropriate government inspector who would be called into play.

[3:45]

This is not an amendment which is popular with all workers or all trade unions. It puts a significant responsibility on the health and safety committees and I think that’s appropriate. I think that along with the authority to refuse to work should go a responsibility to make a decision and that is what subsection 3 does.

Subsection 4, if I might move on with the amendment, establishes the committee’s role in notifying the employer as well as the inspector. In subsection 3 the inspector has to be notified; in subsection 4 the employer must be notified.

In subsection 5, which is a new subsection and is not at all mentioned in the government bill, we are saying any tests that are required should be done; that there is an obligation on the part of the inspector to carry out any tests that are requested by either side, by the employers or the employees. I know this is done in the work place now -- for example, in the smelters if the workers feel the emissions are too high or unacceptable, they can request that a test be made. What we are saying is that we want it part of this particular bill. That’s why we have included subsection 5.

Subsection 6 details the role of the inspector or the engineer when that person comes in after a request by the health safety committee. Any tests are done in the presence of the workers or one of their representatives and we feel that that is necessary to outline specifically what is expected of the inspector when he comes into the work place.

Subsection 7 I would think is a controversial one within the ministry or certainly with the people who would be doing the inspecting, because it puts significant onus upon the inspector to make a decision. It says that when the inspector examines the work place, that inspector then makes a decision as to whether or not it is safe or unsafe and notifies the employee of his decision. That’s terribly important. I think that some inspectors would rather not go through that formal process of making that recommendation.

I know that there are those in your ministry who would prefer that the inspector does an investigation and indicates what his opinion is and that after that the normal employee-employer relationship takes over and that they proceed as they will. We are saying that when the inspector or the engineer makes that investigation they must notify the employee of what they think should be done.

In subsection 8 we are saying that when a worker refuses to work that the employer not be allowed to send another worker in at the end of a shift, for example. When we were hearing submissions before the committee you heard the steelworkers local at Sudbury tell you of a man -- and they named the man -- who was told to go to work at a particular place in one of International Nickel’s mines. That worker refused to go to work, was sent home and his replacement was killed. This subsection 8 states that the employer will not be allowed to send another employee in until he has been further advised.

Mr. Bullbrook: I would like to speak, I hope not unduly at length, but I want to premise my comments personally if I may. I want to confess I am not happy with this legislation at all. I am not happy with the results that might come from this legislation.

If this legislation is subscribed to by employee and employer in a reasonable and responsible manner, then it is fine legislation. But all it takes is one irresponsible individual to make chaos out of this legislation. As a result of my premise that I have voiced previously I want to say this, if I can, to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.

This legislation is tough enough to swallow and tough enough to administer and the practical impact of it on other employees and on business in general is difficult enough without burdening it with excess verbiage that has almost superhuman administrative difficulties and really doesn’t effect any great benefit. I say with the greatest respect to them, I regard this particular set of amendments as purely verbiage.

Think of the last thing our colleague from Nickel Belt said: “We want to assure, in the last subamendment, that no one entering the work place to undertake the hazardous work previously undertaken by an employee who refused to work there will have to work there.” I think the second workman will have all the benefits, all the rights, all the duties and all the responsibilities that the first workman had, and if there is a set of objective circumstances that prevailed wherein the first employee should not have worked, then the same will prevail as far as the second employee is concerned.

I use that only as an example of the fact that I for one am prepared, and this party collectively is prepared to evaluate amendments and to support those that are needed, but now I’m going to put to you a practical difficulty that I see, Mr. Chairman, in the first amendment. What is asked now in the New Democratic Party in its amendment is that when the employee makes the judgement that a thing is unsafe and so on, that immediately he refuses to work there shall be convened a meeting of the committee; that is, the health and safety committee.

I’m just trying to translate that into something that might happen at Polymer Corporation in the valley. In the middle of production, that on-stream production of a highly dangerous and volatile nature, the individual decides it’s unsafe and makes his judgement, and let’s premise that his judgement eventually under this statute will be found to have been a very valid judgement, valid in the assessment of his own condition and the condition of other employees.

What I understand the amendment to be is that we’ll convene the health and safety committee, one of whom might be half a mile away, one of whom might be 200 feet in a catalytic converter in the air. I’m just trying to point out by way of, I hope not exaggeration. The intention is protection. The second thing is the expedition of removing the offending unsafe conditions. The intention of the legislation is not to arbitrate on the spot who made the right decision. That isn’t it at all.

I want to say to the New Democratic Party that the legislation it proposes would hurt the employees more than help them. If we’re going to begin undertaking the arbitration proceedings then, I just really am vitally concerned with the other people who are in the middle of the plant waiting for six men or nine men to come together and make a decision on whether it is unsafe or not.

The fact of the matter is there has to be some type of flow of the decision-making process. I’m not entirely content with what’s there, but that only reinforces the fact that I’m not entirely content with the legislation. I want to say, frankly, about this type of legislation that’s put to us -- even as amended, which I’m prepared to support -- that I do want you to explain again to me the intention. I think I have it understood.

I just think we have to recognize frankly that this is new legislation. It’s the type of thing where we’re doing it for the purpose of protection. The premise, the total capture of our thought is the question of protection, not the question of the resolution of the employee’s judgement. I ask my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to recognize that the implication of what they’re proposing is, in effect, to attempt to make a judgement or a resolution of the propriety of the employee’s judgement. That shouldn’t be it. The situation should be to expedite remedying the situation.

Mr. Bounsall: If the minister wishes to reply to that at the moment, I could yield my place to her at this point. Did the minister want to respond?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I simply wanted to say that I had to agree with the hon. member for Sarnia that the purpose of this legislation is to provide for the most rapid possible remedy to difficult and dangerous situations and, indeed, that’s the premise upon which the legislation was written.

There is nothing in this bill which would preclude the possibility of a role by any group of members of the health and safety committee or the entire health and safety committee if that is found to be a useful and expeditious mechanism for resolving these kinds of problems within the work place, but there are many instances in which this, as the hon. member for Sarnia pointed out, would be an inhibition. It would indeed prevent the reasonably expeditious resolution of problems and I think would slow down the provision of remedies in many situations.

It would seem to me to be much more sensible to allow each work place -- the employers and the employees -- to work out the mechanism which is best for them. This is why we specifically did not set down a step by step, breath by breath, moment by moment kind of outline which had to be rigidly followed in every single situation, because there are many variabilities in the work place situations throughout the province. What we are attempting to do is to provide as rapidly as possible a mechanism to resolve the difficulties and to supply the remedies. I would hope that all the members of the House would agree with the hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bounsall: I find the minister’s attitude on this one a little bit contradictory. When I spoke to her on the early part of

section 2, my concern was with the provision of sufficient inspectors to be able to respond quickly enough when a right to refuse is exercised because of the machine, device and so on. This

section 3, subsection 2, is where, after consulting with the management, it appears to the worker that it is still unsafe -- it’s under this section, subsection 3 now, where the inspector must be called in. The minister in reply to me in terms of not knowing how many additional inspectors were needed, if any were needed at all, was in argument saying we are trying to get around having inspectors in the work place by having a lot of these things resolved on site.

This is the amendment which involves the existing safety committee on site immediately before one would call an inspector in and hopefully solve it at that point. This amendment of ours to

section 3 of our amendment is the one which answers and speaks to the very point you raised. It involves the committee on site before you then call your inspector in. It involves hoped-for resolution on site before calling in your inspector.

In the present bill as written, what happens is once the worker has reported it, once there appears to be disagreement between him and his supervisor as to whether it’s unsafe, in comes the inspector -- if the worker still finds it unsafe. In

section 3(2) is his right to refuse and in

section 3(3) is where you call the inspector in.

No one else comes in and intervenes at that point unless it’s for those plants in which there’s a collective agreement. In that collective agreement, you in fact collectively agree that you will have this safety committee involved which we have proposed in our

section 3. That possibility is certainly there, that a committee so formed either by -- under this bill -- direction by the minister, or the committee which they have agreed to across the bargaining table, if it is also agreed that they will be looking at the situation or members of the committee thereof.

[4:00]

I have no brief for calling the entire nine members together to have a look at this thing. I quite agree with that one comment by the member for Sarnia -- you are not going to have a full committee meeting over it, getting people out of bed when they are on a different shift and so on to resolve this. I would think that any reasonable minded committee -- one so designated by the minister or one elected by the workers or chosen by management would be reasonable -- would have members who would have expertise in given areas of the plant.

It has a real potential of avoiding calling in your inspectors -- and you haven’t yet in this House given any guarantee that there are going to be any more of them in the province.

Mr. Roy: Don’t get excited.

Mr. Bounsall: I am concerned that there are sufficient to meet the need around this province. Your reply was, “We have some committees to help resolve it at the work place.” You haven’t under this procedure at this point.

I would have thought, from what the minister had said, that she would be more than anxious, apart from what happens in a simple disagreement between the supervisor and the worker about whether it is safe, to have someone else at plant level concerned with safety come in and have a look and give some advice before they call in the outside inspectors. This is the force of these amendments.

I would think the minister -- I don’t know how much time she spent considering this point. Her answer to me in the previous

section may well have been different if she had. I would ask her to consider that very seriously.

If I could just comment -- I’m not running through all the clauses we have presented at this point -- the

section 7 we have introduced speaks to

section 4 of the ministry bill. I remember in committee, when we were hearing submissions, one of the things which seemed to interest the minister greatly was what happened when the inspector or engineer comes in and finds the operation to be safe in his opinion. Under this legislation nothing need be done as I see it here in this Act.

If the minister is saying that The Industrial Safety Act, The Construction Safety Act and

part IX of The Mining Act direct them quite clearly to indicate to the employee in no uncertain terms that whatever the condition or machine he was complaining about, it is safe and he must therefore return to it -- if she can point that out under those three Acts I would be happy to have her do so. You are caught in the conundrum that if he finds it unsafe, under the present situation and under your present Act things follow. He indicates it is unsafe; he gives a directive; the directive gets posted and so on.

We are missing one chief point here. What if, in his opinion, he finds it to be safe? What happens then? This is what we are doing in

section 7 of our amendment -- just having an inspector, when he finds the condition in essence to be safe, notify the employee of that decision. You have the situation covered if he finds it to be unsafe but you have not got the situation covered if he finds it to be safe.

My reading of those three Acts -- The Industrial Safety Act; The Construction Safety Act; and

part IX of The Mining Act -- does not indicate to me that the inspector indicates to the employee that it is safe. Let’s face it, there may be some very small percentage -- I would say less than one per cent -- of irrational complaints about something being safe so one has to accept that a complaint about a particular device or situation means the worker really believes it to be unsafe for some reason and he needs reassurance. You call in the inspector. The inspector can tell him why he feels it to be safe if he finds it to be. As far as I read the legislation, that is a real lack in it. I commend that subsection 7. In essence, it makes a small addition to the present

section 4 in the Act to the matters to be brought to the minister’s attention so that when something is found safe the employee is in fact notified.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is precisely that rigidity introduced by the series of steps spelled out in the amendment of the New Democratic Party that I felt was inappropriate in the introduction of this legislation. There is a multiplicity of mechanisms which will be established in various types of employment situations; in some where the committee will function, in others where the safety representative will function and in others where one member of the committee or something of that sort will function. We do not believe that at this time that should be rigidly set down and etched in stone so that each employment establishment has to follow one set pattern.

The problem is the one of remedying situations and keeping the work place safe. Whatever we can do to make it function as rapidly as possible is what we should do. Establishing a set of absolutely rigid steps which must be followed in order to do this is not a means nor a method of ensuring the speed with which the resolution will be found. In addition under the existing Act, as you very well know, the directions in any unsafe condition are left immediately with the employer in that establishment.

Under this Act, the employer must let the employees know immediately that the condition is unsafe or directions have been left. If there are no directions and nothing is left by the inspector, then obviously the situation is a safe situation.

Mr. Bounsall: I don’t find that really too acceptable. If he’s not made a decision that it’s unsafe, if he’s not found it to be unsafe, then his decision is that it’s safe.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, without objection our colleague from Windsor-Sandwich got on to

section 7. He’s directly on

section 7. If he wants to argue with the minister the propriety of her response with respect to his out-of-order comments on

section 7, so be it when we get to

section 7. But we’re never going to get finished.

Mr. Bounsall: On the point of order, it has been accepted that the amendment to the amendment is the one that we are discussing now and we’re discussing all of them.

Mr. Bullbrook: Let’s get on with it. Goodness gracious.

Mr. Bounsall: It so happens that subsection 7 speaks to subsection 4 of the minister’s bill.

Mr. Bullbrook: But the problem is you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

Mr. Bounsall: You set up some of these careful procedures in this Act and I just can’t see why in this particular area you can’t finish it off and say if he’s found it to be unsafe for heaven’s sake tell the employee directly.

The one other question which I have with respect to the minister’s reply is: In the formation of the committee is the minister saying, when she indicates the various multiplicities of routes that can be taken here, that if this one

section of the bill carries, when she is designating the various safety committees to be formed around the province, in the formation of some of those safety committees and in her directions with respect to safety representatives, in some of those situations she has in mind to say it’s her feeling they should check with that safety representative or that safety committee before they come to the inspector?

Hon. B. Stephenson: In some situations that would be entirely appropriate and in others it would not. That is certainly the intention.

Mr. McClellan: Let me just say one thing with respect to the minister’s argument that we’re introducing a kind of rigidity that isn’t in the bill. I don’t accept that; I don’t see that. You have set out a series of steps, and whether you like it or not the steps are there and they will be followed in subsections 1, 2 and 3. You don’t have a role in your steps for the health and safety committee. We have introduced that role, and it misunderstands what we are trying to do to say that we have introduced the kind of rigidity you say.

There is a normal sequence of events that will unfold when a worker identifies an unsafe condition, and we are simply saying that it is better as a goal to seek to resolve the dispute at the plant at the level of the health and safety committee rather than to establish the pattern of relying on outside enforcement to resolve the dispute. That’s the point that we are trying to make.

Mr. Bullbrook: I just want our colleagues in the New Democratic Party to understand that the minister is trying to convey to them that there is nothing illegal about the employees dealing with the health and safety committee. That’s all she is saying.

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: In response to the two Ministers of Labour, all we are attempting --

Mr. Ruston: You recognize talent.

Mr. Bullbrook: We certainly have ministerial capacity here.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Reid: You’d think they were against the bill.

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, we have an obligation to improve the bill.

Mr. Bullbrook: Who worded these amendments anyway, for goodness’ sake? They are the worst I have seen.

Mr. Laughren: We really do have an obligation to improve the bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Would the member for Nickel Belt address his comments to the Chair?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, it really does seem that whether it is because the minister is the author herself of the existing bill or whether or not she has only been around for a year or so, I’m not sure of the reason, but she seems to resent our attempts to play our legislative role; namely to improve government legislation.

I don’t understand that. All we are saying in this amendment is that instead of going directly to a government inspector on a refusal to work -- who knows whether they will have enough government inspectors or not -- we bring in the workers themselves and try to resolve the dispute in the work place. Surely that is a positive step? That’s not rigidity. As a matter of fact, it should make it much more acceptable to the minister. I think it’s a much better idea and I would ask her to support our amendment.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Shall the amendment to the amendment carry?

All those in favour say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Chairman: I didn’t see any members stand.

We will now vote on the amendment proposed by the minister to

section 3, subsection 3.

Hon. B. Stephenson moves that subsection 3 of

section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “refuses to return to work” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof, “continues to refuse to use or operate the machine, device or thing or work in the place or having returned to work in compliance with the express provisions of a collective agreement binding the employee files a grievance concerning his right to continue to refuse to use or operate the machine, device or thing or work in the place.”

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, could we have a definition of “thing”?

Mr. McClellan: It’s the same as a body.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is my understanding that it is not the same as a body. It is something to do with a mechanical effort or a piece of an instrument, a piece of machinery, something which one individual can move in order to provide some kind of physical effort in an establishment. It is not the same as a body because a body can be a multiplicity of things, apparently.

Mr. Bounsall: It’s a whatchamacallit.

Mr. Acting Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment to

section 3, subsection 3 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

[4:15]

Hon. B. Stephenson: Could we now revert to

section 3(1)?

Mr. Acting Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that subsection 1 of

section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“Where an employee in a work place refuses to use or operate a machine, device or thing, or refuses to work in a place therein because he has reasonable cause to believe that the machine, device or thing is unsafe to use or operate because its use or operation is likely to endanger himself or another employee, or the place is unsafe for him to work in, or the machine, device or thing or place is in contravention of The Industrial Safety Act, 1971, The Construction Safety Act, 1973 or

part IX of The Mining Act or any regulations thereunder, as the case may be, he shall forthwith report the circumstances of the matter to his employer or the person having control and direction over him who shall forthwith investigate the report in the presence of the employee, and if there is such, in the presence of a safety representative, or a committee member who represents employees or a person authorized by the trades union that represents the employees.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently used the plural of “employee” as the final word in that amendment. It is “employee.”

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps the minister could move

section 3(2) at the same time so that we can deal with them together.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I could because the same amendment should prevail in both sections. It is the amendment which provides the employee the right to refuse to operate or work if what he is doing is likely to endanger another employee.

So, might I then move at the same time --

Mr. Acting Chairman: Excuse me, Madam Minister. Is it the pleasure of the committee to consider both amendments at the same time?

Agreed.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that subsection 2 of

section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“Where the employer or the person having control and direction over the employee disputes the report or takes steps to make the machine, device or thing or place safe or comply with The Industrial Safety Act, 1971, The Construction Safety Act, 1973, or

part IX of The Mining Act or any regulations thereunder, as the case may be, and the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the machine, device or thing is or continues to be unsafe to use or to operate because its use or operation is likely to endanger himself or another employee, or the place is or continues to be unsafe for him to work in, or the machine, device, thing or place is or continues to be in contravention of The Industrial Safety Act, 1971, The Construction Safety Act, 1973, or

part IX of The Mining Act or any regulations thereunder, as the case may be, he may continue to refuse to use or operate the machine, device or thing or work in the place unless a collective agreement binding the employee expressly provides otherwise.”

Mr. Haggerty: You have dropped the word “him.” Is that what you have excluded from the amendment?

Mr. Bullbrook: Which one?

Mr. Haggerty: In subsections 2 and 1; in both of them I thought I understood the minister said “to be unsafe to use.” You dropped the words “for him.” Is that it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sorry, if I said that Mr. Chairman: “ ... be unsafe for him to work in, or the machine, device, thing or place is or continues to be in contravention ... ” Is that the area?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, in your amendment you dropped the word --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sorry, I did not drop the words deliberately. If I did it, I did it inadvertently and incorrectly.

Mr. Haggerty: Because I was going to suggest the word “employee” instead of “him.”

Mr. Bullbrook: Along the line of construction -- I have no objection; it’s just complementary to our amendment to

section 2. I’m concerned frankly with the fact that we refer to an employee when in fact we have two employees, although I don’t know whether that will ever cause anybody any trouble. For example, “or a person authorized by the trade union that represents the employee.” Now, we have two employees: We have the employee who is about to undertake work that might adversely affect another employee; so we’ve got two employees. Just for the sake of understanding and construction, he -- the employee -- comes “in the presence of ... a safety representative” and so on. Which employee?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The employee who refuses to work.

Mr. Bullbrook: So it isn’t necessary that the employee be there who might be adversely affected by the unsafe condition?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, that’s worthy of some thought, I think, on our part. It might not cause any trouble. I’m interested in whether our colleague from Nickel Belt thinks it would. In effect, you’ve got A, who says: “I will not work on this job because the job might have an adverse effect on B.” So it’s only A who comes to grips with an analysis with the safety representative. Is there any necessity for B to be there? I take it not, probably not. I thought I’d clarify it in my own mind.

Mr. Moffatt: And did you succeed?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I think of the example which has been used with some frequency by the hon. member for Hamilton East, that of the crane operator at Stelco. Certainly it is the crane operator who makes the decision, because his knowledge of that machine is such that he is aware of whether that machine will endanger other people. He is also aware that it’s not likely to endanger himself at all, but his refusal is on behalf of the other employees.

Mr. Laughren: I might say that to have the

section worded otherwise, which I gather the member for Sarnia was implying, that there would have to be consultation with the other employee, would be unthinkable --

Mr. Bullbrook: No, after the fact -- after the cessation of work.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, I’m sorry. Okay. Dispensing with that remark then, I would say we are very pleased with the amendment. We would have included the work practice, the emissions and so forth, which were in our amendment, but I certainly hope the Act will be interpreted in the same way as our amendment read; namely, that if an employee has reason to believe -- whether it affects himself or another employee -- that that work place is unsafe, the employee has that right and there is no need, I hope, to tie it down any tighter than that. But we are very pleased that the minister has accepted the spirit of our amendment.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Hon. B. Stephenson moves that

section 4(1) of the bill be amended by striking out the phrase “or a class or group of employers as defined in the order” in the second and third lines thereof.

Mr. Laughren: Will the minister speak to that?

Mr. Bullbrook: I have an amendment I’d like to make to the amendment. I want to express my concern, as I have in committee. Do you mind if I premise my amendment to the amendment with remarks prior to putting it, Mr. Chairman, or would you prefer that I put my amendment first?

Mr. McClellan: You can’t do both.

Mr. Acting Chairman: I don’t see anything wrong with prefacing it with remarks.

Mr. Bullbrook: I expressed in committee and continue to express the discretionary aspects of this

section -- the word “may.” The intention of the legislation should be that the minister shall establish joint health and safety committees. As I said in committee, it’s not a reflection on the way the present minister undertakes her responsibilities. We write law not for the incumbent minister; we write law for all Ministers of Labour in the future until another Legislature decides to remove the appropriate power or the appropriate discretion from the minister.

I feel two things with respect to the section. First of all, it should be mandatory. If there is a business operating in Ontario, no matter what its size -- I don’t care whether there are three employees -- which doesn’t have a joint health and safety committee we have an obligation. If, truly, we feel our obligation to each employee in the province of Ontario is to protect his or her health and safety, then we can’t afford the numbers game, notwithstanding the numbers used in the legislation and notwithstanding the arbitrariness of the numbers used in the New Democratic Party’s proposed amendment which will eventually come before us.

I want to couple that with the concern I have that you don’t interfere with existing joint health and safety committees. I think it’s the intention of the present minister to respond by saying, “If there is in existence a joint health and safety committee which is doing its job, then that’s the very intention of the word ‘may.’ I don’t have to structure a new committee there.” On the other hand, the use of the word “may” in the present

section gives the alternative arrangement even if there is no adequate joint health and safety committee.

As a result I think we require an amendment which does two things: One, it gives the minister the ability not to interfere with existing joint health and safety committees which are doing their job. Who should decide whether the committee is doing its job? The employee, a group of employees, or the collective bargaining agent representing the employee? Or, on the other hand, the employer? Or either or any of them? That’s the intention of my amendment.

The intention of my amendment is that if you have in being a joint health and safety committee which all parties are content with then, of course, the minister will not interfere with it. But where you have either no joint health and safety committee in being or any of the parties are not content with the efficacy or adequacy of the joint health and safety committee, then the minister shall appoint. That’s the intention of what I put forward.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I might -- not to be unduly rigid b