Hansard Transcripts 1984-Nov-16 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter that I know is of interest to many members of this House, namely, the implementation of the Young Offenders Act.

As honourable members know, the Young Offenders Act is federal legislation that deals with young persons who commit offences against federal statutes. This new act is intended to hold young persons more accountable for their behaviour while recognizing that they have special needs as persons not fully mature.

The first part of this legislation with respect to 12- to 15-year-olds was proclaimed on April 2, 1984. The second part of this legislation respecting 16- and 17-year-old young offenders will come into force on April 1, 1985.

The Ministry of Correctional Services has been assigned the responsibility of implementing the Young Offenders Act with respect to 16- and 17-year-olds. It is necessary, therefore, to introduce enabling legislation to permit the ministry to meet this responsibility. Let me outline some of the main provisions of this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

First, the bill gives legislative authority to the Ministry of Correctional Services to appoint provincial directors, youth workers and peace officers. As well, the legislation gives the necessary authority to establish places of detention and custody for young persons.

Second, it gives authority to the ministry to provide the necessary services and programs to young offenders to meet the spirit and intention of the federal act.

Third, the bill clarifies the status of 16- and 17-year-olds convicted of offences against provincial laws. While they are still considered adults, provision is made to ensure that such persons serve any custodial disposition in a young offenders facility.

Fourth, the bill establishes a mechanism to facilitate the free flow of young offenders, regardless of age, between facilities operated by my ministry and by the Ministry of Community and Social Services where program needs dictate.

Finally, the bill introduces certain features similar to those introduced by my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) in Bill 77, An Act respecting the Protection and Well-being of Children and their Families. These features include the creation of "open" and "secure" levels of temporary detention and the establishment of medium and maximum levels of secure custody. A Custody Review Board is established to review classification, release and transfer decisions. Certain young offenders' rights are also set out, with an internal mechanism to review alleged denials of these rights. These features of the legislation will be proclaimed at a later date to correspond with the proclamation of Bill 77.

In conclusion, I am pleased to advise honour-able members that the Ministry of Correctional Services is making solid progress in the planning and development of facilities and programs for 16- and 17-year-olds, and in the training of personnel to meet all requirements under the Young Offenders Act.

This ministry has an excellent staff of caring and dedicated individuals who already have extensive experience in supervising and assisting young offenders in this age group. I know they are approaching the challenges posed by this new legislation with their usual high degree of professionalism. My staff has enjoyed close co-operation with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and with the other government ministries which share responsibilities related to this legislation.

I am confident the services provided by this government to meet the requirements of the Young Offenders Act will be second to none in Canada and that the services we offer will meet not only the letter but also the spirit of that new law.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Ruston: This is a little too much -- only seven ministers out of 30.

Mr. Elston: There is not one major minister in this House.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier (Mr. Davis) said the candidates had to attend question period.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is rather excessive. Are you going to use your good offices to try to impress upon the Premier and other government members that important ministers have to be here occasionally at the very least? Would you attend the next meeting of the Premier and the four leadership hopefuls and put your point of view that they should be here at least one day a week? They are not following his admonition to be here two days a week.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) has made that request with tongue in cheek, because he knows as well as I do that I do not have that authority.

HYDRO REVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy will be aware that some of his colleagues aspiring to lead that party are adopting the Liberal point of view that Ontario Hydro has a great number of financial problems and that this monster is getting out of control. He will be aware of the remarks of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) yesterday, who said he would conduct a review of Ontario Hydro to rein in the $20-billion debt. Obviously the Treasurer is concerned about the triple-A credit rating.

Does the minister agree with the Treasurer that we do need a review? Does he agree with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), who also said we need a review and would reconstitute the select committee to exercise some muscle against that great and growing monster? Which route does the minister choose to rein in Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition talks about it being a Liberal idea, I assume he is using the capital L in that sense. I do not have any particular case to make for either the Treasurer or the Minister of Agriculture and Food in this regard.

I have spoken on occasion about access to information by the Leader of the Opposition. We have just completed about 12 hours of estimates; 16 hours were originally scheduled, but those hours were reduced at the request of some members. I do not recall the Leader of the Opposition being present during those estimates.

Mr. Peterson: The minister will be aware that Ontario Hydro costs $5.4 million a day in debt servicing alone. He will also be aware of the jeopardy to the triple-A credit rating, such that the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Davis) had to go to New York cap in hand to attempt a salvage.

He will also know that the Treasurer, the chief financial officer of Ontario, has evinced great concern. He has said Ontario Hydro is saddled with high fixed costs for the multimillion-dollar Darlington nuclear project, that the wage settlements have been too generous lately and many employees in northern Ontario are earning far above the average community wages. He has attacked every foundation of Ontario Hydro.

As the minister responsible, what is he going to do to rein in this monster? Is he going to assess Darlington and consider whether it should be mothballed before we go ahead and waste any more money?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: No.

10:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can explain why he is refusing to consider a review of the Darlington project when, if Darlington is completed, it will mean Ontario will become 70 per cent dependent on one form of generation -- nuclear power. When there has been widespread concern expressed over the difficulties we have had recently and the fact that it is unwise for us to become so reliant on nuclear, as well as enormously expensive in terms of capital costs, can the minister give us an explanation as to why he continues to refuse even to agree to review it, when he knows that is exactly what is going to have to happen as soon as the new leader is installed?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I said previously that I would not make a case for any of the leadership contenders. The outcome of that great January 26 convention will dictate to us and we will act accordingly.

The leader of the third party wants to be clear when he talks about the need for Darlington. We have made that case on many occasions in this House. We have talked about the replacement of coal-fired, expensive generation. We have talked about the importance of the nuclear program in the acid rain abatement problems that we face in this province and in this country. We have talked about the economics of nuclear energy.

We have talked about the performance of Ontario Hydro's reactors; eight of the 10 world-class reactors in terms of their performance are operated by Ontario Hydro. We have talked about the importance of giving a strong, reliable, effective, economic electrical system to this province, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Peterson: These two gentlemen are expressing very serious concern about an agency that is the minister's responsibility.

Does the minister agree with the Treasurer, who said the utility's spending is higher than necessary in some areas, such as wages and operating costs? Does he agree with the Treasurer when he says some of the recent wage settlements have been too generous? Does the minister agree with him that Ontario Hydro is saddled with high fixed costs for the multibillion-dollar Darlington complex? Does the minister agree with him that it has to be reined in, and if so, as the minister responsible, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I said previously that I do not have to make a case for any of the leadership contenders. They can make their own cases, and they are doing it well. I will act accordingly when that leader is elected on January 26.

Mr. Peterson: It looks as if the Minister of Energy will not have his job after the leadership is decided.

FAMINE RELIEF

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), perhaps I will ask a question to the Deputy Premier.

The Deputy Premier will be aware that today is the day that the federal government is going to announce its contribution for Ethiopian aid. He will be aware that there has been a phenomenal response across this country, both community-based and family-based as well as by a number of governments at all levels, to this great human tragedy.

He will be aware that there have been discussions in this House about the appropriate response for the government of Ontario. As of this point, a number of provincial governments have responded and this government has not. Will he tell us what his government is going to do to respond to that tragedy, and can we count on this government to exercise some humanity and make a response to assist in this historic tragedy?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition will recall, in response to a similar question directed to my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the point was made that there had been a fair amount of consultation between the government of Canada and this government at the time of the funeral of the Prime Minister of India, with regard to the subsequent stopover of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to become apprised of the situation at first hand and the assignment to Mr. David MacDonald of some responsibilities in that regard.

The people of Ontario, as Canadians, will be responding to this very legitimate need involving human suffering. Once this government has been brought up to date with respect to the response of the people of Canada, of which we are a part, we will be seen in our proper role as extending aid. I cannot bring the honourable member up to date with respect to the most recent discussions. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will be here shortly, and if he has any further information, he will share that with the House.

I remind the member that people the world over have been shocked, as the Leader of the Opposition has been shocked, with respect to the extent of this suffering among human beings in this world. We want to respond in a very positive way. The government of Canada, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will want to ensure that the Canadian response is meaningful and that the methods of distribution within the countries involved are in place.

We want to be seen as doing our share. I think it is very unfortunate to suggest that the people of this province, as Canadians, have at any time been negligent in discharging these responsibilities of compassion and caring.

Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be unkind; it is a handsome speech the minister has made, but he has not satisfied the question. Is he telling me the province in its own right will respond as Ontarians, or is he asking Ontarians to respond as Canadians through the federal government? The minister is mindful that a number of other people in other provinces have responded provincially and today, I assume, they will respond nationally as well.

Why is Ontario always so late to respond? Senior officials of the government were visited nine months ago by Dr. William Newell of World Vision, when he showed them film footage, discussed the problem and asked for assistance. Nothing happened. Again, on November 5, the government was sent a telegram asking for matching responses. To date it has not responded to that telegram. We have had some fine words from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and today again fine words from the Deputy Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Where is the action from Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I may speak on an individual basis, I see myself as a Canadian. I see myself as part of whatever leadership and initiative the government of Canada will take, and I do not think we should overlook the role we will all play.

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has already commented on some of the statements made by the individual to whom the member opposite makes reference, and I do not think this is the time to question the high motivation of anyone. There is a real human need out there that has to be met and met effectively, and the people of Ontario, as Canadians, and the government of this province will be doing their part as a partner in the federal response.

As I indicated, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will be here. I will draw his attention to the member's concern, and if there is any further information, he will share it at that time.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the government has made such a point of wanting to encourage the voluntary sector in many respects, would it not be an imaginative idea if the government of Ontario were to say to the people of this province, "We will match whatever you contribute voluntarily to various charities that are involved in famine relief"? Does the minister not think that would be not only an encouragement to people to contribute but also a real validation of those contributions? Would it not be an imaginative way for the government of Ontario to respond to this extraordinary outburst of feeling that has affected this whole province during the past few weeks?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there is no question in my mind that, through the media representations of the extent of this problem, there has been a tremendous response on the part of people all over. What it requires, I take it, is some organization to ensure that all these resources can be made available to those who are in need. One only has to see the responses that are being made, as the honourable member mentioned, by churches, charities and others.

I do not know the extent to which the proposition advanced by the leader of the third party could be implemented, but I will be very pleased to ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs as well.

Mr. Peterson: I am sure the minister will be aware that Alberta has responded generously and that British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec have all made commitments in their own right as provincial governments. They have responded quickly and generously in all those cases.

Does it not offend the minister just a little bit that we are being so reluctant to respond and come forward with any commitment when he is so quick to respond with other kinds of generosity? If Michael Kirby needs a dinner to celebrate his appointment to the Senate, the government can quickly find $1,346 to entertain Senator Kirby, but it cannot find anything to help these people quickly and expeditiously.

10:20 a.m.

Does the minister, being a caring man, as I know he is, not feel somewhat uncomfortable that he would respond in one situation and not in the other? Will he take his own strong commitment to his colleague and say, "We must respond immediately"? Will he give positive signals to the people around this country and this province who are responding in their own way?

People are denying themselves lunch today and are responding with their own money. Young children are emptying out piggy banks. They are responding in a way that is really quite phenomenal. Surely the minister has a responsibility to lead. Obviously the money is available because so much is spent on superfluous things. Will he take that case to his colleague?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am quite satisfied that the people of this province have shown their sensitivity and compassion in many ways. As the leader of the third party has reminded us all, they are doing so through many agencies and churches.

Perhaps I might be permitted to say that I am somewhat offended by the preamble to the supplementary question. The Leader of the Opposition takes one item out of the hospitality activities of this government to try to suggest that, because of it, there is something with respect to priorities.

I cannot understand how anyone would feel there are any partisan marks to be made by such a comment. As Canadians, the people of this country and this province have always been involved in this sort of thing, and we will be doing our share as we have in the past.

[Later]

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is in the House, I would like to repeat to him the question I put to the Deputy Premier. It concerns whatever assistance the government of Ontario is going to give to agencies helping Ethiopian relief.

Does the minister not think it would be an imaginative and effective approach to encourage the people of the province to continue giving by saying to them, "The Ontario government will match whatever you are prepared to contribute"? Would that not be an effective way not only to encourage people to give but also to ensure that the giving will continue and that the stake of both the people and the government of this province in aiding the people of Ethiopia, and indeed other regions affected by the famine, will be well known and effective? Would that not be an effective way to do it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have just been reviewing the Hansard reports of some of the exchanges that took place. As I mentioned to the House about a week ago, we have been working with the Red Cross this week to see in what way we can be helpful through the Red Cross. In the matter of the famine in Africa, and I read some of the exchanges, particularly involving the Leader of the Opposition, and I would like to quote to him a press release issued by the Ontario division of the Canadian Red Cross on November 5. Today is November 16. This press release says:

"The Ontario division of the Canadian Red Cross Society announced today that it has been discussing with the department of intergovernmental affairs how best to channel Ontario government assistance to help relief efforts in Ethiopia.

"'We are in constant communication with the Ontario government about emergent disasters everywhere in the world,' says Sybil Geller, Red Cross president for Ontario.

"'In fact last year -- well before the media drew the attention of the world to the victims of the Sahel drought -- the Ontario government donated $50,000 to the Red Cross for its development work, a departure from their normal donation criteria. They made this exception just because the situation in Africa was growing worse by the day.'"

I would like to draw that to my friend's attention. That was a release issued by the Red Cross about 10 days ago. We are working with the Red Cross now, and our policy will be announced very shortly. As of now, our feeling is that we will work through the Ontario division of the Canadian Red Cross and direct whatever help is needed there through that agency.

SOCIAL WORKERS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to the strike that is currently taking place involving social workers, counsellors and instructors who work for the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded in group homes, training centres and sheltered workshops. It is now affecting some 3,000 developmentally handicapped clients, as I understand it.

I want to ask the minister a simple question. The final management offer that precipitated the strike involved a wage freeze for current staff and a seven per cent pay cut in the wage scale for all future employees by eliminating the wage grid. Does the minister think that was a fair or a rational offer for management to make to its employees?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I must say that is the most flattering question that has ever been asked me. The member obviously thinks I am young, naive and dumb enough to be sucker-punched all over the place by getting into an unfair labour practice.

There is a legal strike in progress between a local of the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded. What the member has asked me to do would break every labour law of this province.

Mr. McClellan: Nice skating. It is ministry policy, as I understand it, that the government has instructed the management of MTAMR to hold the line on its base budget, and that has the effect of making the minister a party to the dispute. Whether he likes it or not, he is a party to the dispute and is just as involved in the negotiations as the management that has put this preposterous offer on the table and precipitated this dangerous strike.

Since the minister has complete and total control of the purse strings, what action does he intend to take to sit down with the management of the MTAMR as quickly as possible to try to work out a sensible offer that can be used to get negotiations back under way, so there can be a sensible and rational ending of this ridiculous strike?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Naive and simple as I am, I am not going to be trapped in a situation where I take sides in a bona fide labour dispute. I do not understand how a member of this House can ask me to sit down with management and frame an offer. I think the Canadian Union of Public Employees would be heading for the Ontario Labour Relations Board almost instantly.

I am not in control of the management of the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded. However, my ministry is closely watching this strike, particularly because most of the employees are in a direct care relationship with the developmentally handicapped. I can assure this Legislature that my ministry -- I emphasize "my ministry" -- will use all of its good offices to promote fair collective bargaining between the two parties. At this point, I am very hopeful that the two sides, because of the very great issue involved, which is the care of the retarded, might be willing to go back to the bargaining table and sit down and work out an agreement that is satisfactory to both as rapidly as possible.

Indeed, before the next question is asked, if, in the view of the ministry, or in the view of other experts it was felt to be of value, I would be very glad to call upon my friend and colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), with perhaps a professional from his ministry who might want to become involved.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, as part of the ministry's involvement in the matter, given that the level of financial support the Metro association is able to enjoy comes mainly from his ministry, has this strike and the offer that has been made caused the minister and the ministry to review the level of financial support to the Metro association?

Can the minister assure the House that there are no problems with respect to supervision and staffing of the various homes in the community? Finally, can he report on what is happening with respect to the workshops? Will they remain closed for the duration of the labour dispute?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, just to address the first point, the budget for the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded was struck some time ago. I think both sides knew what the budget was. Both sides are aware of collective agreements in the past. Therefore, I do not think it would be either fair or proper for the ministry to suddenly start interfering with the bargaining process by altering the budgetary formulas.

Second, to be realistic with respect to the level of care being provided for the developmentally handicapped, I suppose it depends upon what the member means by "problems." I take it he means severe problems. We are monitoring the situation constantly and it is our view that, as of this time, no client is at risk. I think that is what the member was asking. Any reasonable person would agree they are not getting the level of service they had prior to the labour dispute, nor could they be expected to, but they are not at risk.

With respect to the workshops, the answer is yes.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware of the 167-page report by Woods Gordon Management Consultants, the existence of which was referred to in the Globe and Mail this morning, in which concern was expressed about the management effectiveness of the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded.

10:30 a.m.

It would now appear that the offer made by the association is a direct consequence of at least some of the practices that have been criticized in the report by Woods Gordon. Given this fact, does the minister not feel his ministry has some overall responsibility for the kind of offer the association is able to make in this instance? Does he think it fair that the clients, as well as the social workers involved, are now being asked to pay for the mistakes management appears to have made over the past few years?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first, the report that is publicized so widely in the Globe and Mail this morning is seven months old. Second, a great many corrections have been made and were taken into account in the budgetary process. I suppose the most basic is that there is a new executive director. I do not think that report had very much to do with the offer or the present impasse.

Seeing how impartially I am always treated by various boards in this province, I want to make it very plain on the record that I am not talking about the labour dispute. I do not think it would be proper nor do I think it would be conducive to a settlement for the ministry to become involved and to dictate the terms of any proposed settlement or any labour agreement. Once again, I am not talking about any labour dispute.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, which I indicated to him I would be asking this morning. It concerns lead pollution, particularly by Dupont Canada in Maitland and the Ethyl Canada plant near Sarnia.

Is the minister aware that Ethyl put 26 tons of lead into the St. Clair River in 1982 and Dupont put eight tons into the St. Lawrence River in the same year, and that they are discharging lead into the Great Lakes system at levels that are almost twice the ministry's guidelines? What steps is the minister taking today to ensure this stops?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the honourable leader of the third party is absolutely correct in the figures he is using. Both the Dupont plant in Maitland and the Ethyl plant in the county of Lambton -- immediately adjacent to a riding that is of specific interest to the Minister of the Environment, I might add -- have been discharging lead into the natural environment, and particularly into the Great Lakes, at excessive levels.

There are some difficulties with respect to the operations of both of those plants and my staff have been working very actively with both of these companies in an attempt to develop the necessary technology to reduce the present discharge of tetraethyllead into the Great Lakes system, in one instance into the St. Clair River and in the other instance, relative to the Dupont operation, into the St. Lawrence River.

I have to share with the member some difficulties I have in this respect. At present, the technology required in order to abate that problem, or minimize or control it, is simply not in existence anywhere in the world. Both these plants have, at considerable capital expense, invested in new pollution abatement control equipment. I want to assure the member it is not that they have stood idly by and ignored the problem, but they have not as yet met the standards or objectives that have been established by my ministry.

I want to give the leader of the third party the assurance that we will continue to work on that problem. We are concerned about it. The alternatives at this point, quite frankly, are either to shut the plants down or to work with the plants to develop a technology that is acceptable from an environmental standpoint.

Mr. Rae: I have a report here, which I expect the minister has seen, from Environment Canada. It states: "Levels of alkyllead compounds in fish muscle were equivalent to levels in gutted carcass. Therefore, alkyllead contaminated fish could pose a risk of lead poisoning to fish consumers.

The reports goes on to say: "The concentrations of total lead in the blood and the gutted carcass of fish sampled near the sources are the highest ever reported."

Can the minister explain why, when New York state has issued a warning on the basis of Environment Canada's studies, a strong health advisory warning advising fishermen not to eat more than one meal of fish per month of any species caught in the St. Lawrence River near Maitland, the minister's own little green book that came out contains no such warning and no such advice to people with respect to the dangers of eating fish that are found near both these plants?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Part of the reason is that standards used differ in the various jurisdictions. New York state looks with some envy, I might add, on the green book that the member just held up. It has indicated to us on a number of occasions that it would like to have a similar type of information booklet available to the fishermen, both recreational and commercial, in its area.

In connection with the lead problem as it relates to the fish in the immediate vicinity of Maitland, there has been a problem there. We are monitoring it on a regular basis but my staff, who have the same standard of scientific credentials as the staffs in New York state, have not indicated it is a problem that at this time would require the suspension of the eating of these fish.

Thankfully, the problem at the Ethyl corporation outlet is not nearly as severe at this time, but we are not satisfied with the results we are getting. We want to bring those lead levels down to a more acceptable level and to meet the objectives and the standards we have established. We intend doing that.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not ashamed that we have to have a green book to tell us which fish are safe to eat? It seems to me that would be comparable to having a street guide to say one could walk on Yonge Street at certain hours of the day but not at other times because of danger to one's safety.

Is he specifically aware that there is an alternative to this problem of using lead to lower the octane rating of fuel? It is being pursued in the United States quite vigorously. That is the matter of using alcohol as a suppressant to lower the octane rating. It is not being used as an extender of fuel; it is being used to control the octane rating.

Has the minister made any move to introduce such a system into Canada and do away with the use of lead?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows full well, there are a number of substitutes for tetraethyllead that could be used as an additive for gasoline in addition to the one he has mentioned. I want to share my concern with the member. It is that some of those substitutes could well be far more environmentally harmful than tetraethyllead.

This government has gone on record as being in favour of a reduction in lead levels to approximately those that are now in place in the United States.

Mr. Elston: If it is in favour of it, let us get the lead out.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That is something the member's party ought to think about on occasion, getting the lead out.

Mr. Elston: We would do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I have provoked them now.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Why did you have to wake them up?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am sorry, I did not mean to do that.

I want to say that the responsibility for the reduction of lead as an additive in gasoline is a federal responsibility. We have had some input into that question. I say to the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), I am talking about the former federal government. As he well knows, the former government was the one that initiated the whole study on lead-level reductions.

I will stop at this point, Mr. Speaker. I was going to go on to speak about the green book. If you will give me the time, I would be happy to answer that question as well.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Rae: Yes, it is the federal government's responsibility but the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton), when he was Minister of the Environment, wrote to the federal government saying it was the position of the Ontario government that it did not want to change the regulations with respect to the use of lead in gasoline. That was the position the Ontario government expressed. It did not want to see any change with respect to the use of lead in gas.

We note from the Sarnia Observer of April 1983 that the minister was quoted as saying to the cabinet committee on resources development that he wanted more studies to be done before any changes were implemented. That is the position of the Ontario government. Let us not pretend that the Ontario government has not taken a position.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I will get back to this basic question: Why is it that in New York state they have used the information that came from Environment Canada to state very explicitly that there is a problem and a danger. They have referred to the World Health Organization standards and so on. Why have they done something with respect to their fishermen and anglers that the minister is not prepared to do for the people of Ontario? Can he explain that?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I think the preamble to the question demands a response. The leader of the third party has indicated that my position, as reported in my local newspaper, was that this government was not in favour of the reduction of lead. He is incorrect in making that statement.

This government has taken a position opposite to that of Environment Canada. We have indicated that a reduction in lead levels in gasoline is very consistent with the policy of this government. What I have said and what this government has said is that before there is a complete and total removal of all lead in gasoline, there should be further study to determine whether that is in the best interests of all our citizens, recognizing that lead in gasoline is used, and his party is always so concerned about these people, by people who drive older cars, who are in a relatively lower economic position and who, therefore, require the lead to continue to operate their automobiles.

It is also a fact that lead in gasoline is used for certain types of small motors such as saws, power mowers and those kinds of things. If we are going to remove lead from gasoline totally and completely, we must find a substitute. I only suggest to the member our search to find that substitute, as the industry is now doing, has to give us the assurance that it is going to be environmentally safe in every respect.

I will look into the second part of the question relative to why my ministry has not reacted to the problem of the lead standards.

I want to assure the leader of the third party that we published that booklet with the specific purpose of letting people know the safe level of fish taken in the waters of Ontario. I am completely convinced we are publishing an accurate report at this time.

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Deputy Premier concerning the neutrality and impartiality of our provincial public service.

The Deputy Premier will be aware that the Ontario Manual of Administration contains a very specific prohibition against any activity by a crown employee in partisan politics. I read, for example, a section of the Manual of Administration that says, "Except during a leave of absence granted to be a candidate in a provincial or federal election, a crown employee shall not...solicit funds for a provincial or federal political party or candidate; or associate his/her position in the service of the crown with any political party."

Given that policy of the government, can the Deputy Premier explain how Mrs. Tessie Jew, now a nominated provincial Progressive Conservative candidate, has in recent weeks (a) been helping to raise funds in a public way for Brian Mulroney, (b) been actively and publicly campaigning for the federal Progressive Conservative candidate in the federal riding of Parkdale-High Park, and (c) announcing and taking considerable credit for public policies of this provincial government? Can the minister explain how that is not in all ways an explicit violation of the Ontario Manual of Administration?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot give any explanation to the honourable member. Perhaps it will be sufficient to take the question as notice, since all the information he has shared with us is spelled out in Hansard. I will refer the matter to the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) and have him report back at the first of the week.

Mr. Conway: I am quite happy to share the information with the Deputy Premier because Mrs. Jew has been very active and very public in her countless partisan activities.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Given this government's past record of harassment, and I think of our friend from Hamilton Mountain who got no benefit of the doubt from this Tory government nine years ago, would the Deputy Premier also take into consideration the recent injunction of the Premier that there be a very strict application of the public policies as set out in the Public Service Act and the Ontario Manual of Administration. According to the Premier, these policies should apply not only to the four horsemen of this leadership race, but also to people such as Lou Parsons and Tessie Jew who, by dint of their ongoing public and partisan activities, make a joke of the notion that we have in Ontario an impartial and neutral public service.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will be very happy to include the supplementary question as part of the review and report back next week.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Premier not feel this kind of incident with respect to the activities of an individual civil servant that can be dragged up at any time raises the fundamental question of what precisely is wrong as long as these activities do not interfere with the civil servant carrying out the responsibilities of his or her particular job? What is wrong with an individual public servant being able to participate in the political process?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I assume the motivation behind the introduction of such legislation in the first place was to ensure a high degree of objectivity as far as the public service was concerned. If we think in terms of the thousands of public servants and there happens to be one exception, that would be one of 50,000, which hardly makes for a stampede of violations of rules and regulations.

In the spirit of the question period today, I think the deputy leader of the opposition is entitled to some explanation. I will get that for him for next week.

PORK EXPORTS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food is aware of the recent threat from the pork producers in the United States. They are initiating action to have penalties imposed against the import of pork and hogs into the United States.

The minister must be aware of the devastation this would cause the hog producers in this nation and in Ontario if it is upheld. We export more than half a billion dollars worth of pork and hogs to the United States. What is the minister going to do, directly or indirectly through the federal government, to head off this proposed devastating effect on our hog producers?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the honourable member raised the question because it is an important one. We have already been working very closely with the Canadian Pork Council and with the government of Canada to answer these claims. As I recall, there were some hearings in late September in Iowa on this subject. I think the Canadian Pork Council and the federal officials who attended that meeting made some very effective representations.

Notwithstanding that, a number of American pork producers have been able to use the political process in the United States to take the matter one step further. A hearing is going to be held into the question of whether the federal Agricultural Stabilization Act and the payments made thereunder to hog producers constitute a subsidy of hog and pork prices.

Our position, particularly because the Agricultural Stabilization Act is at less than current market prices --

Mr. McGuigan: Retrospective.

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Thank you very much. It is retrospective. It is not a guaranteed income, let alone a subsidy above market price.

Our position is that these allegations are unfounded. I can assure the honourable member, particularly because the hog industry is so important to this province, that we will continue to assist the pork council and the federal government in any way we can to arm them with all the facts and figures they need to refute these unfounded allegations.

Mr. Swart: The minister has already stated the alleged reason the action has been brought by the hog producers in the United States, but I am sure the minister can assure them he is pure. Certainly in this province he has not done a single, solitary thing to help the pork producers, not a dollar of subsidy.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: He did not mention that a hearing is being held before the United States International Trade Commission 10 days from today on November 26. Is his ministry going to be represented there? Will the minister present a strong case on behalf of the hog producers of this nation, and particularly of this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, I did refer to an upcoming meeting; I did not mention the date or the name of the commission, but I did refer to it. Canada will be represented at that meeting. I understand, by the federal government and by the national producers' organization. The individual provinces will not be represented; we will feed all our information through the federal government.

While I am on my feet I think I should point out to the member that, as he is well aware, we do have a stabilization program in this province for the sow-weaner industry that is complementary to the federal stabilization program.

Finally, if this government had accepted the position that the member for Welland-Thorold and his leader advanced about six or eight months ago when they called for $3 million to $4 million a week in subsidies to the red meat industry, we would lose the case before the American commission.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation between Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan that we hear so much about, what could possibly be the reason the American government now wants to ban or limit the export of our good quality pork? There was a time when we had a government that protected Canada's interests.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: What year was that?

Mr. Rae: Was that with Trudeau?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the question very clearly.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all I take it the honourable member is referring to the former federal government, which would not follow our advice and protect the domestic tomato industry by taking action against subsidized imports, the same federal government that would not take our advice and take action against subsidized imports of wine and would not take our advice and act against subsidized imports of beef.

PCB DESTRUCTION FACILITIES

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Peterson: Larry feels very strongly about the farmers.

Mr. Kennedy: Settle down there until I get my question.

Would the Minister of the Environment give us an update on the hearings into the destruction of polychlorinated biphenyls by the proposed mobile units? Does he feel this technology is going to work? In particular, how does he feel about the hearings? Is he encouraged by them at this point? Can he give us a general outline of that?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question raised by the honourable member. The hearings are going very well. There have been nine meetings in various Ontario communities where large quantities of polychlorinated biphenyls are located, and the actual hearings are currently under way in Toronto. The hearing panel is required to report back to me 60 days after the conclusion of those hearings.

In municipalities like Mississauga, where some PCBs are located, we have had extensive discussions with the staff and some of the local representatives about the problem of destroying PCBs.

We have every assurance that we have technology today that can very safely and adequately dispose of this particular contaminant in our environment, and I want to assure the member that the process of the hearings is to give the local communities, such as Mississauga, this type of assurance so they know we are proceeding in a very safe and orderly fashion and that the community will have an adequate opportunity for input.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I might add as well that we have taken an unprecedented step -- this is one final point, if I might.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure it is, but maybe it will be asked in the supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I hope so.

Mr. Kennedy: Part of the supplementary is to ask the minister if he would give us this extra point he was just going to mention.

When does the minister feel the hearings will conclude and in particular, when will the report be ready? Is he satisfied that this technology is going to be the answer?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: There are a number of different technologies that could be applied, and we are looking at them in the context of the whole question through the hearing process. One of those technologies is high incineration of PCBs; the plasma arc is another type of technology that could be used, and there are applications of a chemical mix that can be used at very low levels of contamination of PCBs. So there are three that I mention to the member now, all of which could be applicable in this particular case.

The point I wanted to mention during the course of my first answer, which the member so graciously raised in his supplementary, is the fact that in this particular instance we have moved in a rather unusual way. We have provided to those individuals and organizations that wish to make representations before the hearing panel an amount of $50,000 for intervener funding. It is a first step in the direction of making sure the community has adequate resources to have its case heard very well and responded to fairly and equitably by the hearing panel and by my ministry.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just indicated this is great, that $50,000 has been given out. But how does he account for the fact that Mr. Starkman, who appeared as a representative of five groups from London, Ontario, says that the whole process is a farce? As a representative of five groups he cannot call expert witnesses, first, because he does not have enough money; and second, because he cannot pay for someone to stay there all day.

Here comes my question: there are at least seven groups in the west end of Toronto. Four have made application for funding to this minister and none have received any money. Does the minister know who got the money? A group that is tied in with the city council of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are supposed to ask the questions, not answer them.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I thought the answer he gave to his own question was of low quality. Of course, the question was not of particularly high quality either, but we have come to expect that, I might add.

With respect to the applications that have been made -- he says to my ministry -- for the intervener funding, I have personally not made one decision with respect to who gets the money. That decision is made by the hearing panel and not by me.

Second, the hearing panel has established, I think, very sensible criteria. The member opposite will have difficulty understanding them, I know, but the hearing panel has established very sensible criteria with respect to the need to hear a broad cross-section of community input on this issue. It is therefore attempting to avoid duplication of input, so it is not going to be providing intervener funding to two or three or more groups that are essentially representing the same focused viewpoint from the community. I think even this member should be able to understand that.

11 a.m.

ACTIVITIES OF POLICE

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Justice. It concerns Mr. Baker from Hamilton. It is a question we have asked of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), and I think this time we should address the question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

Several months ago, a colleague of mine, Sheila Copps, the then member for Hamilton Centre, asked in this House whether compensation would be available to Mr. Baker as a result of allegations of mistreatment in the prying loose from him of a confession to a murder charge. Will the minister tell us whether he has come up with a policy for the compensation of victims, and in this particular case for Mr. Baker, to compensate him for the costs that have been incurred by legal aid and by his father in defending him at trial? Can the minister give us that assurance this morning?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the assurance that the policy will be revealed at this moment by me. I can say, as the Attorney General indicated before the committee, that within his ministry a policy was being prepared with respect to the issue that has been raised, similar to this one, although related to another matter. In the light of current matters going on before the courts, he was not prepared to reveal that.

It would be inappropriate for that to be revealed until such time as the commission's report has been received. It will have to await that report. That is the Attorney General's domain, and I presume he will be providing it in due course, once the commission's report is received. Perhaps it has some bearing on other cases as well, including the one the honourable member has raised, although at the moment I am not prepared to say that.

Mr. Elston: It seems to me that what happened after the great presentations by that gentleman when he was considering running for the leadership of the Conservative Party was that he has put a number of policy issues on the back burner for some time, and people like Mr. Baker and his father will have to wait several months, if not years, before that policy comes out.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: Can the minister tell us whether he will make available to the members of this Legislative Assembly the studies and consultations he is making at this time in relation to compensation of victims, such as Mr. Baker and others, for the legal expenses they have incurred as a result of wrongful acts being attributed to them?

Can the minister provide us with some evidence that he is actually moving in this field so people such as Mr. Baker can have some hope that they will get compensation or have access to it some time before they grow old and receive their old age security cheques?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The answer I gave before has to apply in this case. The Attorney General indicated very clearly to the committee what he is prepared to do. We have to await the commission's report. We are not going to reveal prematurely either the policy, the preparations for that policy or the papers prepared for consideration of that same policy. It would be inappropriate. I am sure the member would be the first person to assail the Attorney General for doing just such a thing.

I should indicate that the subject is one the provincial ministers responsible for justice will be discussing in St. John's, Newfoundland, next week. I will be attending that conference, and the matter the member is raising will be part of our discussion process.

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: My friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and I have often noted the time at which the television cameras leave. During today's question period, the first camera did not leave until there was about six and a half minutes left in the question period, and at the end of the question we still had cameras in the House. Some progress has been made.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Leluk moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, first reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my earlier statement and for the benefit of those members who were not present for that statement, the bill is required for the extension of the Young Offenders Act, Canada, to 16- and 17-year-olds in Ontario, which will take place on April 1, 1985. It also deals with 16- and 17-year-olds who are detained before trial or sentenced to terms of imprisonment under the Provincial Offences Act.

11:10 a.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PREMIER (CONTINUED)

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased to be able to join once again this year in the debate on the estimates of the Deputy Premier and, more important, the Minister responsible for Women's Issues.

Before I offer some opening comments by way of my party's positions on the matters affecting the women of Ontario, I want to respond briefly to some aspects of the minister's remarks.

Two weeks ago, a member of my staff requested the latest figures on the status of women crown employees from the women crown employees office. We were advised that the 1983-84 report would not be released for at least one month and that the figures were not available until that report was released.

It was thus with great interest that I noticed the minister used 1983-84 figures in his opening statement; at least I assume the figures he quoted were 1983-84 figures about women crown employees, because they were not the same as those figures listed in the 1982-83 report.

Since my friend the minister apparently has the most recent statistics, it would appear the report is finished, and I and my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), I am sure, would appreciate it if the minister could provide for us, perhaps on Monday, the kind of equal opportunity that those of us on this side need to do our work during these estimates. I ask him to get us a copy of the 1983-84 figures on women crown employees.

There are a number of other things I want to touch on in the minister's opening remarks.

I thought it was very significant that in his 37 minutes of opening remarks and many pages encompassing many topics, there was no mention at all, not one word, of equal pay, of Bill 141, which has been before this House for many months, or of the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. When this government puts something on the back burner, it puts it on the back burner. I am afraid I must tell my friend he is going to have to mention it at some time during the estimates, because I suspect there may be a few questions on it.

I also want to comment briefly on the minister's remarks on affirmative action. The minister takes pride in the fact that in the decade between 1974 and 1984, the number of women in Ontario's public service increased by four per cent, standing today at slightly more than 42 per cent. What is interesting is that in the same period, the number of women in the entire Ontario work force increased by seven per cent and is now at 43.1 per cent, a full percentage point ahead of Ontario's public service sector force.

As well, I noted that although Ontario has met its goal of a 30 per cent female staff in the administrative module, and the government holds that out as a great accomplishment, it has not yet met it in individual categories. I note as well the minister's remarks, and I just want to help him by making sure we put them on the record: "Women comprise only eight per cent of the Ontario government's executives, and there are six categories under the administrative module where women comprise less than 18 per cent of the staff." That is a matter the government should be attending to.

With respect to affirmative action in the sectors outside the purview of the government itself, according to the staff of the women's directorate not all of the 258 companies which the minister listed as involved in the voluntary affirmative action program actually have formal affirmative action programs; some have merely expressed support for the idea. The women's directorate has no listing of how many companies have what kind of programs and, frankly, the 258 becomes more a number than anything else.

With regard to the aspect of income support, while the problems of women that result in low pensions are mentioned -- for example, part-time employees and low salaries -- I noted very few solutions to the problems are mentioned in the minister's speech. I could not find any record in Hansard of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) introducing pension reform proposals in April, as the minister seemed to suggest, probably because he did not. Indeed, those few proposals that were mentioned by the minister match what the Women's Perspective Advisory Committee proposed to our caucus and was approved by our caucus some time ago in terms of pension reform.

Finally, turning very briefly to the matter of family violence, I would be wrong not to congratulate the government for some initiatives in this area, because it is the one area where it deserves the most congratulations. However, I despair at the continued failure of this government to initiate block funding for transition houses instead of constantly creating emergency operating funds. The short-term emergency has long since passed. The directorate has had a chance to review in a very meaningful way, over a period of time, the future of transition houses and we should be getting on with the job of putting permanent funding in place.

I also want to suggest that while the victim assistance program is a good idea, it is very close to what the victim advocacy clinics were doing. If it is, I am not sure why the government cut funding to Hiatus House in my own community, for example, when it was already doing a job which the government now wants to give to another agency. In fact, I can say to my friend that my own review of what has been going on since the funding to the complaints support program was cut in the late spring indicates matters are not proceeding as smoothly or anywhere near as well as they were before the cutbacks came.

I am particularly pleased we will have an adequate amount of time this year to explore with the minister the actions and initiatives of this government and to examine where these initiatives are failing to meet the legitimate needs of the women of Ontario to play their full role in the life of this province.

I suspect the great debate on women's issues during the recent federal election campaign represented for many of the people of Ontario, indeed for many people of Canada, an exercise in consciousness-raising. For them, it represented a first exposure to the host of economic and social issues which face the women of this country and this province and which, until they are more nearly resolved, will prevent these women from playing a full role in the continued development of the nation.

I hope such a debate will be held in the provincial election campaign next year. Indeed, I will be watching closely as the candidates for the Premier's chair discuss the issues in the next two and a half months. I suspect, however, that the important questions we will be raising in the next few hours, questions that were also raised during the debate in late August, somehow will very much take a back seat during the upcoming Tory leadership campaign. Indeed, I note with some sadness that the unexpected has already begun to happen; I have read nary a word on the matter of women's issues thus far.

If I am correct, it will simply be one more indication that the government views the resolution of these problems as being somehow more trivial and unimportant than many of the other matters that affect this province. We in the official opposition reject that argument. We believe the issues that will be raised in the next few hours are crucial not just to the women of Ontario but also to the development of this province as a whole.

With those preliminary comments, may I suggest to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) that I was tempted simply to reread my opening statement of last year, update a few figures and leave it at that. For in the past 12 months, despite all the rhetorical flourish that accompanied the Deputy Premier's opening remarks, precious little has happened to improve the social and economic quality of life for the women of Ontario. It is those issues which I will address in the remainder of my opening statement. It is those issues which I hope the Deputy Premier will address more fully as questioning proceeds in his estimates in the next week or so.

Last month, the minister distributed copies of a report by Touche Ross and Partners which he commissioned and which was delivered to him in December 1983. In releasing it, the minister indicated he would await with interest the comments of the opposition critics on the recommendations of the report as they pertain to the Ontario Status of Women Council and the Ontario women's directorate. For the next couple of minutes, I would like to take up that challenge and make a few comments on the document and the directions it proposes. Most of those comments will be targeted at the advisory council, although some will deal with the overlapping responsibilities of the women's directorate.

11:20 a.m.

At the outset, I am disappointed it took so long, almost 10 months, to release the report, particularly in view of its quality. With respect, I am not sure this minister and this government got much value for their money.

As I read it, the report for the most part tells us what we already knew in terms of organizational structure and direction. However, when it came to the crucial issues, I believe the recommendations fly in the face of the facts that were presented in that same report. Let me also suggest that there appears to be some sloppiness. I would like to offer two examples that occurred during the discussion of remuneration on page 15.

First, having proposed a president and a vice-president, the report proposes certain per diems for a chairman and a vice-chairman, whoever they might be. Some might view that as a small error, but it seems to me it says a lot about the quality of the report as a whole when a document would so easily interchange the titles of the two most important individuals on the advisory council to the Minister responsible for Women's Issues.

There is a second example of the same thing on the same issue. In discussing the level of remuneration, the report suggests that the present per diems should be substantially increased because they are, to quote the report, "apparently lower than many other advisory councils."

Apparently lower? Does the author not know whether the information given by those interviewed is correct or not? Surely it would have been a simple enough matter to check out the comparable rates paid to the head of the Ontario Status of Women Council and some comparable person. "Apparently lower" does not suggest to me that a great deal of factual research went on. These sloppy mistakes make one wonder about the quality of the report as a whole.

Against that backdrop, I want to examine the key recommendation of the report on the advisory council, as I see it. That is the recommendation that the council president continue to be a position filled only on a part-time basis, specifically two or three days a week.

As an aside, one also wonders at the suggestion that a commitment of 20 to 25 days a year for a council member would be sufficient to fulfil the role of membership and the duties and responsibilities that have been outlined in the brief, such as helping set council priorities, sharing committees on task forces, reviewing recommendations and speaking for the council when delegated by the president. The list goes on and on.

If so much is asked of council members for a minimum potential commitment of 20 to 25 days a year, then the council president is literally viewed as some kind of superperson for her two to three days a week.

Most distressing, however, is the varying mandates of those involved as outlined in the report and the inadequate resources then proposed to fulfil those mandates.

Let me quote from the report, on page 1: "The appointment of a minister and the establishment of the directorate has changed substantially the structure for identifying and responding to women's issues. The minister now provides the key policy and political focal point; the directorate develops and co-ordinates policy and program initiatives, providing the major government advice to the minister; the status of women council gives independent and external advice, presenting the view of women and the public."

Having set out that direction, the report, almost incredibly, then proposes a role for the president that is so limited in the amount of time devoted to the job that this individual and this council can hardly hope to play their part in the three-way balance envisaged in the introduction quoted above.

No one is suggesting that the council and the directorate be balanced in terms of resources and personnel, but the imbalance in this case has been and will continue to be unacceptably large.

The report also raises a number of other issues I would like to comment on briefly, and perhaps discuss as we get further into the estimates.

I have some real concerns about the recommendation that the executive director of the women's directorate should sit on the advisory council as an ex officio member. While the object is obviously to provide some additional two-way communication, I am concerned that the very presence of a government bureaucrat could be inhibiting to the independent advisory organization.

My concern is not alleviated by the whole tone of the report, which repeatedly seems to forget that the advisory council is absolutely useless if not totally independent, and then catches itself and returns to the theme of independence.

Let me quote from page 26 by way of example: "While it is essential that the council maintain its independence from government, it must also work co-operatively with the directorate in appropriate areas. It is essential that the minister, the president of the council and the executive director share information on a regular basis as to the issues that have been identified and the priority issues which are to be addressed by each group."

While I applaud the need to work cooperatively, it seems to me that the necessary independence of the council has not been adequately stated as a fact of life, whether or not the priorities can be set in co-operation with the government.

Perhaps I am quibbling, but I think not. I think it is a very important aspect of the very mandate of the council. My concern is to protect the integrity and the independence of the council from a directorate that I would suggest to the minister most humbly is more than a shade too political for my liking. Perhaps we can get into the political nature of the directorate during the debate on the appropriate votes, since it is a very real concern that I want to raise with the minister.

In May of this year, the Deputy Premier spoke to the third annual federal, provincial and territorial meeting of ministers responsible for the status of women. At that meeting, as is his nature, the minister waxed eloquent about the need for a new vision in the field of child care. A new vision, we agree with the minister, is a necessity; indeed, it must be a priority for any government that truly intends to deal with the lack of economic and social equality for half the population of this province.

In his speech, the minister had this ringing declaration:

"I would argue that we are entering a new era in terms of the provision and financing of child care. Child care is no longer a welfare issue concerning only the needy. It is as well an employment and economic issue concerning all working parents of all income levels. Either we take the action required to ensure the provision of a range of reliable child care services at an affordable price, or we risk losing many of the gains women have won and endangering the economic independence of families. We must rethink our attitudes towards child care and public involvement in supporting families if we are to really address the problems facing working parents today."

Those brave words, those bold phrases almost lead one to believe that this province is doing something about the crisis in child care. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Very little is happening at the provincial level to address the abject failure of this government to bring the provision of child care into the 1980s. In fact, the activities of the standing committee on social development, which spent the month of September holding hearings on the Day Nurseries Act, took place on the initiative of the committee itself and not on that of the government.

I am not surprised, given the information that has been provided to us, that this government is apparently in no great hurry to see our recommendations, because if it is, no one is suggesting that we get on with the job. I am sure this minister, his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and the cabinet as a whole know they will be more than slightly embarrassed when the report of the committee is finally made public. How could they fail to be?

Let me provide a few examples of why it is nothing short of scandalous that there are fewer than 90,000 formal licensed day care spaces.

According to information from the Ministry of Community and Social Services itself, the participation rate of women of child-bearing age in the work force grew from 49 per cent in 1971 to 72 per cent in 1981; today it is even higher. The number of sole-support mothers on family benefits rose by 72 per cent in the 11 years from 1973 to 1984. Finally, the recent Ministry of Agriculture and Food study on women in rural life provided the startling statistic that one out of every two women must work off the farm to support the family income.

Ontario is so far behind in providing quality, accessible, affordable child care that it is hard to know where to begin.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: So far behind whom?

Mr. Wrye: So far behind where it ought to be. Listen and I will give you a little lesson in where you are far behind.

In fact, the government is apparently so staggered by the problem that it is doing next to nothing to alleviate any part of this crisis in the delivery of decent child care, and I hope the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) will read the report of the standing committee when it comes out. I think she will be startled by it.

I could spend the next half-hour citing the litany of this government's failure to come to grips with the crisis in child care. It is this government, this comfortable 41-year-old Tory regime, that must accept the major part of the blame for this crisis. Ontario could have acted; Ontario could have led the way. That we have failed to do so is our failure, and no amount of finger-pointing in other directions is going to alleviate that fact.

11:30 a.m.

As I said, the failure of this government to provide adequate child care is so all-encompassing that it is hard to know where to start. As well -- and I see one of my colleagues from committee present -- I do not wish to anticipate unfairly the report of the standing committee, so I will not outline in detail some of the solutions that I know the committee is prepared to propose. Let me look at the range of issues and the range of matters the committee found to be of crisis proportions.

1. The number of overall spaces is totally inadequate for 1984.

2. The backup in waiting lists for subsidized spaces is long and in some communities so long as to destroy any initiative a family or sole support parent might have for entering the work force.

3. There are huge gaps in the delivery of child care. In many parts of the province, urban areas as well, toddler and infant care spaces are virtually nonexistent.

4. The mix of child care spaces has totally failed to come to grips with the employment realities of 1984. In short, people no longer work from nine to five. They work all hours of the day and night. The need for extended hours in the provision of child care is desperate and urgent.

5. Rural child care provisions are a disgrace. Where child care spaces exist at all, they often exist miles and miles from the homes of women and families, necessitating long drives and, in the winter months, harrowing trips to and from the centre and to and from work. There has been little or no improvement in this area.

6. The encouragement of work place day care in appropriate settings has been minimal. Here at Queen's Park, in our own backyard, is proof of the government's failure to take advantage of providing work place day care where appropriate and thus freeing up hundreds of desperately needed spaces in the neighbourhoods of our cities for those people for whom work place child care would not be appropriate.

I have limited the list, but finally there are the child care workers. They are well-educated, committed, dedicated individuals who often work for near-poverty wages. How long must they continue to subsidize the system? How long can we expect them to continue a labour of love before this government and the federal government put systems in place to make child care affordable for its users without using the service providers as pawns in some drive towards affordability?

I could continue reciting in great detail the horror stories, particularly in the rural areas, which struck all of us. I am telling the Deputy Premier of a situation that has been neglected too long. I will leave some questions, reminding the minister of his words and not mine, "If we fail to act, we risk losing many of the gains women have won and endangering the economic independence of families." Our party finds such failure of leadership simply unacceptable.

In Ontario in 1983, there were almost two million women in the labour force. In fact, 43.1 per cent of all workers were women. Despite their large contribution to Ontario's economy, these women were not equal to their male counterparts. Women working full time earned, on average, only 63 per cent of what men earned working full time.

The average annual earnings of a woman working full time were $14,700; for a man, about $23,300. Only 23 per cent of the full-time working women earned more than $15,000, but 58.7 per cent of the full-time working men earned more than this amount. The average income of a female-headed family was $19,500. For a male-headed family it was $36,000, which is almost double.

Better education and positions do not guarantee women will achieve economic equality with men. A report issued by Labour Canada in early October noted the average income of women with university degrees is one third less than that of male university graduates.

In traditional female occupations, women earn about one third less than men in similar jobs. For example, men in clerical work earn an average of $7,000 a year more than women. In traditionally male jobs, women still earn significantly less than men. In 1981, female managers earned $17,500, or 56 per cent of the $31,100 male managers earned.

Quite obviously, women are being overtly discriminated against in Ontario's job market. They earn less than men, even when they work in male-dominated fields. They are less likely to gain entrance into these fields, but there are no barriers to men entering traditionally female jobs and earning better salaries.

There are a number of areas where the government can act to improve the lot of women in Ontario. In some of them the government is acting, but it is not doing enough. Action is needed in the areas of equal pay for work of equal value -- there is that word the minister found so difficult to say -- affirmative action, education and skills retraining, part-time employment, pensions, and benefits such as maternity leave. I look forward to the days to come when we can deal with some of the other aspects of Bill 141, when we might make some improvements in those areas.

I have already read a litany of statistics to show how poorly women are doing economically in comparison to men. For a variety of reasons, a wage gap exists between the sexes. There are two programs to close this wage gap that can and should be implemented. This government is on record as saying it supports these in principle. They are equal pay for work of equal value and affirmative action. The government has not said it favours mandatory affirmative action.

Equal pay for work of equal value is a concept whose time has come -- I have written "has come," but it arrived some time ago and the government is still trying to catch up. The women of Ontario are faced with the fact that no matter what job they get, they will earn roughly 37 per cent less than their male co-workers. Even promotions into managerial ranks in other male-dominated fields do not guarantee fair and equitable wages will be paid.

It was former Liberal MPP Margaret Campbell who first drew to the attention of the Legislature the concept of equal pay for work of equal value when in 1978 she introduced a private member's bill for the economic equality of women. A little over a year ago, members from all sides of the House stood in unanimous support for a resolution by my former colleague Sheila Copps that called for the principle of equal pay for work of equal value to be enshrined in the Employment Standards Act. Does the minister see what happened? Ms. Copps could not see any action on that issue here, so she went to Ottawa where action has been taken. We will see whether this government rolls that back too.

In 1982, Morley Gunderson prepared a report on equal pay for work of equal value for the Ministry of Labour. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) is fond of quoting from the Gunderson report when he is arguing against implementing equal value legislation; however, the report is not against equal value. It makes some positive statements on the use of equal value and some very negative statements on Ontario's present equal pay laws. Professor Gunderson found that a certain percentage of the present wage gap cannot and will not be eradicated by Ontario's present equal pay laws.

I quote from the 1982 Gunderson report: "Although a five to 10 per cent gap is not inconsequential, it does indicate the rather limited scope for equal pay for equal work legislation in closing the earnings gap because it is traditionally confined to comparisons within the same establishment and occupation. Also, the relatively small magnitude of wage discrimination highlights the larger relative importance of occupational segregation as a determinant of the overall earnings differential, which points to the large potential scope for fair employment legislation. It may also suggest a larger scope for affirmative action and equal pay for work of equal value legislation, since the former can reduce occupational segregation and the latter enables wage comparisons across more disparate occupational groups.

Professor Gunderson concluded that equal value legislation has a broader potential than conventional equal pay legislation, and it has many positive aspects. Again quoting from his report listing the values and benefits of equal value legislation:

"First, by broadening the scope of comparison across occupations it opens up the possibility of reducing the discrimination that results from occupational segregation, which was shown to be larger than the narrowly defined wage discrimination that is the purview of legislation on equal pay for equal work. Second, to the extent that it is accompanied by job evaluation techniques to assess equal value, it may reduce the gap indirectly, because the gap tends to be stronger in jobs with job evaluation schemes." He goes on to say:

"In that vein, legislating equal pay for work of equal value, like affirmative action and policies designed to improve the labour market options for females, can be regarded as additional policies in the 'arsenal of weapons,' along with more conventional policies like equal pay for equal work and equal employment opportunity legislation."

11:40 a.m.

On October 19 of this year Professor Gunderson released a new report on equal value legislation entitled Costing Equal Value Legislation in Ontario. By analysing awards given in Washington state, Quebec and the federal civil service as well as a variety of claims about just how many jobs are currently undervalued, he attempted to cost the full implementation of equal pay for work of equal value. His figures on the number of workers affected range from a low of 14,500, based on the same proportion of Ontario workers being affected as have been affected by the federal awards, to a high of just over one million, based on the same proportion of Ontario workers being affected as those affected in Washington state.

On the basis of those two sets of factors, Gunderson computed a series of total cost estimates ranging from a relatively low cost of $15 million in the federal-Ontario comparison to a high of $7.8 billion in the Ontario-Washington state comparison. My guess is that neither figure is correct and that some figure on the lower side of the average, once implemented, would probably be the correct figure over a period of time.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You still see the big gains to come from occupational desegregation.

Mr. Wrye: We will get to that next.

Of course, when faced with these high figures, the government and the press panicked and said that equal value was too expensive. Let us look at the matter objectively for a moment.

First we must consider the benefits that would come from equal value. Women workers are consumers and taxpayers. They not only take money from the economy in the form of wages, but they also put money back into it by buying and paying taxes. It seems to me that if we increase their wages, we also increase their spending power; and as they spend more, the economy improves. The logic is simple, perhaps overly simple, but it is also to a great extent accurate.

Second, let us look at where this money would come from. We live in a province that can afford to spend and appears to be committed to spending billions of dollars for a domed stadium that no one outside Metropolitan Toronto will ever use. We live in a province that can afford $650 million for an oil company that is now worth 60 per cent of that value, if that. We live in a province that can spend almost $1 billion on land banks, which have never been developed. We live in a province that can afford to spend, year in and year out, anywhere from $50 million to $70 million in self-congratulatory advertising. Very quickly -- and one could use other examples -- I have identified roughly $2 billion, money that could be used to stop discrimination against half our population and not just benefit a handful.

Since last October the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Labour have said on numerous occasions that the government still supports the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, and yet the ministers have always had an excuse for why it cannot be implemented. Last year it was that the economy was in poor shape and could not afford the cost; this year it is that the economy is recovering and cannot support the cost. Occasionally a government minister says the concept cannot be made workable in legislation, despite the fact that it is workable and very successful both at the federal level and in our sister province of Quebec.

I note that when the ministers speak so authoritatively on how unworkable equal value is, they never cite where they get their information. Perhaps the women's directorate or the Ontario Status of Women Council should take up Professor Gunderson's latest work and do a more detailed study aimed at implementing this matter on at least a pilot basis, if that is as bold as they wish to be, but moving us forward so we can get on with the job. Otherwise, it seems to me, we are looking at a government that is simply procrastinating.

We must then look at the real reasons for delay, because either you support a principle and act on it or you do not support it and therefore ignore it. You cannot be on both sides of the fence. The time has come for the Ontario government to decide on which side of the fence it is willing to fall on this issue. If the principle is unworkable, stand up and say so and let us get on with the job. We can fight in this arena and in others about whether or not the issue is unworkable.

The Ontario government must also stop sitting on the fence with regard to the issue of affirmative action. The Liberal caucus is on record as supporting a mandatory affirmative action program in the private sector for firms of more than 250 employees and in all public sector institutions with more than 100 employees. We have also proposed a measure of contract compliance.

The Ontario government talks a good line when it comes to affirmative action. The Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for Women's Issues has been at his eloquent best in his many speeches to many organizations on this matter. I should also give some credit to his seatmate, the Minister of Education. In April 1984, the Minister of Education told Ontario's first government-teacher conference that she would get tough with school boards that did not promote women teachers.

The Toronto Sun reported in June that the Minister responsible for Women's Issues had said the province was considering requiring firms doing business with Queen's Park to have affirmative action programs. Just last month at the Canadian Club -- and I am sure the minister can still almost quote the speech word for word -- he said: "We will not hesitate to put our program into legislation and make it mandatory for every company to adopt, if organizations do not recognize the wisdom of developing their own strategy without willing assistance. We are not going to wait too much longer for you to see the light, as it were."

On the other hand, last May, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, told a seminar of the Ontario division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, "You will not see the Ontario government jumping in and precipitously mandating affirmative action."

I find it interesting that, when talking to the Legislature or to interest groups, the government is all for tough affirmative action, yet when facing the business community some members of the government turn timid and are extremely anxious to suggest, "No, we will not be having mandatory affirmative action anywhere in the near future." There is not much balance between what the minister said in October and what the parliamentary assistant said earlier in the spring.

The statistics the minister used in his remarks a week and a half ago -- it seems so long since the minister's opening statement -- point out quite clearly that the voluntary affirmative action program is not working and probably will never work. Of the 897 largest firms the Ontario government has targeted for voluntary programs since 1975, only 28 per cent have signed up. That is 258 out of 897. Breaking that number down, only 30 per cent of the private companies, 46 per cent of the school boards, 37 per cent of the municipalities and 44 per cent of the universities have programs. None of the 78 hospitals or 16 crown agencies the government has targeted has established an affirmative action program.

To switch the figure around, 639 of Ontario's largest firms, those with 500 employees or more, do not have affirmative action programs. The average number of new programs over the last four years has been 23 per year. I am trying to give the government the benefit of the doubt since it has been talking the game about really believing in this for the last two or three years, certainly since I have been in this place. At that rate, it will take 28 years for the Ontario government to encourage all its targeted companies voluntarily to set up affirmative action programs. That is almost three more decades. To put it generously, that is not good enough.

11:50 a.m.

Obviously, the voluntary program is not working. The program cannot even get compliance from the public sector. Remember, no hospitals and no crown agencies have set up programs as yet. The record is dismal and it is time for the minister to see the light, admit the record is dismal and do something about this atrocious situation.

The government's own affirmative action program also needs some beef. As I mentioned earlier to the minister, I do not have the 1983-84 figures and I would appreciate it if I could get them. During this opening statement I will have to use 1982-83 figures and those will be the numbers I will be working from.

According to the 1982-83 women crown employees' report, 71 per cent of the women in Ontario's public service earned less than $21,000 and 75 per cent of the men earned more than that figure. The occupations in which women are well represented are all in what we call traditionally female jobs, clerical work and the like. Even in nontraditional categories, such as professional and technical modules, women are well represented in the more female jobs: home economics, library work, nursing, occupational and physical therapy, speech pathology, social work and support.

The occupational groups in which women are underrepresented are still the traditional male sectors: agriculture, skilled trades, architecture, dentistry, economics and statistics, drafting, engineering and the list goes on. Even in some of the more neutral categories, such as education or psychology, women are underrepresented. Only 51 of Ontario's top government executives are women; that is, 8.2 per cent of the total number. Only two deputy ministers and three assistant deputy ministers are women.

There is room for improvement in the government affirmative action program. It ought to be obvious to all of us that we cannot expect the private sector to be wildly enthusiastic about affirmative action if we ourselves are not setting a good and consistent across-the-board example. The minister has said that before. It is certainly one area where we in this party are in total agreement with him.

The government must step up its own efforts to improve the position of the women it employs. We are the trend setters and the trend we are setting is not terribly optimistic, particularly in the senior areas. We are finding right here in Ontario and within the government, as we have noted in the private sector, that where women are making improvements they are still being stalled at a middle managerial place.

Along with equal pay legislation and affirmative action programs, the education of women must be improved to increase their employment opportunities. New technology, particularly microtechnology, is having and will continue to have a profound effect on the tertiary sector of our economy. Since over 80 per cent of all the women employed in Canada are employed in the tertiary sector, this means that microtechnology will have a profound effect on the jobs of women.

Heather Menzies studied the effects of micro-technology on employment and found that employment, particularly women's employment, will be decreased as a result of microelectronics. The jobs that are being created by the new technology are primarily held by men, as they are in the professional and technical fields. The jobs that are being made redundant are primarily clerical and hence are held by women. Some sources predict that clerical jobs in Canada could drop by one third in the next decade.

Not only are the jobs held by women disappearing because of microtechnology, but the new technologies are making it difficult for women to move up in the job market, or even find new employment after being replaced by a computer at their old jobs.

In one case study done by Ms. Menzies, out of 130 clerical workers who were displaced by new technology, only two were able to advance to the professional ranks. When she studied a major insurance company, she found that overall employment remained stable while the clerical ranks shrank by half. Yet only one of the displaced clerical workers was promoted into the professional ranks while the remaining 100 were transferred to fill clerical openings in other departments.

There is a very real fear that a skills gap will develop between the female information handlers and the male managers and professionals. This gap between those workers who can handle the new office equipment and those who cannot has the potential to create an entire class of unemployables from within today's clerical staff.

The solutions to the problems caused by microtechnology are fairly simple, but they must be pursued with real vigour. Women must be trained and retrained in nontraditional fields. They must learn to work with the new technologies that are being developed. In this regard, the Ontario government has taken the first steps and I congratulate the minister for that initiative. In fact, I congratulate both ministers.

Young girls are no longer encouraged to drop math and science in high school, and new teaching techniques are being developed to ensure that women leave the school system with a solid background in these subjects. As I am well aware, the Ontario government also sponsors a number of programs designed to retrain women to work in nontraditional fields.

The critical training programs in this regard are the training in business and industry programs. TIBI I provides general occupational skills training, TIBI II expands the skills development of advanced technology industries and occupations and averts layoffs through expanded retraining of employees whose skills have been made redundant by change or technology and TIBI III provides training in specific high-level computer skills.

Women's participation in the TIBI programs is not only low in general, but it decreases as the programs get more technical. In 1982-83 women made up 36 per cent of the trainees in TIBI I and they made up almost 40 per cent of the 1983-84 trainees. Women were almost 19 per cent of the 1982-83 TIBI II trainees, but the figure dropped to under 15 per cent in 1983-84. Women's participation in TIBI III was 28 per cent in both years.

Since women are the most affected by new technology, and therefore in need of the most retraining, these figures do not bode well. The government must increase its efforts to provide training in nontraditional occupations for women. The current program should be examined and re-examined on a periodic basis to ensure that no systemic discrimination is occurring. New programs, including specially designed counselling programs, should be developed. Above all, program assistance, such as day care and training allowances, should be increased to free up women to advance themselves.

Many elderly women spend their retirement years in poverty due to the fact that pensions for women, on the whole, are not equitable to pensions for men. Because women spend less time in the work force than men do, often dropping out to raise children, earn less money on average and outlive men by some 10 to 15 years, the retirement income average is lower than that of men. The federal green paper on pensions entitled Better Pensions for Canadians said, and I quote:

"Many pension plans do not provide adequate survivor benefits and few married women benefit from the pension credits of their spouses upon marriage breakdown. As a cumulative result of such shortcomings, many women spend at least some of their retirement years with insufficient income."

Over the last five or six years, our leader urged this government to support the child-rearing dropout provisions in the Canada pension plan. Finally, about a year and a half ago, the government did so. I certainly want to congratulate the government on becoming the last holdout in this matter, and it was a step forward to pension reform, but there are many other steps which can and must be taken. I will be discussing one in dealing with the potential amendments to the Family Law Reform Act.

In discussing the whole matter of pension reform, I think it behooves us to look at those who are most desperately in need of it. It is a need in so many areas and for so many people all across the province and, indeed, all across the nation, but women, first of all, are feeling the effects of inadequate pensions in 1984. It is time to get on with that job.

Economic issues are not the only areas of primary concern to women. Many social issues affect the lives of women profoundly and need to be attended to by society and government alike. The rise in violent pornography has received a lot of attention over the last year or so. We had a debate on this the other night and we will have a vote on it shortly. I am not talking about erotic material showing sexual acts between two consenting adults. I am referring to material that combines sex with violence, that portrays women being raped and enjoying it, child molestation and beatings.

12 noon

Professor William Marshall of Queen's University has conducted many research projects on the effects of pornography on sex offenders and nonsex offenders. His research has shown that rapes and child molestations increased threefold to fourfold within two years of the availability of pornography in eight different countries. His findings suggest that men exposed to pornography become more aggressive towards women. He also discovered that normal males, such as college students, are remarkably susceptible to the influence of pornography. Thirty per cent of the men he studied said they would rape a woman if they could get away with it.

Dr. Ed Donnerstein of the University of Wisconsin found similar results in a study that tested the reaction of normal males, screened to weed out those with hostile or depressive tendencies, to violent pornography. The subjects were exposed to violent films and then asked how likely it would be that they would commit rape if they knew they could not get caught. Between 55 per cent and 60 per cent of the respondents said they would be willing to rape a woman in such circumstances.

After two weeks of viewing films depicting violence, explicit sex and sex with elements of violence the study participants were put in a mock trial in which they acted as jurors in a rape case. The case was real, with condensed evidence being presented by actors. The jurors who had viewed the films tended to be less sympathetic to the victim than the control group, which had not viewed the films. What is particularly frightening about the results of this study is the fact that all the films used in it are available commercially.

I welcome, and our party welcomes, the recent legislation introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). It is, in principle, a step in the right direction. But at this time I want to reiterate our party's position on pornography, which was proposed by our Women's Perspective Advisory Committee some time ago -- some time before the introduction of this legislation and indeed before the government's more recent interest in the whole field -- and approved by our caucus.

In brief, the committee proposed that the Criminal Code definition of "obscene" be amended to include graphically senseless, violent and degrading acts, even if no sexual element was present, and all materials depicting children who are or appear to be under the age of 18 in sexually explicit scenes. I know those kinds of amendments cannot be done in this place, and I hope the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the government as a whole are pressing the government of Canada to move as quickly as possible in this area, because this is over and above the Theatres Act or any action we take here. These are the most important areas in which we can move.

The possession or purchase of any obscene material would be an offence under the Criminal Code, as would be its rental or leasing. The community standards employed by the Ontario Board of Censors would be set out in regulations to the Theatres Act. Municipalities would be required to introduce bylaws requiring that adult materials be displayed behind opaque barriers. This is an issue that a number of municipalities have moved on, and I do note that we appear to be having some problems with the courts in this regard.

The Ontario Police Commission should be given authority over Project P, the anti-pornography squad, which should be given increased funds to extend its services. As well, the tariff act should be amended to replace immoral or indecent as the basis on which to bar entrance of material into Canada with the Criminal Code definition of obscenity. I note with some interest that the Minister of National Revenue indicated in his statement in the House the other day his great concern over the entrance into this country of the most recent edition of Penthouse magazine, which has caused so much controversy, and that he is going to take some action in this area. That is welcome.

On May 16, my colleague the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) introduced a resolution urging municipalities that had not done so to pass bylaws restricting the open display of materials by means of opaque barriers. The matter was supported unanimously by members of all parties in the Legislature, and I hope that over time, given the action of the courts more recently, we can deal with this matter and put something in place that the courts will find acceptable, because I think it is very necessary, particularly with respect to young children.

A woman is sexually assaulted every half hour somewhere in Canada, and one out of every 17 Canadian women will be sexually assaulted at some point in her life. More than 50 per cent of all rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, and it is estimated that nine out of every 10 rapes go unreported, mainly because of fear.

In July 1983, the Task Force on Public Violence Against Women and Children recommended that five clinics be established in Metro Toronto to deal with victims of sexual assault. The task force also recommended that there be more female police, that police officers wear name tags and that police be trained to be more sensitive to the needs of women and children who are victims of violence.

In April 1984, Metro Toronto's first regional sexual assault treatment centre opened at Women's College Hospital, near Queen's Park, to provide 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week care for men and women who have been sexually assaulted. The centre is most certainly a step in the right direction, but it is only one for an entire city. We strongly urge the minister to investigate the possibility of extending more funding to hospitals in Metro, and indeed around the province, to establish more of these centres.

It has been more than a year since the government responded to the standing committee on social development's report on family violence which dealt with wife battering. In the intervening time, the government has made some positive moves in dealing with the subject, and I congratulate the government and this minister, who I know cares deeply about this issue, for those positive moves.

Last June, the Minister of Community and Social Services announced new initiatives to provide funding for new shelters and safe homes for victims of family violence and their children. The Deputy Premier's own ministry has taken steps to inform the public about the problems of wife beating with advertising campaigns, which are very extensive, and it is advertising of the best kind. But there is still more to be done, much more.

Transition homes are in the same position they were in a year ago. Funds are tight because of the per diem system. There are no standards. There are few government-funded support systems for women after they leave their husbands.

I want to suggest to the minister again today, as I urged him last year, to look seriously at introducing a bill devoted exclusively to services for battered women. Such a bill could cover standards for transition homes and implement block funding to ensure the coverage of capital and operating costs. It is long overdue, and it is time the matter was proceeded with. The issue is with us to stay, unfortunately, for some time. It seems to me we should put an end to the ad hoc recognition of funding problems in particular and get on with putting something in place that is a lot more formal.

In 1974, the Ontario Law Reform Commission report on family property law recommended that all assets accumulated during a marriage be included in family assets for the purpose of the division of family assets upon marriage breakdown. As we know, business assets, including pensions, currently are not included in the law.

The Ontario Liberal Women's Perspective Advisory Committee has recommended that Ontario adopt a community of acquest regime. Under the community of acquest, all assets acquired since marriage, including pensions, stocks, bonds and business and professional assets, would be considered a part of family assets. Last March I introduced a private members' bill which spoke in some detail to this issue.

The Attorney General has announced over and over again that he intends to draft legislation dealing with the definition of family assets. I would hope the Minister responsible for Women's Issues would realize the time has come for the Attorney General to get on with his promise, which has been delayed for so long. The last word I heard from this government was that we would probably see the legislation, I assume for first reading, shortly before we adjourn for Christmas, shortly before the end of this session of the Legislature.

I believe the timely introduction of this legislation, and certainly timely introduction came some time ago, should be a prime concern of this government, and indeed many women in this province would find that it would be perhaps the most important piece of legislation we have introduced all fall.

Related to the reform of family assets is the topic of maintenance payments. There are 40,000 women and children in Ontario who are affected by defaults of maintenance payments. In 1979-80, the money owing on current provincial court accounts totalled $37 million. In 1982-83, this amount has risen to $45 million.

As individual MPPs trying to deal with women in our constituencies, we all know that a woman in Ontario currently must file an action for nonsupport against a man in family court before she can receive welfare payments. The provincial government has failed to change this system so that the defaulting husband is sued by the government for payment rather than forcing the wife to take action against him.

Manitoba instituted a family enforcement program in the late 1970s which has more than doubled payments as a result of a computerized monitoring system. The government of Ontario continues to resist adopting a computerized system, despite its proven effectiveness and the fact that default in maintenance payments translates directly into higher welfare costs.

12:10 p.m.

On April 12, 1984, the Attorney General acknowledged the "significant problem" of unpaid maintenance orders in Ontario. He stated, "We believe the government can play an increasing role in assisting individuals to enforce their individual orders, although it is not primarily the government's responsibility."

He further stated this government's support of a national registry to help in locating defaulting spouses. He promised significant initiatives would be announced before the end of the spring session. No initiatives concerning maintenance payments have been announced thus far by the government.

My party is concerned about the unnecessary cost that defaulted maintenance payments place on the welfare system and thus on all taxpayers of the province; more important, we are concerned about the plight of the women who are left without the financial ability to support themselves and their children.

The government must immediately implement a computerized program to enforce maintenance payments. Family court judges should be encouraged to use the powers of enforcement provided for by law, such as probation and attachment of wages to enforce maintenance orders.

The matter has been before us long enough. It needs urgent action, particularly for those who are victims of our inaction in a very real sense.

My colleague Don Boudria. the former member for Prescott-Russell, introduced and reintroduced a number of amendments to the Vital Statistics Act and the Change of Name Act. These amendments were designed to remove the requirements that children born to married women be given the surname of their mother's husband, and to make it easier for people to change their names.

In April 1984, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations announced that a policy paper proposing those same changes was being presented to cabinet. To date, we have heard nothing on the status of the ministry's proposals.

I would like to know, and I would hope the government is planning to move in this area. I hope the minister will agree with me, as apparently his colleague does, that we have waited too long for reform in Ontario's names legislation to reflect the rights of women to their own names and to name their children.

I want to conclude my remarks by mentioning an initiative taken recently by my party, of which I am quite proud. I am very proud that the Ontario Liberals have taken the steps we have with the formation of the Women's Perspective Advisory Committee and other initiatives.

I am very pleased with the creation of the Margaret Campbell fund, which was recently announced by our leader. That fund will provide grants to nominated Liberal women candidates to assist them in their campaigns for election to the Ontario Legislature.

As the members know, Margaret Campbell was the first Liberal woman elected to Queen's Park. She was one of only eight women to graduate from Osgoode Hall in 1937 and received her QC in 1960. She defeated the present Attorney General in the March 1973 St. George by-election and sat in the Legislature until her retirement in 1981.

Margaret Campbell was a trend-setter. She pioneered interest in domestic violence long before it became fashionable to talk about such topics. As a result of her efforts, changes were made in the Ontario Police College curriculum to provide training in family violence for police officers. The Attorney General has acknowledged that Mrs. Campbell singlehandedly forced the establishment of the liaison committee on family violence.

She was the first member of the Legislature to table a bill on equal pay for work of equal value, as well as the first to table a bill on rent review. She has always led the fight to remove the inequalities faced by women in the public and private sectors alike. In many ways, Margaret Campbell was ahead of her time. Fortunately, the world is now starting to catch up.

On that note, I want to conclude my remarks with a comment she made on the role of women in politics, and a very important role it is. She said, "Women can become a force to be reckoned with, can establish their identity without question, can make statements which will truly have impact, can accomplish things in their own right, symbolizing the new lifestyle and the new philosophy."

It is my view and my party's view that such a role is long overdue.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to have a review of the work of the women's issues program and the directorate for a full year. Last year it was part of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour because the programs had not all got under way.

However, there appears to be a good deal of information lacking. I hope we will obtain that information before these estimates are concluded. In fact, I hope we will obtain a good deal of this information next week so we can have it for the further sittings of this committee on these estimates.

My friend from the Liberal Party mentioned that the 1983-84 annual report of the women crown employees office is not out yet but appeared to have been used by the minister in his opening remarks. I certainly echo the honourable member's request that the report be made available to us as soon as possible. I also notice the annual report for 1983-84 of the Ontario Status of Women Council is not yet out. Again it seems to me it should be, since the fiscal year ended on March 31.

It is not just the reports that are missing. The actual estimates in the estimates book are lacking almost any real breakdown of the programs the directorate is undertaking. The briefing book does not contain a staff complement; it does not contain a description of each program and the staff allocated to it. It does not contain a breakdown of grants; there is simply $500,000 for grants, without any breakdown.

There is an organizational chart for the directorate in the briefing book. It does not even mention the women's bureau, which has been in existence for 20 years; it had a 20-year anniversary party. It seems to me it has disappeared without a ripple as a women's bureau under the umbrella of the directorate. It does not mention the women crown employees office, which appears to have suffered the same fate. It is not shown in the organizational chart, nor do we have any idea how many people are allocated to these two offices, if they still exist, or what their program assignments are.

We are being asked to vote a $5-million budget for the women's programs. This is up by 230 per cent from the previous year's estimates of $1.5 million. I recognize that the directorate only started in mid-1983 and that we are now having a 12-month allocation for its work rather than a partial allocation, but when we are being asked to vote $5 million, I think we are entitled to a great deal more information on how that $5 million is to be broken down.

We are entitled to program descriptions for each of the many programs the minister has announced, mainly it would appear in the interests of public relations, without telling us how expensive they are.

For example, the open doors program to get people to go into schools to speak to the students of grades 7 and 8 about their nontraditional jobs appears to be in only six municipalities or cities. I understand there are practically no funds allocated to that, because the people who are invited to go in to speak are not paid or even provided with out-of-pocket expenses if they happen to be people who have to take time off their jobs. If they are self-employed, it may be a different situation, although they might also lose money.

12:20 p.m.

It also makes one wonder what kinds of role models will be able to participate in that program if there is no compensation for them for participating and bringing their skills and knowledge to grades 7 and 8. When are grades 7 and 8 in other cities, towns and centres of Ontario going to get the same sort of service?

It seems to be one of the many programs we hear about that have little financial or personnel backing from the directorate. Until we get that breakdown of the personnel and the programs, as to both monetary and staff allocations, we do not know. That is my first point. I hope we will get a further breakdown of those programs and grants before the end of next week.

On the grant question, in August the minister announced to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that $260,000 would be available for affirmative action incentive grants to municipalities. He did not specify whether that was for municipalities only -- although I think that was the impression the people at AMO got -- or whether it was to cover all public sector initiatives and incentives to institute affirmative action programs.

When it appeared the wording in his speech could be interpreted both ways, people were left wondering whether the municipalities were getting an average of $207 each, if it went to all the public sector agencies, or $310 per municipality if it went to the municipalities. Both amounts are peanuts when one thinks that for a city such as Scarborough to start an equal opportunity program, as it has just done, and hire a co-ordinator, it is going to cost at least $75,000.

Even if not all the municipalities take up the grants, the amount is not going to make any difference in the number of public sector bodies that will be instituting affirmative action programs. If that is the way the grants are being allocated, it is not going to have a very great effect.

The $260,000 would use up about half the $500,000 grants that are in the budget, but in the minister's remarks last Monday he had the balance of $240,000 allocated to grants for projects in the six areas he mentioned that he considers the key women's issues. Those areas include affirmative action, employment support, income support, child care, family law reform and other items of that nature. If each of those areas were to get a share of the $240,000, there would be only $40,000 each for the six areas. It does not seem to me that will do much as incentive grants for projects in those areas.

Then the minister went on to invite applications for the $240,000, or part of it, from those serving immigrant, elderly and rural women, women in the north, and also from those interested in developing programs for adjusting to the high-technology revolution. Again, it stretches credibility as to whether those grants are simply held out as bait to indicate that something is available for work in those multitudes of fields, whether the whole amount will even be taken up since it is so vague, and whether there will be sufficient money for any one project to get going, or any more than one or two.

It seems to me that the budget should concentrate more on some well-defined initiatives that will actually help to increase the equality of women and that all these scattered programs offering small incentive grants will simply look good on paper but not produce any real action. The question we have to examine in looking at the women's directorate is whether it is actually meeting women's real needs. It will be judged on the basis of what action happens in the following main fields.

First of all, how much will the wage gap be closed in the coming fiscal year? The Ontario public service still has a wage gap of 23 points when one looks at the average wages of men and women. It has shrunk, according to the minister's own statement, by only five points in the past decade. It will take about 50 years to close the wage gap in the public service at that rate of 0.5 per year. The general wage gap is still 37 points and at that rate it will take until the year 2060 for us to get that closed.

The minister does state that the number of women in higher-paying jobs in the public service is up from five per cent to 16 per cent in the decade, but that is still away below women's representation in the Ontario public service, which is 42 per cent. Progress is so slow in all these areas that the justification for having the women's directorate will not appear unless we can see more action in those fields.

When the women's directorate was announced in May 1983, we were not, by a long shot, the first province to have a women's directorate. The New Democratic Party had had a member of the caucus assigned to women's issues full-time for a year and a half before the government moved in this direction.

Mr. Grande: We obviously provided the leadership.

Ms. Bryden: My colleague says we provided the leadership, which is true. The federal government had a person responsible for women's issues for a considerable time as well, but I think we were the only party that had a full-time critic in this field.

We still have not really seen a great deal of progress from the directorate and the government should not consider the appointment of a full-time spokesman as the answer to achieving equality unless there is genuine progress in each of the fields.

12:30 p.m.

Let me go on to the second field, the area of affirmative action. How many new affirmative action programs are in effect now, eight years after the program was started? The minister says it is his flagship program, but the figures remain buried in obscurity. What we want is a complete statement by the end of next week on how many affirmative action programs there are in effect in the various sectors.

In the public sector we want a breakdown showing the number in the school boards, the municipalities, the hospitals and the crown corporations, as well as a statement on the program in the Ontario public service about how many affirmative action co-ordinators there are, full-time and part-time. We need this to clarify all the misleading figures that have come out concerning how many programs are in effect.

We also need a list of the number of affirmative action programs in the private sector and of the companies involved. It seems to me that if a company is willing to have an affirmative action program, it should be proud to make that fact public.

Recently I visited one private firm, Warner-Lambert, which has had a very effective affirmative action program since 1975. It has published reports on how the program is working and has shown considerable progress in bringing the percentage of women in each of the different categories of employment closer to that of men. It has also shown very significant progress in closing the wage gap in those categories, which shows that when you open up all the categories to women, they move into some of the better-paying jobs and, as a result, the wage gap in the whole firm closes.

I cannot understand the minister's feeling that he has to keep secret which firms have affirmative action programs. Apparently he is going to give an award to the firm that has the best equal opportunity program, but surely those applying for the awards will have to submit applications, and I think the public would like to know who applied and who won.

I hope that in his award he will not follow the example of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. A year ago this ministry gave a group of awards to the five firms that had shown the greatest development in the economic field, but only one of those five firms had anything that appeared to approach an affirmative action program. It was not one of the ministry's criteria. I think if the minister is going to give out his own awards, he should also talk to the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) about whether affirmative action should be part of his award program and one of the tests his ministry applies.

One of the five companies that was singled out for the prize from the Ministry of Industry and Trade said when interviewed that its affirmative action program had no targets, no timetables, no labour-management committee and no specific objectives; just "agreement" with the ministry's guidelines. That is why we want the list: so we can find out what kind of affirmative action programs the minister is putting into his totals of affirmative action programs that appear to be in place.

The firm that had the affirmative action program among the award winners was Waferboard Corp. of Timmins. It employs 16 women out of 665 workers in total, so it would appear there is considerable room for women to move into some of the jobs there.

That is the second test of whether the directorate is working: how quickly the voluntary program is bringing us towards affirmative action programs for all of the 53,000 firms that have 20 employees or more, which is at least a reasonable figure to work on. But without mandatory affirmative action, it would appear we are not going to reach anything that will indicate that the voluntary approach will serve us.

In regard to the wage gap picture, I forgot to ask, but we should have statistics from the ministry on the number of complaints under the present equal pay law and the number of awards and amounts for the last two fiscal years to indicate how many people the present equal pay law is serving and whether it is doing anything significant to contribute to closing the wage gap. These statistics have not been published on a regular basis, but I think they should be made available to the committee by the end of next week.

The third test of the effectiveness of the directorate is how we are meeting the needs of battered women, how many new interval houses have been funded, and whether the initiatives in the north are really an answer or whether they are simply family crisis centres that look after a variety of the problems of battered women and children and people in distress.

It appears that most of them will not have the kind of professional staff an interval house needs to counsel women, and to help them with advocacy in the courts and to relocate in the community if they have to leave home permanently. They need far more than just a safe home, which the Ministry of Community and Social Services seems to be working on right now, particularly in the north.

They need professional assistance and the kind of services that even the most well-meaning police officer cannot give to help battered women. That is the third test of how far we are meeting the needs of battered women, who are estimated as one in 10 in the population.

The fourth is how much family law reform we are getting. The minister speaks of high hopes about getting family law reform. As we know and as my leader pointed out last week, there has been nothing but promises, promises, for the past two years. The Family Law Reform Act had its fifth anniversary in March 1983 and we know it is still full of loopholes. A great many women are not receiving their fair share of property that was acquired during the marriage or that came into the marriage. The minister's effectiveness will be measured by whether he can persuade the Attorney General and the cabinet to move faster in this very crucial area.

The fifth area is the question of sex stereotyping. It is partly the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to see that textbooks are changed; of the Attorney General to see that the media do not exploit and degrade women; of the Ministry of Labour to see that jobs and training are developed on a nonsexist basis and made available; and, of course, of the Ministry of Education to see that in the school curricula women are given opportunities to acquire more math, science and the sort of skills they will need. That is another area the minister may say is not specifically his responsibility, but surely part of his job is to co-ordinate the ministries involved in that field.

12:40 p.m.

I realize the budgets for these kinds of programs will come out of the other ministries, but I think the minister should be reporting to us about what they are putting into their budgets for this kind of elimination of sex stereotyping.

The sixth area is the question of how much the shocking gap in child care in this province has closed. To say the ministry is providing for 1.5 million additional child care spaces does not answer the question of how much the gap has closed. According to the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, we are 84,000 spaces short for full-time licensed day care. There are 210,000 women with preschool children who work, and those 210,000 are served by 51,000 licensed spaces in Ontario. Certainly not more than one quarter are getting any kind of care except what they can get from relatives and neighbours and that is not supervised care.

The directorate provided the legislative library research branch with some information on the state of child care last March when the research branch was preparing a background paper on child care services in Ontario. The directorate was well aware of the figures on the great shortage of child care in Ontario and put these into its memo, which is now a public document since it was sent to the legislative library research branch.

It was prepared by one of the senior policy advisers in the directorate and says, "It is estimated that only 15 to 25 per cent of children receiving nonparental care are in licensed child care services." It goes on to say, "Licensed infant care is difficult to obtain in many communities and there are not a large number of school-age programs across the province." It mentions particularly that, "Formal child care services...are in short supply in urban areas, as evidenced by waiting lists of up to two years."

In Metro Toronto right now, I believe there are 1,000 children on the waiting list for day care. That is another area in which the directorate will have failed in its mandate unless it can deliver much more action.

The seventh area is an area that has suddenly been highlighted by the decision in the Morgentaler case, and that is the area of providing Ontario women with access to legal abortions. The trial brought out very clearly that there is not equal access throughout Ontario, that half the hospitals in Ontario do not have therapeutic abortion committees, and that the delays in the areas where there are such committees are so extreme that they could even be considered life-threatening, in that people have to wait too long to get approval for an abortion when they have decided they want a legal abortion.

It seems to me the province has the obligation to see there is equal access to a legal service for those who choose to have that service. I am not advocating that everybody should have an abortion; I am simply saying that since the law is there, those who choose to have one should have the opportunity to have it in a safe way and have it covered by the Ontario health insurance plan, as other legal health services are.

We may have to look at the Quebec model in this area, where the government does operate a number of women's clinics which do far more in giving information on family planning and women's health generally than they do on abortion, but abortion is there as a last resort for those for whom family planning does not work.

If we went along the road of providing much more family planning information and much more information to teenagers on responsible sexuality, the demand for abortion would drop drastically and it would not become a method of birth control, as it appears to be in some areas. It is the way to meet this very difficult question of whether people should have a choice in whether they wish to carry a child to full term.

Basically, the clinics work on the first trimester only and that is the area where there should be no problem; but if there is no access, or inadequate access, women who choose abortion are at a great disadvantage and the law is not equal for them. As long as it is legal, we should not be telling women how they should make the decision; we should be saying the facilities are there but advising them also to seek family planning and birth control information to see if we cannot solve the problem in that way.

The eighth area where there is a test for the minister is the question of the rights of part-time workers. We do need a charter of rights for part-time workers, especially in this technological revolution where a great many more jobs are being broken down into part-time jobs. The Employment Standards Act should be extended to part-time workers and they should receive benefits in proportion to their work.

I noticed in the throne speech the government made a lot of noise about extending some benefit coverage to its own part-time workers in the public service, but when the figures came out as to how many would actually be covered, it appeared that only about one quarter of the 12,000 part-time workers in the Ontario public service would be covered by this extension. It is still not clear whether they are getting all the benefits pro rata or just certain additional ones. The government has to show a better example by bringing all of its part-time workers under prorated benefits, but it also has to look at amending the Employment Standards Act.

Recently Simpsons laid off a great number of its employees and then offered them part-time jobs. This indicates the great need for this kind of legislation. We have not really had anything but pious comments by the minister on this throne speech initiative.

The ninth area is the area of domestic workers. This province should be ashamed of its treatment of domestic workers, a grossly exploited group. They are paid below the standard minimum wage for other workers and have no limit on their weekly hours. They are simply given two days off, but for the rest of the time they can be on call and are expected to be available. They also do not have coverage for overtime, they do not have limits on their hours of work and they do not have other benefits of the Employment Standards Act. The minister cannot consider himself a spokesperson for women's equality as long as he ignores domestic workers.

12:50 p.m.

The 10th area is the response to high tech. The minister makes passing remarks about being interested in this field. He is even going to allow people who have programs for adjustment to high technology to apply to his $240,000 grant fund. But really we need far more done in this field.

The minister is holding consultations across the province about how we can meet the high-tech revolution. Just today I received an invitation from him to a conference he is having at the end of this month in Toronto called Jobs for the Future: Women, Training and Technology. Apparently he does not consider that the opposition critics really have anything to contribute to such conferences because I am simply invited to go to the dinner and hear the minister speak about what he is doing in the high-tech field.

With due respect for the intent of the invitation, I think it is completely unsatisfactory to expect opposition critics to go to a dinner and not be invited to the rest of the conference to participate.

I do not know whether the minister is aware that the New Democratic Party had a task force on adjustment to high tech and its effect on the future of work, which spent all of last winter travelling around to various communities and heard from a lot of people, including trade unions, management, teachers, clergymen and academics. We invited a cross-section of people to seminars to discuss the future of work and the changes that have to be made, so that the technological revolution benefits everybody and so the people who are displaced by it are not just left as victims but are involved in planning for retraining and change in the work place.

From that task force my three colleagues and I have produced a report that came out last March on the future of work with about 40 recommendations for adjustment to technological change. It seems to me that some of those might have been of interest to the minister in his consultations, but his consultations are strictly by invitation so that other women who may be interested or who may even be gravely affected by high-tech changes do not have an opportunity to come and tell him what it is like.

A couple of weeks ago I attended a conference on controlling technological change that was put on jointly by the Humber College Centre for Labour Studies and the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto. The stories we heard from the approximately 200 people in attendance really opened our eyes to the effect of high tech in the work place and to how it was affecting everyone, from librarians to people on the assembly line, to office workers, to technologists as well as to government employees. So this is a big area, which the directorate is not really addressing in any depth.

The Metro library workers are still on strike over the question of joint worker-management planning for adjustment to high tech. Of course, before you can get joint worker-management planning you have to have an early warning system about high-tech changes.

That was the subject of a bill introduced in 1983 by Michael Cassidy of the NDP, but such a bill has not been adopted. It was a private members' bill that was not supported by the government. That bill also called for joint worker-management committees to plan high-tech changes, and it went even further in suggesting that shorter hours could be considered as part of the work adjustments that would be worked out.

This government has not yet indicated it is prepared to look at that kind of solution, or at early retirement or at any kind of joint planning for technological change. If shorter hours are brought in, they could be brought in without any reduction in take-home pay because the estimates are that technological change will produce an increase in productivity of at least three per cent. That should be shared by the workers as well as by management.

If the government is going to control tech change, it is going to need greater democracy in the work place, so both workers and management can work together to see that the firms remain viable and that they all share in the benefits of the change.

Those are 10 areas that I think are a test of whether the directorate is fulfilling its mandate. I have not dealt with all of the questions I want to deal with over the next hours of this committee. I want to spend more time on the Ontario Status of Women Council and on some other questions such as day care needs and pensions, about which the minister in his statement simply says, "Change and reform is on the way."

It has been on the way for 10 years. We have had white papers and green papers on pension reform. We have had statements from governments of all kinds. We have had the statement of the Treasurer that he is bringing in changes. However, all we have is a small increase in the guaranteed annual income system and most of that is passed-through federal increases in the guaranteed income supplement. Even with that small increase, pensioners are having to wait until December for the second bite of it.

None of the pension recommendations for reducing vesting to two years or for other changes in private pension plans has seen the light of day as legislation. That is an area where I would like to go into greater detail.

I would also like to talk about women and sports, and whether they have equal opportunity to develop their talents for becoming Olympic stars and for participating in team games. That is an area we should discuss.

The question of health services for women has hardly been mentioned by the minister, but I have heard that the amount of help for women drug and alcohol addicts is much less than for men. I think there is only one detoxification centre that is for women only, and as to the rehabilitation of alcoholics in Ontario, the rehabilitation centre operated by former alcoholics in Toronto is about to run out of money. Those are areas I think the minister should be concerned about and I hope to deal with them as the estimates go on.

Mr. Chairman, it being almost one o'clock, I will wind up at this point. I hope that before next Friday the minister will provide us with some of the statistics, breakdowns and reports I asked for at the beginning.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

November 16, 1984