Hansard Transcripts 1984-Nov-19 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In response to a question from the member for York South (Mr. Rae) on Friday regarding Du Pont and Ethyl, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) made two incorrect statements. He said --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On various occasions I have pointed out that a member may rise to correct his own record but not to correct anyone else's. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Charlton: I am not rising to correct the record. I am rising on a point of privilege concerning --

Mr. Speaker: No. You have made your point, and I have ruled on it.

Mr. McClellan: With respect, he has not made his point.

Mr. Speaker: With great respect, he did.

DEATH OF POLICEMAN

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my colleagues to ask members of the House to join me in expressing condolences to the family of slain Ontario Provincial Police officer Vernon Leslie Miller.

Constable Miller, whose funeral is being held today, was a dedicated officer with the OPP for the past 17 years and served in the finest traditions of that force. He was also a valued member of the community in other ways. He belonged to a number of service clubs and acted as manager of the local hockey team.

His death is yet another tragic reminder of the sacrifices made by law enforcement officers and their families in their dedicated service to the people of Ontario. We extend our deepest sympathies to Constable Miller's wife Catherine, his daughter Marnie Jane, 11, and his sons Darren Bruce, 9, and Gregory Thomas, 8.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, as critic for the Ministry of the Solicitor General, t wish to extend from this side of the House our extreme concern and regret at this brutal slaying of Constable Vern Miller. Once again, we are shocked at the brutal and violent manner in which this very worthwhile life was taken from service to this province, and we are very concerned that this violence is becoming an integral part of life in Ontario.

This latest in a series of fatal attacks upon police officers in this province brings home to all of us the special vulnerability of those members who are responsible for preserving and protecting our society. At the same time, it contributes to ensuring that the fabric of civilization gradually becomes more in danger of being destroyed.

On behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party, I would like to extend to Constable Miller's widow Catherine and her three children our deepest and heartfelt sympathy at their tragic loss. They can all be proud of this fine and exceptional man who was widely respected and admired and who typified the calibre of person who, knowing the risks involved, made a very admirable career of maintaining law and order.

The men and women of our police force daily confront dangerous situations and take serious risks and are, in many respects, unsung heroes and heroines. As we mourn the sad loss of Constable Miller, we pay sincere and grateful tribute to his colleagues throughout the province.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I want to thank the Deputy Premier for expressing, on behalf of the government and the Legislature, his own and the government's deepest sympathy to Mrs. Miller and the family. I want to echo those sentiments.

Despite his age -- he was only 38 years old -- he was a 17-year veteran of the force. Because of his age, he has left three young children under the age of 12 and a grieving widow. They have our very deepest sympathy. Those of us, like myself, who have police officers in our own immediate family understand something of the constant pressure and anxiety that the families of police officers experience on a day-to-day basis.

We share the deep distress of all members in this House and many people across this province about this death and the apparent epidemic of violent assaults on police officers. We hope and pray that Mrs. Miller and her three children will be consoled.

VISITORS

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your indulgence. May I introduce to the House the mayor of the city of Francavilla from my own region of Abruzzi, together with two senior members of the board of control, and welcome them.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, may I, in the same vein, extend our welcome to the members who have arrived from the city of Francavilla.

[Remarks in Italian]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity of joining in this all-party legislative welcome to our special visitors. We are always pleased to have people from all parts of the world with us, and particularly to have them here during a session of the Legislature to watch how well behaved we are in this particular parliament. I trust their presence here will be a moderating influence and that we will proceed with the question period without too many incidents, so we can get on with the estimates of the Office of the Deputy Premier this afternoon.

We welcome the mayor and members of council to the Legislature.

2:10 p.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

WATER AND SEWAGE SYSTEMS

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable members are aware, I take considerable pride, as do all of us on this side of the House, in the achievements of this government and Ontario's municipalities in providing essential environmental services to our citizens.

Communal sewage systems have been provided for 93 per cent of Ontario's urban population, and the benefits in public health and water quality in our rivers and lakes are self-evident. Contrast this with our neighbours in Quebec, where only nine per cent of the urban population benefit from these services. Even more impressive, 98 per cent of our urban population enjoy communal water services.

Since 1956 some $6 billion has been invested in Ontario in water and sewage treatment plants, watermains and sewers and the other environmental hardware essential to these services. The replacement cost for all these facilities would be $30 billion in today's dollars.

Although the provincial government does provide some services directly, operating some 380 water and sewage systems across the province, our main thrust has always been to work in partnership with municipalities and to assist their efforts. Our assistance has been provided in proportion to the needs and resources of the municipality. We have made direct grants of 15 per cent for major water and sewer works and upfront grants scaled to a maximum of 75 per cent for smaller municipalities.

For these smaller municipalities, in some cases even 75 per cent provincial assistance has not been enough for them to afford the water and sewage systems they need. I am pleased today to announce a major revision to our present funding program that will have an effect on communities like Dubreuilville.

Effective April 1, 1985, provincial financial assistance for the construction of water and sewer systems in communities of fewer than 1,000 people will be increased to a maximum of 85 per cent. Second, provincial financial assistance for the construction of water and sewer systems in communities within regional governments will be expanded considerably. Third, provincial grants for the extension of water lines in rural areas will be provided for the first time. The sum of $34 million in assistance to municipalities will be committed for these initiatives.

I trust that with this increased provincial support many of our smaller communities with limited resources will now find they can afford top-quality municipal drinking water and first-rate sewage treatment.

We have also recognized the plight of some small communities within regional municipalities where either sewer or water systems are inadequate. Provisions have been made in these instances for grants of up to 60 per cent for local services. This is contingent upon 25 per cent participation by the regional municipality.

There is one other element in our new program. In a number of rural areas people have difficulty obtaining enough good-quality drinking water because of local ground water problems. In Lambton, Kent and Essex counties, for example, as well as in many other parts of Ontario, well water is often in short supply and brackish in flavour. To date there has been no alternative to a private well or trucked-in water for rural homes in these areas. We are now prepared to provide grant funding of 25 per cent to these municipalities so they can supply water to these rural areas using plastic pipe from existing serviced communities.

All these changes in the grant program are designed to give smaller communities in all areas of the province access to high-quality municipal water and sewage services.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER AND SEWAGE SYSTEMS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Who is the minister trying to kid with his statement? Let us look at what he has done in the last three years in the project engineering budget line.

Let me give the minister the figures. He cut $25 million out of the budget in 1982-83, slashed $32 million in 1983-84 and the projected cut for 1984-85 is $18.9 million. The minister has already slashed $76.7 million out of his budget.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Now he is putting back $34 million. Who is he trying to kid?

Mr. Kerrio: It is called a "half-back program."

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to kid anyone. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition has not been in this House when I have taken the time to explain exactly where those moneys have been deleted from our budget. There is no question we are in a restraint period and there are limitations on the amount of funds available.

The question raised by the Leader of the Opposition has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the program I am announcing this morning nor with the comprehensive list of communities that would be affected in a very positive way. In fact, the cuts mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition relate directly to provincial projects which, as I said in the House some weeks ago, are going to be phased out completely over the course of the next three years. Those projects are quickly coming to an end.

In other words, the facilities are now virtually completed and we will no longer have to invest money in those parts of the budget. However, at the same time we are increasing other areas of our budget. Assistance to municipalities, particularly the small communities, is one area where this government is going to carry out its responsibilities. It will do so in a way that will benefit these communities very directly.

Mr. Peterson: The minister may want to practise a little sleight of hand, but can he tell me what the government is going to do for Carp, for example? His own ministry's study found 60 per cent of the wells there were contaminated by bacteria and 48 per cent of the private sewage systems are below acceptable standards. It is going to cost a lot of money to repair that.

What is the government going to do for Metcalfe? Last year 30 per cent of the homes tested there had wells contaminated with faecal coliform counts of more than 100 per 100 millilitres. What is it going to do for Russell and Embrun where more than half of the 300 homes still have poor water quality and where there are staining, bad taste and smell? He can juggle it around all he wants in his budget, but what is the ministry going to do for these communities right now?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am amazed at that question. The Leader of the Opposition stands up in righteous indignation and reads off a list of municipalities, one of which -- Embrun in eastern Ontario -- has a brand new water system. How old is his information? I find it difficult to control myself.

In other communities mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, in many instances the grant structure will now increase from 75 to 85 per cent, requiring the local municipality to come up with only 15 per cent of the project cost. I think that is a very reasonable and responsible position for this government to be taking.

Mr. Bradley: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) is cutting them back. How can they afford it?

Mr. McClellan: He looks more like a front-runner all the time, Mr. Speaker.

I hesitate to ask this question because this is the minister who believes in the seagull theory of water pollution. In announcing this program, why does he not announce any initiatives to cover municipalities such as the city of York? I refer to those communities which cannot afford to do the kind of sewer separation that would put an end to the pollution of the Humber River and the Toronto waterfront. It is this that has resulted in the closing of Toronto's swimming beaches for the last number of years. Does he not think there is any cause other than seagulls?

The reasons are clear. Why has he neglected to come forward with a program that could eliminate not just problems in smaller communities but major problems in some of the larger communities, that affect millions of people in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, there were two special programs announced this year. The cost of one was in the amount of about $3 million. This sum was applied directly to the Humber River diversion and a cleanup of the waterfront. It was addressed specifically to correct some of the difficulties in connection --

Mr. McClellan: It was not sewer separation, was it?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am going to get to that. I did not interrupt the honourable member when he was asking the question. I listened very carefully.

2:20 p.m.

I indicated in this House that I would provide about $3 million for that program. In addition to that, my ministry provided some accelerated grants to the Metro municipality to provide some additional services, such as the ones outlined by the member. This year alone, we have committed some $6 million in a special program that was developed for that specific purpose only. I would say that is going a long way towards helping to clear up the problem.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is aware of the problems in a number of communities because his ministry failed to test at the time that subdivisions were approved in these various areas. He is now presumably going some way towards correcting the problems which he created in the first place.

My question is specific: over what period of time is he dedicating this new $34 million? Is it over the next five years, the next 10 years? Over how many years is this commitment?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: To the first part of the question, let me just suggest that the honourable leader of the third -- second party; I am sorry -- may well have lost sight of the fact that this ministry --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am sorry I bumped him back. I sometimes have these thoughts about what might happen in a matter of months.

The reality of the situation is that the Ministry of the Environment did not come into existence as a ministry until 1972 and many of the sewer problems that relate to some of the contamination on our beaches have been caused directly by the old technology, which is the combined systems that were the state of the art at the turn of the century. Those systems are quite obviously no longer adequate and are being changed. So the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect when he says that we approved of those services going in and that they therefore now have gone bad. That simply is not correct.

Second, with respect to the $34 million, it is within the course of the next provincial calendar year.

Mr. Peterson: It is just like the minister. He was state of the art at the turn of the century too, but look what happened.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

HIRING PRACTICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the Human Rights Commission.

I know the minister will be aware of the problems developing in Hamilton with respect to the hiring practices of a number of cab companies there. He will be aware that the Yellow Cab situation now apparently is in the hands of the Human Rights Commission. Now we have the spectre of the president of the City Wide Taxi company admitting that he does not hire East Indians. As I read it, I understand that is a very clear confession of discriminatory hiring practice.

Given the admonitions of his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), who has predicted racial violence in this province unless something is done, and given the strong statement he made a week or so ago about the lack of complicity in the minister's own ministry and with his own ministers about the advertising practices of his government, what strong measures is he going to take, as the minister responsible, to look into the situation in Hamilton to make sure there is no discrimination of any type practised?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, first of all, my office was in touch with the Human Rights Commission this morning to check with them as to their course of action. They are consulting with all the parties involved, and I should be able to give a definitive statement on the matter within the next few days.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is aware of his colleague's statement predicting racial violence. He said, and I am quoting, "a number of government officials are still reluctant to use visible minority group members in government advertising." The minister knows there are very clear guidelines suggesting that the racial diversity of this province should be reflected in the advertising guidelines. Has the minister looked into this accusation against his own colleagues? Who are those ministers who are not following the guidelines? What is the minister doing to press the case?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have not looked personally into the other ministries to see who is and who is not following the guidelines. I am responsible for the Ministry of Labour. I am quite confident we are following the guidelines, and I have not had complaints about any of the other ministries brought to my attention.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the kinds of problems we are being confronted with here, especially in the situation of Hamilton, clearly point out that the passive approach which the ministry takes to the enforcement of human rights in this province is a problem. When is the minister going to sit down and seriously look at an active role for his ministry and the Human Rights Commission in terms of an ongoing monitoring of the kind of employment practices in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree at all that we take a passive role. I will admit to a conciliatory role. We try to resolve these problems without having them become screeching headlines. That is what we are trying to do in this particular case.

Mr. Peterson: I remind the minister of his own guidelines on advertising, which say government advertising and communications as a whole should reflect fairly the racial diversity of this province. The minister's colleague the Attorney General has made serious accusations that these guidelines have not been followed by a number of government officials.

As the one responsible for the Human Rights Commission, does the minister not feel he has a role and responsibility to root out those people who are not following the guidelines and make an example of them? If the minister believes the Attorney General, that is the kind of failure to execute government policy that is going to lead to serious social unrest. The minister has to be seen in the activist role. Does the minister not feel that is his responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am a member of the cabinet committee on race relations, which is chaired by the Attorney General. I am quite confident and positive that committee is taking the active role the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting and the matter is being appropriately and properly addressed.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am having a bit of difficulty. We have two leadoff questions for the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), who I am assured is coming lickety-split. Perhaps I could --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could ask your second question.

Mr. McClellan: They are both to him. Perhaps I could stand down our two leadoff questions until the Treasurer arrives.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader arising out of his responsibility for the Election Act in Ontario.

Governments in the past, not just this government, have used taxpayers' dollars during election campaigns to undertake advertising campaigns through their various ministries. The chief electoral officer for Canada, Jean-Marc Hamel, has recommended to Parliament that advertising by governments should be banned during the period of an election campaign.

Given these facts, is the minister prepared to initiate legislation which would have that effect in Ontario and restore to this province more fairness during the campaigns?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the hypothesis on which that question is probably based is somehow one that would suggest there is something wrong with government advertising. That is a wrong and negative type of basis upon which to base this question.

Government advertising exists to inform the people of what their government is doing and to inform and help people make decisions in important areas, many of them at times urged upon us by members of the opposition. My friend would not want to decry the kind of advertising campaign the Ministry of the Attorney General carries on in regard to drinking and driving. I think all Ontarians support that kind of an advertising campaign, as they support campaigns based on conserving energy, etc.

If the honourable member feels there is merit in advertising, there is certainly no merit in suggesting that at certain times advertising should not be done, if it is in the public interest.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: During the provincial election campaign we are talking about a 37-day period during which we might have some advertising of the kind that says, "Life is good, Ontario. Preserve it, conserve it," showing people canoeing down the rivers, the nice clean waters of Ontario, the kind of advertising that is self-congratulatory and designed to improve the chances of a government during an election campaign.

Does the minister not feel that in a sense of fairness it would be responsible to enact legislation such as they have in Saskatchewan which prohibits government advertising during an election campaign except in the case of emergencies? I would agree with the minister that the kind of emergencies we would talk about would be a campaign against drinking and driving, for instance, but not "Life is good, Ontario. Preserve it, conserve it."

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my friend has tempered his question considerably now. He has said it would be acceptable in cases of emergency; in other words, a drinking and driving program by the Ministry of the Attorney General or a campaign to inform senior citizens that this is the time they should be applying for their property tax rebates. Who is going to decide these very issues? Why put himself in that position? Why not just trust that most governments -- in fact, all governments that I know -- would not abuse the advertising trust that they have?

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, does it not seem reasonable to the minister, since there have been criticisms of the government's advertising program by both the Provincial Auditor and the media, to make available to the public and to this House clearly stated objectives that could be measured so we could evaluate them? Or indeed, as we in this party have advocated, why not have a nonpartisan three-party committee to examine these objectives and look at the advertising program, since the government continually has its people defeat any inquiry in the public accounts committee?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It strikes me as very interesting. The honourable member made one comment: he said the program had been criticized by the media. Any of the media that feel strongly enough about the advertising program of this government are quite free not to accept any of that advertising. If editorially they decry the program and yet they want to take the ads, then they are rather speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Anybody who does not like an advertising program or feels it does not have a specific purpose and is not credible does not have to accept those ads.

REPORT ON RENT REVIEW

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to stand down our leadoff questions until the Treasurer arrives, but I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to his announcement that he intends not to bring in a legislative program arising out of the recommendations of the Thom commission until some time next spring. This means, of course, it will not be enacted until probably some time either in the late spring or early summer, or even in the fall.

I have a copy of Bill 20, An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect of Residential Premises. We were able to have an election on September 18, 1975, first reading of a complete rent control bill on November 6, 1975, second reading on November 20, 1975, and third and final reading on December 18, 1975. Why were we able to do that so quickly nine short years ago and yet now, after two years of royal commission study, we have to wait approximately six months from the time the minister receives the royal commission report to the time legislation is produced in this assembly? What is the big problem here?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is a problem. I think the honourable member may be trying to suggest that in his mind there is a problem, but as the government sees it, there is in place a rent review program that is functioning reasonably satisfactorily. Indeed, if one compares it with other rent control and rent review programs throughout the country, I think many would say, as I would, that it is a very effective program.

In spite of that, we did appoint Mr. Stuart Thom to carry out a royal commission to make recommendations with respect to any refinements or improvements that might be considered with respect to the present legislation. We now have that report; it is out for public comment and review. We have set up an interministerial working group to review the 65 or more recommendations I have indicated to the member that I would expect to be able to take some recommendations or views on the report to my colleagues during the winter months and that, with the consent of my colleagues, I would expect that legislation could follow from that during the spring session.

I do not call that delay by any stretch of the imagination. I call that evidence of positive and firm movement forward, particularly in the face of the fact the government has already taken two steps. First, it will eliminate the $750 exemption by removing the regulation that was in place while we carry out these considerations; and second, a bill has been reintroduced now to extend the five per cent cap on financing costs relating to a sale.

I call that moving on a report, and I call that moving rapidly with speed.

Mr. McClellan: I call it delay.

In November 1982, the two crucial issues of illegal rents and of costs no longer borne by the landlord that have been passed on in the form of higher rents to tenants were matters of critical urgency. The government now has before it a whole series of concrete recommendations which it could quickly put into legislative form and put before this assembly before we rise for the Christmas break. We could then begin the process of studying it in detail in the winter break so we could be ready to enact legislation in the spring.

Why is the government obviously prepared to tolerate the continued ripoff of thousands of tenants in the form of illegal rents and in the form of rent charges for costs their landlords are no longer paying? Why is the minister prepared to tolerate this for up to another 12 months? Why does he not act very quickly and expeditiously to bring something before us in this session? We will do our best to get it through and out to committee for some serious clause-by-clause work in the spring.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would not want the public to be under the misapprehension that there is not already in place a mechanism whereby illegal rents can be recovered. Indeed, if the member were to review and read the Residential Tenancy Commission report, he would know that not only is there a process in place but also that considerable amounts of money have been recovered by tenants. We are not talking about an act that does not address this issue.

Second, I find it very interesting that the member wishes to rush ahead with the issue of cost correction hearings, when at estimates some two days ago he called the recommendation that the Thom commission had made simply "another hurdle for tenants to jump over." Clearly, he has reservations about the recommendation in that report.

What I am saying to him is that we are waiting for public comments on the report. We have a working group reviewing the report, and I have outlined in very great detail the process it will go through, which I hope will lead to the tabling of legislation in the fall, if that is what my colleagues agree to.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, is the real reason the minister is not moving on this matter that the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) may win the leadership and he is going to disband rent controls?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to suspect that would happen at all.

Mr. Speaker: We will revert to leader's questions. The member for Bellwoods.

ONTARIO RENTAL CONSTRUCTION LOAN PROGRAM

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer with respect to the Ontario rental construction loan program. He has awarded about $75 million of taxpayers' money to a whole boodle of private developers for them to obtain one of the great boondoggles of the decade.

I am asking the Treasurer, because of the apparently permanent absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, what he thinks, from a public administrative perspective, of either the wisdom or the propriety of this government giving out $32,196,915 in interest-free mortgage money to 77 numbered companies.

Is it the practice of the government of Ontario to give out tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in the form of interest-free goodies to numbered companies without any knowledge about the beneficial owners, the principals or who the dummies are behind the dummy companies?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let us remember that numbered companies are only a replacement for companies with names that used to reflect people's street addresses, law firms or a combination of their family first names.

I think I was practising law when the change was made. It was made because lawyers were coming up with extraordinarily unusual names for companies for their clients. In order to be able to continue to come up with a supply of names when thousands of companies were being incorporated every week, there was a request from the legal community that we go to a system that is used in many places, which is to replace names with numbers.

However, by using numbers rather than names, there is no more or no less secrecy; there is no more or no less implicit hiding of anything. To this very day, there are probably as many companies being incorporated with names as with numbers. The amount of information available under both circumstances is precisely the same.

Mr. McClellan: The Ontario rental construction loan program was supposed to provide affordable housing for middle-income people in general. When developers received the interest-free money, up to 20 per cent of the units were supposed to be subsidized.

One of the numbered companies that received a loan is 47812 Ontario Inc. I am sure the minister will remember this company. It is one of my favourite companies, too. It built an apartment in Mississauga, at 2699 Battleford Road, using ORCL money. I have a brochure from the apartment. It is nicely embossed in purple and gold. It is called Lakeside Place Apartments. The rent for a two-bedroom unit ranges from $685 a month to $735 a month.

Part of the promotional material has a checklist of luxury features. I will read it briefly, "Open wood-burning fireplaces, air-conditioning, etc."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Why did the ministry give out about $75 million in taxpayers' money, in the middle of one of the worst housing crises this province has experienced since the end of the war, to developers in order to build unaffordable luxury apartment accommodation in Toronto and other communities across this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will take down the number and refer it to my colleague who, I am sure, will be able to enlighten the member with regard to the information behind that.

Mr. McClellan: Not a chance.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is right. He probably could not be enlightened, but at least he will have the information with regard to that transaction.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there is an important policy matter here. As Treasurer and as one who aspires to lead that party, why would he not put forward the alternative of putting his emphasis into nonprofit and co-operative housing? Would that not be the best and most fruitful way to get the maximum number of units for moneys expended? Why would the Treasurer not use his clout to make sure that was the direction of his government?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of others, that is not a bad idea. I will certainly contemplate it while I remind the member that we do have a great deal of investment in the kinds of housing about which he is talking. As I recall the program -- I could be mistaken -- I think the purpose was to allow the construction of relatively low-cost --

Mr. McClellan: Such as Lakeside Place?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I heard what the member said. The purpose of this was to allow the construction of relatively low-cost apartments in order to deal with the overall vacancy rate, thus alleviating the pressure about which we all know.

All sorts of programs are necessary. Over the years, I think this program has proven to be fairly important because it has caused the construction of many thousands of apartment units for middle-income people who otherwise would not have those apartments. We should not confuse this program with the others and suggest this is all we are doing. We are doing a great deal in the other areas, too.

Mr. McClellan: In the light of the fact the Treasurer's albatross friends in Ottawa have now cut $10 million out of the social housing program and, although they have not decided completely, are at least threatening the 1985 allocation of social housing units for Ontario; in the light of the colossal, monumental, stupefying failure of this birdbrained ORCL program, combined with the complete abdication as a government of any participation in housing construction and housing development in the social housing field since 1978; what steps do the government and the Treasurer intend to take to make sure Ontario goes back into the business, which it abandoned in 1978, of acting as a full and equal partner in the development and construction of new affordable housing in this province, which includes units for people who require subsidization?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would offer the view that in the entire housing market it would be appropriate for this government and all provincial governments to include on the agenda for discussions with the new federal government the whole question of housing and the various forms of subsidy that are required to provide adequate accommodation at the proper cost, including enough private-sector-based accommodation.

I know my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has already spoken to the federal minister -- I think it is Mr. La Salle -- with regard to what programs might succeed the ones on which they are altering the funding.

I want to be very clear that I do agree with the member that there is scope for federal-provincial co-operation in dealing with this very problem and I am confident it will be done. This is, I would remind the member, a new era of co-operation when indeed we can talk to our friends in Ottawa.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer with regard to the statement he made in Fort Frances on Saturday that northerners should not have to shoulder the burden of expensive travel and accommodation costs when getting medical treatment in Toronto and that he is going to subsidize medically necessary travel for northern Ontarians if he becomes Premier.

Now that the minister has made this kind of statement and has made it clear, as he said, that it is time for this step forward and he is ready to develop a program to cover medically necessary travel for northerners, will the Treasurer make a clear statement about how much he estimates it will cost for travel and accommodation of this type?

Will he make a clear statement that the required funds can be made available from the Ontario Treasury so that the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) can implement this policy before the end of this session? Why should we have to wait for the Treasurer to become Premier -- if and when that might happen -- or why should we have to wait for further comments or dribble drabble out of his campaign program?

Is it not time, as the Treasurer says, to respond to this need rather than to make opportunistic statements as the campaign progresses? Why should we in northern Ontario have to be made a political football? When are we going to get the program we need, medically necessary travel coverage for northerners who have to travel to southern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I was present and I remember members on this side of the House, particularly my colleagues from the north, heartily endorsing the resolution to provide this very kind of service.

Mr. Nixon: To whom are you gesturing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To my northern colleagues.

The answer to the member's question concerning whether I am prepared to outline the costs of this and outline the program is that I am, absolutely. It may not be this afternoon, but it will be in the next 60 days. Obviously, the cost depends very much upon the particular type of program we outline to allow the next step forward in continuing to provide world-leading health care services to people in the north.

2:50 p.m.

This government has made remarkable strides under all of the administrations in this province. I might say that, after all, two of my colleagues with whom I am currently engaged in other activities were Health ministers who played a large role in expanding those very health services to the north. I like to think I was able to move that a step forward when I was Minister of Health.

I believe all the leadership candidates would be interested in hearing the voices of our caucus and others on finding ways to extend this service to northerners. I am committed to do that responsibly. It must be developed as a comprehensive package which deals with the cost and funding by the government. That is an achievable task, and I am proud to be able to say it is not a political football but something whose time has come. Properly structured, it will be done.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting considering the Minister of Health has indicated it would cost about $50 million --

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Wildman: -- down $25 million from what he initially said it would cost. He has indicated he does not think we can afford it and --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Wildman: -- that it is a choice between travel and better facilities in the north --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please place his question.

Mr. Wildman: We northerners understand we are never going to have all the specialized facilities that are available in places like Toronto. But as a matter of justice --

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Wildman: -- for the smaller communities of the north, will the Treasurer state clearly now, not later in his campaign, whether or not the provincial government can afford to cover the costs of medically necessary travel for northerners?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think in the future we will be able to do that --

Mr. Laughren: Keeping in mind cabinet solidarity too.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is right.

I think we should be able to do that, thanks in part to the excellent performance of the Ontario economy, which is generating revenues even beyond my expectations this year.

But I should tell the member I do understand the circumstances. The member was very thankful for the cancellation of an event that had been scheduled for Thursday of this week. In anticipation of this event, his party had placed advertisements in northern newspapers inviting the public to write and express, by coupon, their support for this program. I think our party will be prepared, regardless of the outcome in January, to step forward with the very program that would make all those paid advertisements meaningless.

I understand the member's frustration, although I cannot share it with him. As I said earlier, providing that program is timely, and given the performance of the economy in Ontario this year and the performance I fully expect for next year, I think we will be able to begin to fund that program now. It is quite workable.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, it is curious that when the Treasurer was Minister of Health he disapproved of such subsidies. It is also curious that the last time this question was raised the present Minister of Health indicated this proposal implied a colonialist attitude on the part of the members of the opposition and he would have no part of it.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Sweeney: May I ask the Treasurer -- who hopes to be Premier -- in what reincarnation he supports or does not support such subsidies? Who does speak for the health issues of Ontario: the former Minister of Health or the present one? What is the policy of this government? We have heard two policies from the same man in two incarnations and two policies from the same front bench of the same government from two different ministers.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, would the member want to begin by talking about the two views the member's one leader has had on, say, extra-billing or pornography? Does he want to go into those issues?

Mr. Sweeney: Tell us who speaks for that government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell him who speaks for this government. Very simply, if I were speaking for this government after January I believe I could structure a program and rearrange the funding -- add the funding -- necessary to take this step forward. My colleague, who is a superb Minister of Health, has made it quite clear that the costs and design of the plan proposed by the New Democratic Party is unaffordable and not the right kind of plan.

However, it is quite a different thing to say that the creative minds on this side of the House -- I include all of my colleagues in that -- can devise a program and can now have the funding, thanks to the policies of this government, in future years to begin to move in that area.

I hope to be the one speaking for this government next year. If I am not, then so be it. Right now, the member can be assured --

Mr. McClellan: Cut the campaigning in here, will you?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Happy to. The member can be assured that I believe we can now take the next step forward and I am confident, thanks to work that is being done inside this government on this very issue, we will be able to move forward regardless of the outcome in January.

Mr. Wildman: The Treasurer, whether he becomes leader of his party or not, does speak as the cabinet officer responsible for the Treasury and for the allocation of funds to ministries in the budget. Either we can afford this program or we cannot, in the view of the government.

If we can afford it, will the Treasurer explain why we are not now ready to implement it? Why will the government not implement it prior to the end of this session, rather than waiting until he may or may not become Premier of the province? Also, can he clarify whether or not he was expanding the proposal that has been made and voted on in this House to include not only medically necessary travel but also accommodation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can only repeat what I said earlier and that is that in order to implement this program there has to be a wide variety of alterations and changes, improvement in program design, implementation and rearrangement of other government programs and mechanisms of assistance. In other words, it is not a one-shot exercise but has to be brought in as part of a comprehensive series of measures that would be taken to assist with this very serious problem in the north.

Obviously, it is not something that we are ready to do or could be ready to do this fall, nor, had I been leading this government earlier this year or last year, do I believe we would have been ready to introduce that program this fall. I do believe that next year and the year after we will be able to begin to implement that program.

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet has the answer to a previously asked question.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable interest in a letter which I received from the Attorney General regarding the chairman of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, Mr. Lou Parsons, and I wish to now table this letter with the Clerk of the House.

[Later]

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board with respect to the document he tabled a moment ago. It is a legal opinion, but not exactly from the Attorney General; it is actually from Mr. J. J. Robinette. The letter reads, in part:

"You have asked for my opinion as to whether Mr. Parsons would be violating section 15 of the Public Service Act if he were to actively work for a candidate for the leadership of the provincial Conservative Party....

"Clearly Mr. Parsons is a crown employee within section 15 and I think it is equally clear that if he works on behalf of a candidate for the leadership of the provincial Conservative Party he is engaging in an activity for or on behalf of a provincial political party within the meaning of section 15."

Since the legal opinion is clear and unequivocal, may I ask the minister whether he intends to ask Mr. Parsons for his resignation as chairman of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, it is always easy to have a selective reading. I am sure the honourable member has the same letter I have and he chose to read the third last paragraph. Perhaps I could read to the House the last paragraph just to bring members up to date. It says:

"I understand that Mr. Parsons' position as chairman and member of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority is a part-time position and that he is not required to devote all of his working time to his position. However, in my view section 15 of the Public Service Act does prohibit Mr. Parsons from working or acting for or on behalf of a candidate for the leadership of the Ontario Conservative Party during his working hours, whatever they may be. On the other hand, section 15 does not prohibit him from so acting outside his working hours."

Do I need to say any more? Should I read it again to the honourable member?

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not feel, through his own legal interpretation of this letter, that if Mr. Parsons can continue to work for the government -- that is the minister's interpretation, of course -- it would be wise to ask him at least to get a leave of absence for the duration of the leadership campaign to remove the controversy that surrounds this particular case, rather than go through, day after day, questions coming up about his, let us say, objectivity in dealing with various issues that come before the government, since he happens to be working for one of the leadership candidates?

Mr. Speaker: The minister -- briefly.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, you know my penchant for long answers. I forget what he said now; you interrupted me. The answer is no.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is to the Minister of Labour with respect to the strike at Can-Car Rail Inc.

A press report today on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. said there was a secret report in the hands of the management that was threatening to close down Can-Car in Thunder Bay, taking some 450 jobs out of that community, closing them down, and subcontracting the work out to United States companies if the workers were not prepared to make certain concessions. Can the minister confirm whether that is true, whether another arm of his government is bargaining in that way?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm whether that is correct or not.

Mr. Peterson: If that report is true, and I understand it may be made public this afternoon, does the minister approve of that kind of tactic and is he prepared to discuss with his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), who is responsible for that agency, which is 80 per cent owned by the taxpayers of this province, that the government completely disapproves of these kinds of threats, that the government completely disapproves of this kind of bargaining in bad faith and that the government in this province will not tolerate it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have consulted with my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications twice today on that matter and at no time was there any thought whatsoever of threats or anything of that nature. We discussed the Can-Car situation but that aspect of it never entered our conversation.

3 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, since Can-Car is controlled by the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and is therefore under some kind of direction and control from the government, would the minister use his influence to get the two sides back to the bargaining table and require management to put forth a decent offer? If I understand it correctly, the last offer amounts to requiring concessions from the work force.

Would the minister do two things: first, give us assurances that production will not be shifted to some other plant, perhaps in the United States; second, get the two sides back together and have management put a decent offer on the table?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are all jumping to conclusions here. When there is a work stoppage such as we have here, it is normal for the parties to sit back and reflect on their positions. That usually takes a period of time. We are prepared to attempt to get the parties back to the bargaining table and we are prepared to provide mediation services, absolutely; but we have to have the consent of both parties to do that.

I also feel, as I have said before in the House, each work stoppage is unique in itself and has to be treated in a somewhat different way. One does not go rushing in there with all sorts of grandiose ideas for a settlement on the first day the workers go out on strike. Let them cool off a bit, let them review their positions and then let us get them back to mediation. That is the responsible way and it has been the proven way in labour negotiations in the past.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will recall that on Friday he was being questioned by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) concerning lead discharges from the Du Pont plant and the Ethyl Canada plant.

Can the minister tell the House why in his answer he said, "The technology required in order to abate that particular problem is not in existence anywhere in the world," when, according to ministry staff, Du Pont has technology in place in its New Jersey plant for the removal of lead from its discharge wash waters?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, in 1982 the standard for our ministry for lead discharges to water was one part per million. At that time, both Du Pont and Ethyl Canada were running at about double the standard that was allowable by my ministry, at about two parts per million. Subsequently, in 1984, they did introduce technology. I indicated in the House they were working on a retrofit of the plant to bring in state-of-the-art technology and have reduced the discharge in that plant to about one part per million.

Subsequent to that, we further tightened the standards within the ministry to 0.5 parts per million, which is another reduction to about half of what it was previously, as I am sure the member will be pleased to hear. We have not as yet seen technology that can be applicable to that standard and effective in that type of situation, given the plants that are there now and the retrofit that would be necessary, but we are attempting to move to another level of control, which is beyond what those plants can reach with known technology.

Mr. Charlton: We had a call from a Dr. Bernard Fleet from Environmental Monitoring and Control, a small Canadian company specializing in pollution control and monitoring equipment. According to the good doctor, there is a technology available. It is an electrochemical recovery system that can do the job.

Can the minister explain why he seems to be so out of touch with what other people know about existing technologies? Can he explain why the Du Pont and Ethyl Canada plants in Ontario have not been required to install the same technologies that have been used by Du Pont elsewhere?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: They have been required to implement the best technology known at the particular time those plants were refitted.

I might say to the member I am not at all reticent about speaking to the gentleman he has named and reviewing with him the application of that particular technology to both the existing plants. It may or may not be the type of technology that would fit and have some positive effect on the control of those discharges.

I can only say this ministry is not out of touch with the known technologies and state of the art with regard to pollution abatement equipment. We are reaching for a very high standard, which is very difficult to achieve from a technological standpoint, but we are quite prepared to work on improving our present levels.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made some progress in cleaning up the visible problems in the lake. We do not see the algae and dead fish of a few years ago, but we have a far worse problem in those lakes in the invisible pollution from about 1,000 chemicals that have now been identified in fish and a great many others that have not been identified. Why does the minister not put a control order on that company to stop absolutely the discharge of lead into that lake within the next two, three or six months so that we know definitely it is going to end?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: If the company is not prepared to co-operate, we are quite prepared to require, through a control order, that the company take additional steps in an abatement program that would prove to be effective. Thankfully, that has not been necessary at this time because they have been very co-operative in putting in the new technology and the kinds of improvements that are necessary in the operation of that plant to bring the discharges down to the levels which I indicated somewhat earlier in my response to the member from the third party.

The reality is that we are talking about state-of-the-art technology. We are working with the plants to achieve the kinds of standards that would be acceptable to both of us. I can assure the member we are prepared to consider such things as a control order.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Does the minister recall a former Minister of Energy releasing a report entitled Energy Security for the Eighties? It stated we should develop 1,000 megawatts of power from the Onakawana lignite reserves in James Bay, go into nonconventional renewable resources in wind, solar and biomass, develop 2,000 megawatts of small hydraulic sites and have more of a generation mix.

What has happened to the government's resolve to go into these very important areas now that it is faced with tremendous increases in the cost of fuel?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I recall very well that document released by my predecessor, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), in which the programs of the government for energy security were set out. I think it is fair for the honourable member to remember that when those programs were addressed, when the document was released, we were facing somewhat of a crisis with respect to oil prices; and projected oil price increases of up to $50 to $60 a barrel for the mid-1980s.

Those prices did not materialize. They did not materialize because although the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries particularly believed it had a tight enough control on the world's supply of oil that it could increase prices at will, that did not happen without a very serious effect on the world's economy, and the consequent slowdown in the use of oil which resulted in the current surplus situation we face today.

3:10 p.m.

I think it is very important that the honourable member understand that the focus of the ministry now with respect to the document Energy Security in the Eighties will be one of applying technologies that have commercial viability and applying renewable technologies, whether they be in the field of wind, solar or small hydraulic, but choosing areas where there is commercial viability. That is where our thrust will be and those are the areas we will continue to encourage.

At the same time, we will not place any less emphasis on the conservation programs we have in place, and we will be encouraging commercial efforts in the conservation field as we move to the end of the 1980s without the pressure of those higher world prices.

Mr. Kerrio: It would appear we are now going to set this program back and wait till we are threatened again before we do something in the alternative. The federal government, when it charged extra taxes on fuel, at least put them to good use. The industry was doing some exploration and such things.

The minister is going to bring into the coffers of this government an additional $367 million from Ontarians because of the increase in federal taxes. Does he not think it is about time we did something for future generations by looking at the alternatives, using this windfall he now has at his disposal?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I would not be shy at all to say to the honourable member we will continue to put emphasis on the technologies that will relieve us of the problems we faced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, problems caused by our dependence on offshore resources. We now face a situation where we have initiatives under way to relieve that kind of pressure and to make ourselves self-sufficient. We have a direction clearly set out for ourselves that will make this country self-sufficient in energy supplies, and we are moving full steam to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: You will understand that I was shocked this morning when I was handed a picture from a Toronto tabloid that features our very own Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory) posing in a kind of centrefold layout with someone named Vanessa Williams, who apparently posed nude in a magazine called Penthouse. The caption here is that Vanessa Williams wants "an encore" and the minister is going to "show and tell."

I think we have a right to know just what the Minister of Revenue is going to show and when he is going to tell us about it.

Mr. Speaker: I get the feeling we will never know, because that was not a point of order.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on procedural affairs presented the committee's ninth report on agencies, boards and commissions and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, in September of this year the standing committee on procedural affairs reviewed the following six agencies, boards or commissions: the Animal Care Review Board, the Ontario International Corp., the Niagara Parks Commission, the Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp., the Children's Services Review Board and the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission.

On motion by Mr. Treleaven, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PREMIER (CONTINUED)

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on Friday when the clock cut my presentation short, I still had a few areas I wished to raise before the minister replied to the leadoffs from the two critics. If I may proceed on that, I would like to mention those few areas.

Just to refresh the minister's memory, my theme on Friday was that the Ontario women's directorate, which the minister oversees, is asking us to vote a budget of about $5 million for it. My theme is that unless we can see some real action in the major areas of concern to women in achieving equality, we will be questioning the voting of such a large sum for the directorate. We are not sure until we see more action whether the directorate is just a big blue bureaucracy or perhaps a big blue public relations machine, because so far we do not appear to have had a great deal of action in the 10 areas I mentioned as being of key interest to women at present in achieving equality.

To run over them very briefly, those 10 areas are:

1. Closing the wage gap;

2. Real progress in affirmative action;

3. Adequate provision for helping battered women;

4. Family law reform, sooner not later;

5. Abolition of sex stereotyping in the schools, in the media, in advertising and throughout all aspects of our society;

6. Adequate child care on a universal basis for all those who wish it and need it, because it is essential for women to have this if they are to achieve equality in the work place;

[Later]

Mr. Chairman, first of all I have a point of order: I want to correct the record. In my earlier remarks this afternoon, I listed again the 10 items on which I said we needed action in order to justify the work of the directorate, but I inadvertently omitted item 7. I have just received a copy of the record which shows that it jumps from 6 to 8. Item 7 of the issues on which we need action is the question of equal access to legal abortion so that women who choose to exercise their human right to make decisions in this area are able to make decisions affecting their own life.

8. A charter of rights for part-time workers;

9. Adequate protection for domestic workers, who are mainly women in this province and who are greatly exploited, particularly because they have no protection on their hours of work or any overtime pay, and they get a minimum wage below the general minimum wage; and

10. Responding to the high-technology revolution with adequate programs to see that the people who are displaced or affected in the work place by high technology are able to obtain the kind of retraining they need, or the kind of adjustments needed in the organization of the work place, so they are not the victims of the high-technology revolution and so the benefits of the revolution will be shared by all people in the province, both management and workers.

Those were the 10 areas in which I still have not seen enough action to justify the expenditure of $5 million on a directorate. That may sound a rather harsh judgement, but there are also growing feelings that the stubborn refusal of the minister to consider equal pay for work of equal value is based on a desire to protect employers from the wage cost that would be involved in closing that wage gap.

We are not suggesting it would be done overnight; it would be done on a gradual basis, with people making applications under an equal value law such as we are proposing in Bill 141. In effect, it would be a great shot in the arm to the economy because it would put additional purchasing power in the hands of a great many women who are underpaid at present. It would also end the subsidy that women are making to employers by being paid lower wages in the so-called women's jobs in the women's ghettos than they would be entitled to if the value test were applied to their work.

The other area where we see lack of action of any significant type is in the area of affirmative action, which is an essential part of closing the wage gap. I recall that we do not even seem to have moved beyond the voluntary approach to the approach which the minister himself, in an interview on May 25, 1984, suggested might be a next step.

In that interview, with Jackie Smith of the Toronto Star, he is quoted as saying, "I don't think we'll see legislation in the immediate future," in talking about affirmative action. This is a direct quote from him, but the article also says he "promises some action by the end of the summer. For example, he says government will consider whether or not a company has an affirmative action program when it awards contracts."

He was considering contract compliance back on May 25, but we have not heard anything more about it since. What he is doing right now is reading lectures to both the private and public sectors, saying: "If you do not bring in affirmative action programs, we will see that something is done to force you to." At least, that is the implication of his speeches.

So far, it looks as if he is simply waving his finger at them, but there is no move towards mandatory affirmative action. In those areas, we are very dubious whether the directorate is in tune with the wants and needs of the women of Ontario. Certainly, all the briefs the women's organizations keep submitting to us indicate that equal pay for work of equal value and mandatory affirmative action are their top priorities. These issues are considered intertwined. We cannot close the wage gap without having affirmative action as well, and on a mandatory basis, if we are going to have any real progress in that field.

That is reviewing what I said on Friday. To go on to the other areas I want to raise, and I hope the minister will respond to them, there is the question of impact studies. When the ministry was set up, it was announced that part of its mandate would be to do impact studies of all legislation or changes that were to be brought in affecting women. I would like to know which branch of the directorate is responsible for doing those impact studies. Where does it come in the organizational chart? How many impact studies have been done so far? Can any of them be tabled, and if not, why not? On what pieces of legislation or administrative changes have impact studies been done?

This seems to me a whole area where we would like more enlightenment. It is part of the mandate in the black book for the directorate -- by the black book, I mean the briefing book -- that the functions of the directorate include to "analyse and evaluate existing and proposed legislation, policies and programs for their impact on women." The proposed legislation definitely comes under that.

3:30 p.m.

I would like to ask in particular whether an impact study has been done on Bill 141 and on the Theatres Amendment Act, which has great impact on the question of how we control violent pornography against women, which degrades women. Also, has an impact study been done on the new Public Libraries Act, which puts a great deal of power in the hands of the ministry in particular over the budgets and planning of the libraries? We know that a very large percentage of employees of libraries are women. We also know the Metropolitan Toronto Library employees currently are on strike over the question of technological change. They are requesting that they be included in planning for technological change in the libraries. Presumably, this new act would give the minister power to insist that there be some joint worker-management planning for technological change. We would like to know whether that act has been subject to an impact study for its effect on women.

I think it is a great mistake for workers not to be involved in planning for technological change in an area such as libraries. No doubt the wrong kind of technological change may be brought in without the double input from both management and workers. Technological change is becoming an important part of collective bargaining, since we do not have any legislation in this province covering it. There is no early warning system through legislation that specifically says it must be part of collective agreements or that there should be joint labour-management committees to deal with it.

I would also like to know whether there was an impact study done on a fourth bill, Bill 101; it covers the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act. Pensions for both widows and widowers are covered by that bill, and the changes are considered inadequate by a great many people. Most of the people eligible for survivors' pensions under the Workers' Compensation Act are women. Therefore, this is another area where I think an impact study should have been done. It is another issue on which we would like more enlightenment.

Another issue relates to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In his statement, the minister said on page 21 that he was "working closely with women's legal groups to disseminate information on the meaning of the equality sections."

We all know the anti-discrimination section, section 15, which includes discrimination against women, comes into effect on March 31, 1985. Many provinces have been looking at their statutes to see which ones would be found in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for discriminating in some way against any of the groups mentioned in the charter. They have been planning what legislation is necessary before that deadline so they will not be found with a lot of statutes that are in violation.

Through an excellent new publication called the Canadian Legislative News, I have learned that Alberta has just passed a Charter Omnibus Act, which covers amendments to 30 bills. That province had a committee made up of lawyers, government officials and others knowledgeable in the field, which studied all provincial statutes. It came to the conclusion that about 250 of the province's 450 statutes might be in conflict with the charter. The Department of the Attorney General studied the recommended statutes and winnowed the number down to 30. That seems like a pretty drastic cut. Anyway, at least those 30 are now subject to this Charter Omnibus Act.

What it means is that if these 30 laws are amended before March 31, the province will not have to invoke the "notwithstanding" clause in the Charter of Rights, which enables legislatures and the Parliament of Canada to override the charter on any given statute. That notwithstanding clause was the subject of great discussion during the constitutional debates. Women's organizations, as well as minority groups affected by the discrimination clause, were very much opposed to having that notwithstanding clause in the charter, but it was one of the compromises that came about during the constitutional negotiations.

Under the notwithstanding clause, the Parliament of Canada or the legislature of a province can pass a law saying any law that might violate the charter is in effect notwithstanding the terms of the charter. That is a pretty big power to give to the provinces and the Parliament of Canada. It has one restriction, which is that if they do make such a declaration by enactment, it is in effect for only five years. Unless they re-enact that declaration, the law is no longer effective notwithstanding the charter.

I hope the minister will give us more information on whether he and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) have discussed introducing a charter omnibus bill, either in this fall session or very early next spring, if we have a session before March 31 after the leadership convention, so we can be in a position to have any discrimination that appears to conflict with the charter removed before we meet that deadline.

Ontario would not like to find itself in the position of having a great number of its laws challenged under the charter because they were discriminatory. In some cases it is rather ancient law that contains these discriminations, but it would be just as well to get them out before March 31. That is the second area I want the minister to look at.

The third area is the question of retraining, which is necessary for women to help them get into the nontraditional jobs and overcome the barriers to equality.

On page 8 of the minister's statement, he says: "The directorate evaluated and assessed women s participation in a variety of federal and provincial training programs. We have determined that a basic framework for training exists but that women's access is still being hampered for a number of reasons. Some of the stumbling blocks relate to outdated attitudes among employers and counsellors regarding occupations suited for women. Other barriers include inadequate training allowances, lack of bridging or upgrading programs and the absence of necessary supports such as child care."

3:40 p.m.

This government has the power to do something about the necessary support for child care. To a large extent, that is a provincial responsibility, although I know the federal government shares whatever we spend under the Canada assistance plan. The minister points out there is an absence of necessary support such as child care. This is an area where we want to see a great deal more action than we have seen in the past. As I mentioned on Friday, there is a shortfall of about 84,000 supervised child care spaces in this province for the number of women in the work force with children under six.

The minister then goes on in his speech, on page 7, to mention that the 1984 provincial budget reflected the need for new and increased training initiatives. He mentioned four initiatives and we would like to know how much of the money for those initiatives is going to apply to women.

First is $450 million for the Ontario youth opportunities fund, which will be invested in youth training and experience. If he mentions it as one of the initiatives that will help women, we would like to know how much of that $450 million will go to women.

Second is $150 million for the Ontario skills fund, which involves a four-part program to invest in the retraining and upgrading of experienced workers. How many women will participate in that? I hope it will be on a 50:50 basis at least, and perhaps it should be even more, because of women's lack of entry into the nontraditional jobs and their need for retraining.

Third is an increase from $4 million to $12 million in the technical upgrading program designed to assist women. This one is tailored to women, but I would like to know how much of that $12 million has been spent to date and whether the whole $12 million is going to be spent in this fiscal year. Sometimes these figures are put in the budget but the programs to implement them and to get people into the programs do not provide the access and a barrier still remains.

Fourth is $120 million to help those on social assistance who want to overcome welfare dependency and gain experience, employment and training. This will help women particularly, because there are a great many single-parent families, mostly headed by women, that should be helped to get off the welfare system. How much of this $120 million is being committed and is there an adequate amount for all those who wish to avail themselves of this program? I have heard the program is running out of money in the city of Toronto and perhaps in other parts of the province.

Finally, what is the minister doing to help women get more apprenticeships? This depends, of course, on employers accepting them, but is there a definite affirmative action program on with employers to encourage them to accept more women and to make more apprenticeships available to them? The latest figures we have seen showed the number of women apprentices was going down rather than up. They were only about five per cent of the total. Those are areas in the training field on which we want more clarification.

My third area may be one the minister has not considered as part of his mandate, but I think it very much is. This is the question of women's involvement in politics. We know there are only five women in this House at present. We know women in Ontario, as members of the Legislature, have never exceeded much more than five per cent of the total and we know the main reason is that there are a lot of barriers to women becoming both candidates and members.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) mentioned with pride, and I congratulate the Liberal Party on this, that the party was setting up a fund to help women with the expenses of being candidates. Of course, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The New Democratic Party did the same thing during the recent federal election when it set up the Agnes Macphail fund to assist women candidates. Some 40 candidates with child and household responsibilities got $500 each out of that fund over the summer to help them with child care expenses or other expenses they incurred by being candidates. We intend to carry on such a fund at the provincial level as well.

That is just one of the barriers. I hope the directorate and the Minister responsible for Women's Issues would be starting to study how to remove the barriers to women becoming candidates and members. Until we do that, we are not using the talents of 50 per cent of the population in the legislative process. There might be a different look at some of the legislation if there were more women here.

In particular, I would like to suggest the minister might study amendments to the Municipal Elections Act in order to facilitate women moving into the municipal field. We all know this is where a great many people start their political careers. A great many women have gone into the municipal field, partly because it was not a full-time job in many cases, but without a Municipal Elections Act that limits expenditures and contributions, they are often operating in a very unequal field.

There must also be provision for tax credits for contributions to municipal election funds. This is considered acceptable at the federal and provincial levels. I do not see why it is not acceptable at the municipal level. I think the minister should be pushing the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) or the cabinet generally, to put this into effect in order to make it possible for more women to run in areas where it costs money to run an election campaign. That includes most of the urban centres. In some of the rural centres, it does not require as much. We should have disclosure at all levels so that they also know who is calling the tune in the different municipal areas.

The second thing the minister might study is more equality in appointments to government agencies, boards and commissions. Instead of just the token woman, as we appear to be getting in many cases, we should be working towards parity on all those agencies, boards and commissions.

We should also be working for parity in the senior public service. I think we are making progress. About 32 per cent of the senior public service are women, yet we still have only a few women deputy ministers. When women move into that kind of job, they will get more familiarity with the activities of government and could be more potentially valuable as candidates.

The third area the minister should look at regarding women in politics is the question of special allowances for members who have child care responsibilities. This should apply to both men and women. Nowadays, we often find members of either sex have very heavy responsibilities for looking after the children in the family and running the home. Perhaps the person does not have a spouse or the spouse is otherwise occupied with his or her own career and therefore cannot take on the entire child care responsibility.

3:50 p.m.

I do not think she should have to take on the entire child care responsibility. Family, household and child care responsibilities should be split more or less evenly between the two parents so that women then are free to pursue the same kinds of careers as men.

Certainly in the legislative field, with the kinds of hours members are expected to keep in their legislative duties, normal child care help is practically useless. Most child care help stops at six o'clock in the evening, and I think members should be put on a basis whereby they can look after their family responsibilities and still fulfil their legislative duties. That is the third area I want the minister to look at.

The fourth one is the question of women's centres. This is another area to which I do not think he has been paying a great deal of attention. Women's centres have sprung up all over this province. They are very valuable for providing a meeting place, a networking facility, a presence in the community, a lobby group and a support and counselling group for women with various problems and needs.

Many of them help women to know their rights and inform them about community services; many of them help women when they come into contact with the judicial system in any way. But most of these women's centres operate on a shoestring with little or no full-time staff, with second-hand and donated furniture and with inadequate premises on a back street.

I suggest that women's centres are just as important as employment counselling centres, which this government funds; they are just as important as community information centres, which this government funds. The minister should consider a study, and I hope some action shortly afterwards, of the kind of funding that might be made available to enable women's centres to be established and thrive in various centres in the province.

I might refer the minister to a leaflet that was prepared by the women and economic development committee of the Women's Decade Council of Northwestern Ontario, which operates out of Thunder Bay. It is called Women in Decision-Making, and it has some very far-reaching proposals that women must be involved in the decisions made by economic development committees at the provincial, regional and local levels because they can be affected greatly by the decisions of those committees and by the kinds of jobs that are being created for the area and whether their needs are being met by the economic planning.

This group is not concerned entirely with economic development, but it does suggest that women's centres have a role to play in meeting community needs and concerns that have often been overlooked when economic development projects have been undertaken. I will be glad to send the minister a copy of that leaflet.

I think those are the main areas in which I wanted some further enlightenment. I would like to suggest that when we get into detailed examination of the estimates, since there are really only two votes, we concentrate on vote 1 for most of the time, dealing with all the women's issues that come under the directorate, including the women's bureau and the women crown employees office, which I presume still exist although, as I mentioned, they do not appear on the organization chart; and second, that we deal with the vote on the Ontario Status of Women Council separately.

Perhaps we could agree on reserving one sitting, or a certain amount of time, for that particular issue so we do not ignore it. I think it is very important, so I make that suggestion and hope the minister and the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) will agree to it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be permitted an opportunity to respond very quickly to some of the points made by my friends the member for Windsor-Sandwich and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). I have listened with a great deal of interest to their representations, following which, with the permission of the committee, we might discipline our discussion on the estimates, as suggested by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and do some time allocation, if that is agreeable to the committee.

At the outset, prior to getting to that point on the division of time, I might start a point or two short of where the member for Beaches-Woodbine left off. I was very much interested in the point being made about involvement in the decision-making process. That is where it is at and that is a very important point.

She mentions quite properly the involvement of women in the political process in particular, and she goes on to mention there are five women members of this Legislature. I am very proud that four of the five sit on this side of the House, which is some indication of our involvement there. Obviously, there is one woman in the third party, and a very capable one indeed, who has just made a representation. No doubt there will be those in the official opposition who will be quick to utilize the resources of the Margaret Campbell fund, or whatever, because there are no women in that caucus at all.

Mr. Wrye: There was until July, and there will be after December 13.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I was not making a point of that. I was simply picking up on a point made by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. Four out of five is not bad, and it is some indication that members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario recognize the importance of this.

Ms. Bryden: Four out of 72.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is a long way to go and there will be more than 72 next time, so we will have to increase those numbers.

I add to this the fact that on one of my journeys, when I was discussing the question of women's issues in the United Kingdom -- I do not know whether the member knows there is an organization there dedicated to that very point she makes. There is a nonpartisan group attempting to point out the fact that the membership of the British House of Commons shows some discrepancies with respect to the representation of women. Their whole object is to encourage all the political parties in that country to do something about that, as they feel at least half the membership of the British Parliament should be women.

I discussed with officers of that organization some of the programs they were involved in to introduce that concept to the various parties there. I was very impressed with their dedication, although they feel some frustrations with the candidate selection process. I think a message all the political parties in this province could well send to our various constituency organizations is that there should be some special emphasis on encouraging the women of those various constituencies, as capable as they are, to consider some period of time in public life, as we do.

There is also membership on municipal councils. I do not have the figures here, but it seems to me that over the last several years there has been a substantial increase in the number of women who have entered political life of this province in the municipal area, as members of council, on school boards and in other ways, and they bring a very important dimension to it.

I also want to say, although this is not in any particular order, I could not agree more with the fact that we can agree on some basic principles. I think it is wonderful that in the arrangement of estimates time, the House leaders were able to assign the amount of time they have done for the discussion of women's issues when one thinks of the competition for time that all estimates have. I think it is a healthy sign that we have this period of time to reflect on these important issues together.

Although we may not necessarily agree on the methods by which we can accomplish some of these very important goals, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are in a situation of some agreement with respect to the issues. In the name of fairness, equity and justice, we seek the same results. How we accomplish them provides an opportunity for healthy debate and open discussion. I am grateful we have this opportunity to do that together.

4 p.m.

Some points have been raised and I want to go over them very quickly; obviously, affirmative action is a very important one. We have agreed that is so. The issue of the Toronto Star today devotes a fair amount of space to the question of affirmative action. I for one am grateful to Jackie Smith and to others who have undertaken to highlight the importance of affirmative action and have devoted the amount of time to it that they have.

May I repeat what I said several days ago in my opening address, that I have always felt we, as an employer, had some obligation to set an example, and that is what we have been attempting to do. I share the pride of my colleagues in our own record in affirmative action, particularly in what we have been able to accomplish within our own public service for women crown employees. We should also draw attention to the very strong beginning we have made outside the public service.

In response to some of the comments made about affirmative action, I might say that when it comes to the private sector I have never seen myself to be an apologist for the private sector. I want the members to know that since becoming the Minister responsible for Women's Issues, I have spent a great deal of time in dealing with chief executive officers in the private sector. With respect to their activities, I feel there is much that has not been publicized enough.

I would be the first to agree we have a Long way to go. With regard to any of the companies mentioned in Jackie Smith's article and the quotations, I feel it is really up to those companies to respond to those comments, not me. I would hope they and many others would start sharing some information about their commitment to the whole question of equality of access to employment, and the equality of opportunities for advancement within employment.

As I have mentioned in my remarks, we are going to have a dinner to which my friends will be invited, where we will recognize the contribution of some leading commercial enterprises in the province in this regard, in the hope of stimulating them to commit themselves even more to at least some general principles in this regard.

I want to be very quick to point out that the employers who are on the directorate's public disclosure list are those that have indicated they were prepared to share specific measures they had undertaken to improve the status of women. Either through the women's bureau or now the directorate, we have never made any claims as a government that all of these particular companies had rigidly defined programs with numerical goals and timetables.

I would remind the members that, although we have some specific program responsibility as employers ourselves, we have provided a consultative service as far as other employers are concerned. That particular service has functioned very well in discharging its responsibilities. We will have some indication of this not only with the 258 employers who are now known to us as having been involved with us in one form or another, but certainly I think we will see even more progress.

My honourable colleagues the member for Windsor-Sandwich and the member for Beaches-Woodbine have made reference to the 1983-84 report on The Status of Women Crown Employees. They will recall, as I am sure the Chairman will, that the 1982-83 report was tabled in December last year and the 1983-84 report is scheduled for publication at the same time this year. The figures are not yet all tabulated, but more important, they are not yet verified. Those numbers I was able to give on November 5 are really only preliminary to the publication of the final report.

They do indicate we are making progress. One area we are particularly pleased about is the movement of women into nontraditional career areas. I am sure we all share some enthusiasm about that and would like to see that movement even more quickly translated into facts and figures. We will no doubt have a chance to talk about that.

For example, we found that of the more than 1,600 accelerated career development initiatives undertaken in fiscal 1983-84, nearly 36 per cent were to train women in nontraditional occupations such as environmental technicians and systems analysts. As well, 264 women were hired or promoted in our 10 targeted areas and 67 per cent of these were non-traditional positions, the remainder being management positions.

While we tend in our response to questions in this general area to focus on the administrative module because of our success there -- we are 16 years ahead of schedule and I suppose we could be permitted some latitude in drawing attention to that from time to time -- we have made progress in all of our categories. We are particularly pleased by the improvement in the representation of women in scientific support, where there has been nearly a 29 per cent increase since 1977, in purchasing where there has been nearly an 18 per cent increase and in the financial module with a 13.5 per cent increase over the same period.

Obviously, we cannot be satisfied until we reach our objective, but the figures show we are moving in the right direction and that with encouragement, commitment and the enthusiasm with which we are involved in this program, we are seeing results.

I repeat that outside the Ontario public service there is no question in my mind that there is a need to expand the program. We have got to see more progress there. That is why I had meetings with these chief executive officers during the summer. I was not satisfied that we necessarily knew everything that was going on. Indeed, after discussing it with these particular individuals, I am quite convinced the private sector has some positive things to say. It is about time they started to say them.

I was encouraged a week or so ago to read that the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Hughes, was very positive in his remarks along this line, as was the construction association and some other trades associations. I have told them: "It is about time you started talking about this because there is no question in my mind that the public of Ontario is basically fair and wants people treated fairly as individuals on the basis of their competence. We have to see some action there."

As I mentioned earlier, to date we have worked with 258 employers, including the Ontario public service, crown agencies not covered by parent ministry programs, school boards, municipalities, municipal agencies, boards and commissions, universities and the private sector itself. Discussions are being held with a number of employers regarding their probable implementation of affirmative action initiatives.

I would say, for about the third time, there appears to be a need for some additional information about our consulting role outside the public service. As you know, we in the directorate do not add a name to our particular list unless there have been some specific measures undertaken aimed at increasing the occupational distribution and the general status of women.

These measures could range from hiring an affirmative action co-ordinator and setting goals and timetables, to amending personnel policies that may unintentionally discriminate against women in certain jobs and using innovative outreach recruiting methods to obtain women for nontraditional female jobs.

4:10 p.m.

Other measures might include developing lists of high-potential women employees or women who are interested in these other types of jobs to which I made reference. I think it is important that we have this understanding, and I would appreciate your comments on it in due time.

To clarify what constitutes an affirmative action program, because as my friends will know, there are a variety of activities which can lead to equal opportunity for women employees in any given organization, we are developing within the directorate what we will call an equal employment opportunity code. We are going to ask employers to commit to this code, which will set out the precepts and the principles and indicate the activities that should be undertaken. I hope we can finish our work there and get busy outside in this larger community in the private sector to enlist the support of the employers of the province's employers with respect to these principles and activities.

I appreciate the fact that both my critics have drawn attention to the initiatives we are undertaking this year to extend affirmative action to municipalities and school boards. Within the next couple of weeks the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) and I will be talking to the hospital boards of the province.

As stated in my opening remarks, the affirmative action incentive fund for municipalities is going to be made available for two purposes. Municipalities are going to be able to apply to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for a grant of up to $20,000 for this purpose. These grants would cover up to 75 per cent of the cost of hiring an affirmative action co-ordinator and of establishing and developing an affirmative action program.

As well, municipalities may apply for a one-time special grant used to cover the cost of preparing affirmative action requirements. This grant will have a maximum of $200 a day for up to 15 working days -- or $3,000 -- and could be used, for example, to examine municipal policies and procedures containing any sex bias.

The program will operate with counties and regional municipalities applying for grants to administer the affirmative action program for both their own employees and for the employees of those townships, towns and cities within the county or region that employ fewer than 500 people. Those municipal organizations employing more than 500 people would apply separately. About 38 municipalities in Ontario employ more than 500 people, so that puts the division in better perspective. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is very optimistic about this program.

The members for Windsor-Sandwich and Beaches-Woodbine were both quite correct in drawing the committee's attention to the importance of equal pay as a very significant issue for women. As already mentioned in my reply, I am quite pleased that we seem to agree on what the prominent issues are in this regard. This certainly would have to be seen as near the top, if not right at the top, of any list of priorities.

I and my colleagues on this side of the House firmly support the gains to be made through amendments contained in Bill 141. I would urge that we give this legislation speedy passage as soon as the government House leader calls it.

Mr. McClellan: What bill is this?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Bill 141.

Mr. McClellan: When will it be called?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think we are almost on the eve of calling it, from what I understand.

Mr. McClellan: That would be so nice.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am doing everything within my power to encourage the legislative planning group to get on with it.

Mr. McClellan: We are becoming suspicious that they are trying to kill it. We are anxious to debate it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If that is the case, I will have a word with my House leader. I appreciate this information which has been conveyed in such a public way.

I would like to get on with Bill 141. The honourable member asked me for some information on the number of complaints laid under the equal pay program as it is now in place. In 1983-84, 114 complaints were laid under the current legislation, compared with 126 the previous year and 201 in 1981-82. There were 48 employers found in violation in 1981-82, 30 in 1982-83 and 28 in 1983-84.

During that three-year period 1,551 employees received arrears totalling $798,231. Fully 1,371 employees received wage increases totalling $1,190,818. We expect to step up efforts to ensure that the equal pay provisions of the Employment Standards Act will be met. I hope that act will be amended before we prorogue. We will have more to say about equal pay during the course of detailed discussion. I really hope we do because I would like to share some further views on that subject.

Child care is another area identified by all of us as a priority issue. As I said on November 5, we are seeking new solutions and partnerships to solve the problems of child care. For this reason, we are assuming a leadership role, which will include an interministerial review on accessibility and affordability, a federal-provincial working group on child care which will focus on financing -- additional funding and development of new work place child care resource centres. I am going to be meeting with them on Friday morning of this week.

I think it is important that we always keep things in perspective. As of March 31, 1982, we enjoyed a fairly significant ranking among the provinces of this country in the whole area of child care. I think it is important to remind ourselves of that. This is not to say there is not room for more improvement.

I would be the first to admit I could not have said what I did to my colleagues, the federal-provincial ministers responsible for the status of women, when they met in Niagara-on-the-Lake earlier this year and still be considered satisfied with where we are. It is obvious we have to take a new look at this. We have to see child care as it is, not as a welfare issue but an economic issue, and it is economic issues which are very important.

Mr. McClellan: When will this happen?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is no question but this government is now taking a leadership role with respect to the interprovincial working group and our own ministry. In the speech from the throne opening the current session of the House of Commons under the dynamic new leadership in Ottawa, I noticed there will be a full parliamentary review of this matter. I am sure we can see the importance that is attached to this issue by all levels of government at the moment.

Mr. McClellan: Can I ask one question? The minister raises a very important point in talking about moving day care out of the welfare context and placing it in a manpower context.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is an economic issue.

Mr. McClellan: Yes. The minister is recognizing that to achieve full and equal participation of women we must come to grips with a modern day care, child care policy. I have been saying this for a long time. I think the consensus on this point is starting to develop within our society.

What mechanisms is the Ontario government putting into place to study this issue and to make plans for the transfer of child care from the welfare context within the Ministry of Community and Social Services to a more appropriate ministry? Some say it should be in the Ministry of Education, and perhaps it could be located there.

I do not think it matters precisely where it is located, although the Ministry of Education does make a lot of sense. However, it certainly has to come out of the welfare office, and subsidization on a welfare basis has to be replaced with an entirely different means of making day care available. Behind the rhetoric, which we applaud, I want to understand what concrete and precise measures this government is taking to bring about the modernization of child care in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it is important not to approach this whole question of review with any presumptions about where things may move. I think my friend makes that point as well. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it has to be seen more as an economic issue than a welfare issue.

We have to realize it is not just the government's problem either, but rather it has to be seen as a total challenge to be resolved both from inside and outside government. I do not think the matter needs any more great study. What we need now and what we have now is this interministerial group that is reviewing all the material that has been collected in order that we can respond more pointedly and with more particulars to the very question the member raised.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Who is on the interministerial committee?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There are a number of ministries involved -- the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. There is fairly wide representation of ministries within our government. We are chairing that committee with a view to grappling with these matters and coming forth with some specific recommendations.

Mr. McClellan: Is there a time frame?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As far as I am concerned, I hope I will have a report from our interministerial committee before the end of the year or certainly early in the new year. Then, from an interprovincial point of view, we will be working out what the federal implications of all this are because, as the member knows, there has been some question about how we might use the tax system more effectively from the standpoint of deductions that are available and whether the present arrangements under the Canada assistance plan are satisfactory. I can assure the member I feel we are finally making some progress in this matter.

Just to carry on with my response to the member's question: certainly if we are talking about true equality for women, in my opinion economic equality is the first step. With economic equality will come social equality in many ways, and that is why the economic issues related to women are so important and have such a high priority as far as I am concerned. Many things will flow to the benefit of women once we address this whole question of women's inequality from an economic point of view, and child care has to be seen as a very important dimension to that.

Many of the proposals that Ontario made in its paper at that time will also have very beneficial results. I want to go on to talk as well about pensions; and sex stereotyping in schools, perhaps we will have a chance to go into that in a little more detail when we get into the estimates. We have talked about our open doors program and about encouraging women. If we are going to address the question of the wage gap we are going to have to encourage women to get into nontraditional occupations. Violence, of course, is another point that has been raised.

One point I did not want to overlook is that the member, in understanding the organization chart of the directorate, wonders where the women's bureau and the women crown employees office have gone. They really have not gone; they have been absorbed into the work of the directorate. As we get into it she will see that those functions are now functions of the directorate and that the budgets which members have normally voted on for the women's bureau and the women crown employees office are now included in the requests we have for funds here.

Obviously, a number of other matters have been raised, and I think they could be covered more adequately as we get into the detailed consideration of the estimates. May I suggest for the consideration of the committee that there are two votes for the office of the Deputy Premier. One is the main office, which, if the committee agreed, could be handled very quickly and got out of the way. It is the second vote, vote 402. If memory serves me correctly, that is divided into two parts, one dealing with the women's directorate and one with the advisory council. I would certainly concur with any arrangements concerning the division of time that we would agree to with respect to those two so-called subvotes within the main vote, vote 402.

My suggestion is that we could carry vote 401, then divide the time remaining for our discussion on vote 402 equally between the directorate and the council, or whatever other proportions of time, and ask the table to supervise us with respect to that time, if that is agreeable to members of the committee.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I agree with moving ahead through vote 401, and I would suggest that we might reserve the last hour of our discussions for the status of women council. I think my friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) suggested something along the same lines. I think we could use a discussion of 45 minutes to one hour on that; and then we have the women's directorate, which is really the umbrella vote.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on that procedural proposal, I have looked at the time left and the time we will have left after today, which is about two hours and 40 minutes. That may be split between Friday and Monday; it often happens we do not get two hours and 40 minutes on Friday.

I was wondering whether we could do the status of women council vote in one sitting by standing down the other item -- not passing it but standing it down -- and doing the status of women vote starting after question period on Friday and give it an hour, if that is agreeable. Then we could go back to the main vote on all the other items. In that way we would not have that split of the status of women, half on Friday and half on Monday.

The Deputy Chairman: Have we got ourselves a general approach then? Shall we review vote 401, or are you ready to vote on vote 401?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think we can carry vote 401 and divide the time.

On vote 401, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

The Deputy Chairman: Shall vote 401 carry?

Ms. Bryden: Are we not dealing with all the votes under --

The Deputy Chairman: There are two votes; 402 and 401.

Ms. Bryden: Vote 401 is okay; sorry.

Vote 401 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: We are moving ahead.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will spend the rest of this afternoon on the women's directorate. On Friday morning, we will go into the Ontario Status of Women Council; and in the remaining time, a week today, we will go hack to the women's directorate.

On vote 402, women's issues program; item 1, Ontario women's directorate:

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks and my questions on the first aspect I want to talk to the minister about, I hope if we do finish the Ontario Status of Women Council on Friday -- and I do not know that we will need an hour and 40 minutes -- we can move back to the women's directorate.

I want to pick up on the minister's remarks on affirmative action and get into a number of questions on this matter in a very specific way, because I am really anxious to pin down what is going on.

First of all, in his remarks a few minutes ago the minister indicated a variety of ways a company might get on the list as being one of those among the big 900 who are complying. He suggested one way was to hire a co-ordinator and set goals, a second might be to review various personnel records and job descriptions to get rid of any sex bias and a third might be actively to seek out women to employ in nontraditional areas. Those were all possibilities.

My first question, if I could get this going, because I want to pin down what the 258 are doing, is whether any one of these three ways would qualify company X to be involved in a formal affirmative action program. What is the difference between formal and informal in the minister's mind? I have heard those terms tossed around.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, it depends on the type of employer. When we talk about employers other than the Ontario public service, we are really including some other public employers. Municipalities and school boards are in that category; so they are part of the 258. One would see a formal program being embraced by those agencies on the passage of some such resolution as the North York Board of Education made.

As far as the other employers in this group are concerned, those in the realm of the private employers whose names appear in some articles, it would vary. As far as we are concerned, they are using the facilities of the women's directorate for purposes of information. In other words, we are providing them with consultative services.

I indicated they get on our list only after we are satisfied, through one or two of the various methods to which the member has made reference, that they are serious about it; they either have hired a co-ordinator or have indicated to us they are reviewing their personnel practices to eliminate any unintentional sex bias in their employment application forms and the like. Formal and informal, to that extent, may well be confined to the difference between the types of employers and the passage of resolutions.

4:30 p.m.

What I want to encourage and what I have been talking about to employers in the true private sector is that if we can agree on this code and certain basic principles can be seen as positive affirmative action, if they would subscribe to these, we could start having a series of presentations throughout the province at places of employment where we recognize that employer A has embraced this code or is prepared to publicly support or endorse this code and to be known as an equality of opportunity employer or an equality of access and advancement employer. There would be some type of more public display of a commitment to the general principles we will agree upon that we see as basic or essential to starting on the road to more formal types of programs, whatever they would be; and they would vary from place to place, I take it, depending on the nature of the business and so on.

Mr. Wrye: I want to follow this up. Am I to assume that the 258 out of 897 employers listed as being involved in some kind of affirmative action program are all current? Or in using the 258, are we using employers who may have been involved in an affirmative action program at some time between 1975 and today but who may no longer be actively involved? If company X got on the list in 1977, does it still have to be involved to be on the list, or does the list just accumulate with no negatives? For instance, if they got a bad president and he said, "Let us end this program real fast," would they go off the minister's list?

Hon. Mr. Welch: To respond to the question quite directly, this list is a cumulative list, and the cumulation has been going on since 1975. If the member is asking me whether there has been any system of going back to those who got on the list in 1975, 1976 and 1979 to satisfy ourselves that the reasons leading to them being on the list still exist, I would have to say no; we have been too busy dealing with people who have been obviously anxious to use our services.

The point the member makes is, how do we satisfy ourselves they are still entitled to be on the list? As far as we are concerned, we have no reason to believe that once they get on the list they are abandoning the reason or reasons that allowed them to get on it in the first place.

However, I might say I have been tremendously impressed. I sent out a number of letters to presidents and chief executive officers, saying: "Let us have breakfast or lunch together. Here is what I want to talk about." They have come in and have agreed they have been perhaps very negligent in not sharing more information about some of these practices; it may be simply a reluctance to fill out a lot more government questionnaires or forms. They know very well that Ontario public policy is as stated; they have made it quite clear that as far as they are concerned they see it as socially positive, and from their standpoint essential that they and their operations reflect that policy.

All I say is: "That sounds fine here at breakfast, but that is not helping me in the Legislature when I stand up to answer questions from the member for Windsor-Sandwich and the member for Beaches-Woodbine as to what is going on. At the moment, you saddle me with a certain degree of confidentiality with regard to our records," -- which I will respect if that is the way we got the information -- "but it would be helpful if at least your trade organizations and others started telling this story, because that is where the action is as far as the women of this province are concerned."

I have found very positive results. With this program, I hope we can see some increase in the numbers who are prepared to display this code, or whatever the emblem will be, indicating their support.

Mr. Wrye: I will get to the code in a minute; I want to put that aside, because that is where we are going in the future. I want to talk a little bit about where we have been in the past 18 months since the minister received this appointment.

For 18 months, the minister has had a lot of breakfasts and lunches -- he has probably bought most of them -- and, with respect, we have still not seen a great improvement in the number of those who are subscribing to an affirmative action program, which I might add is well hidden. Once they satisfy the ministry, they still do not have to be public about it. The minister just chalks them up and quietly puts their name to one side and says, "Company X is now on board, and we are at 259." He does not even have to tell us. It is worse than the numbered companies of my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). In a sense, it is even better in the world of affirmative action. Nobody needs to know one's name other than the minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will soon have their number.

Mr. Wrye: I am sure we will.

We went over this ground last year and I do not see that we have made a great deal of improvement. I think what is most appalling about the affirmative action program and its failure to make any progress is the public sector. I am sorry we cannot deal with 1983-84 numbers for the public service in Ontario, but here I would like to talk about the figures we were given with respect to other employers, those large employers that are funded by the taxpayers of Ontario.

I will start with the hospitals, because I remember the figure there was zero out of 60. That is really quite a damning indictment. To break the numbers down, 30 per cent of the private companies have programs. They are almost running ahead of some of the pack; in fact, they are.

The figure is 46 per cent of the school boards that have programs. I would like the minister to tell us about the improvement on a one-year basis. He and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) went down to one of the hotels in downtown Toronto in March 1984 and beat up on those people pretty badly. With respect to compliance, what kind of improvement have we shown since March 1984?

The figure is 37 per cent for the municipalities. That is a pretty poor statistic: three out of every eight. There are 24 or 26 municipalities caught in this area, if I am not mistaken, and I believe there are more school boards.

The figure is 44 per cent of the universities, our institutions of higher learning, or fewer than one out of two; that sounds like seven out of 15 are on side. What are we doing about the other eight?

How much longer are we going to tolerate it? I guess that is the major question. We can have a healthy disagreement about the private sector and how much government should intrude. I suppose we will probably agree to disagree in the final aspect, but I cannot understand why we are disagreeing in the public sector. The taxpayers, the women and men of Ontario, are paying for the tune, but the women of Ontario appear to be getting very little for it.

None of the 16 crown agencies which the minister has targeted has a program. There is an area when he does hold some sway. Especially as it pertains to the school boards, municipalities and those other public areas, perhaps he could go through them one at a time and tell us what is going on.

Maybe he should start with the 78 hospitals and share with us the kinds of things he and the Minister of Health hope to convince these very progressive people to do.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The message is fairly straightforward. When the Minister of Education and I went to speak to the school boards we felt we were in a position to talk about what we as an employer were able to accomplish over a 10-year period of time. I want the member to realize that affirmative action here, as far as the Ontario public service is concerned, is at that stage.

I thought the simplest way to get a message across, since we are an employer, was to show some results with respect to our own program. The least we expected them to do was match what we were doing. They were enjoying public support through their funding and they had every responsibility to do this.

4:40 p.m.

Indeed, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and others in this House have been very consistent in pointing out the very poor record of school boards. When one thinks about the number of women employees who are involved with the school boards in this province it is not satisfactory. There is nothing I can say that will justify the position we are in.

We went down and were very frank. We said it was about time they caught up and that certainly they should be reflecting public policy in this regard. I did the same thing as far as the municipalities were concerned with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett). Keep in mind this is just this year.

As far as school boards are concerned, I think only 19 school boards are involved in affirmative action programs at the moment. As far as municipalities and municipal agencies, boards and commissions are concerned, we have only 11. We went to the municipalities and spoke in the same way, and we intend to do the same thing with the hospitals. I think the minister and I have agreed with respect to our places on the program when we speak to them in two weeks' time.

The member will recall -- perhaps he was not in the standing committee on social development -- that when my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) gave her introductory remarks she talked of the necessity for affirmative action programs in the agencies for which she is responsible and that look to her and her ministry for funding as well.

This is consistent with the view that if people are getting money from the consolidated revenue fund of this province in one way or another, or from the taxpayers in their municipalities, and if the government is convinced the public of this province as a matter of social justice feels it necessary to have these programs in place, the ministry has some obligation to reflect that.

Indeed, the standard we could talk from, or against which we could cast our remarks, was our own record. We were committed to it and this is what we were doing. We were far from satisfied with our own progress, because we had a long way to go, but there was some commitment to it.

Keep in mind that only three universities are involved in such a program and I do not think I could name a hospital at the moment that is similarly involved.

Having said that, I found when I was talking to the people in the private sector there was a lot going on, that maybe it was wrong for me to presume that since they were not on our list they were not doing anything. We just did not know what was going on. Indeed, some of them are quite incensed to think that they would not be seen as equal opportunity employers, or whatever the expression is, because they have done this for years. They shared all that information with me; and of course we did not know that.

In all fairness, it showed some incompleteness in the information we had. We now have agreement from them that, in some cases through their trade organizations so they will feel more comfortable with sharing certain information they feel is particular to that organization, they will be very open and perhaps help us. We will conduct some surveys ourselves through their trade organizations, as we can, to get perhaps a clearer and more accurate picture of what really is going on. I am talking about the private sector in the true sense of the term.

To go back to these other boards, agencies and public bodies to which the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) makes reference; he is quite right, we should be expecting far more of them. It is about time they got busy, and this is what we have been telling them. It also helps me to point out the fact that we are really not a ministry ourselves, we are not a line ministry delivering programs as such.

The women's directorate is a co-ordinating body within government. It has to look to various ministries for delivery and that is why, when we have gone to speak to the school boards about this government-wide program, we have gone with the minister responsible in each case. We have that overall government commitment to this, and the incentive funds, to which reference was made, are lodged with those ministries as well.

We have an incentive fund for the public service, which we administer, but then the incentive funds that will be made available to the municipalities, the school boards and the hospitals will be with those ministries. I think this is the way it should be. I appreciate any program we are involved in having as many ministers as possible involved, because it really shows the united front and the common government commitment to these general policies.

In summary: it is not enough, it is too slow; and we have indicated that. I do not think the member should hold me to the 18 months, because these meetings have been held within the last few months. I certainly think it will be interesting when these estimates are next before committee of supply to note what has happened since these appearances before the larger bodies, what has happened since those times.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue this. We can always say, "Let us wait until next year;" and I know, to give the minister credit, that he is impatient to see progress. I am not sure whether he is united in his impatience with some of his cabinet colleagues, who appear from time to time to be quite willing to tolerate lack of progress.

But I do not want to be taken off the track: on the school board issue, eight or nine months ago this minister and the Minister of Education went to speak to the school boards. In those eight or nine months, how many school boards have come on side and what is being done about those school boards that have not? What follow-up is being done and how much longer is the minister going to wait for them to come on side? I want to leave it at that specific group because they have had nine months to think about it, which is an awful long time.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am advised that two have come on side since that meeting and nine are considering doing so, out of whatever the total is. I will give the member the total in a minute. That is pretty slow and certainly the minister is getting out some guidelines for them as a follow-up to that matter.

As far as school boards are concerned, in addition to the 19 we now have, we have two more, plus a further nine, considering coming on board. I am afraid I do not have the total, but we will have it before we finish.

Mr. Wrye: If I can get that figure by Friday I will come back to it. I will ask one last question for now, and then I will defer to my friend. I may want to come back and ask more questions on affirmative action, but perhaps we should have a dialogue back and forth.

This may not be my last question, but it is the last area. What is the equal employment opportunity code all about? Will it demand a legislative initiative or will it be something the minister or the government will simply be able to proclaim? In a sense, this sounds very much as if the minister is embarrassed by the behind-the-curtain routine and has said: "It is about time we set up some ground rules, laid something out and let the employers fall into it. Then we can start doing it publicly."

To take it at its best possible level, a lot of employers have been doing some affirmative action for a long time. In that case, the numbers are artificially low and the minister is unnecessarily embarrassed. I am sure nobody can say they are not embarrassed by 258 out of 900. It goes without saying that is an embarrassingly low number.

Is this equal employment opportunity code the new on-board, on-side list under which the minister will be allowed to name companies and say, "Company X is on side and is involved in an affirmative action program"? Will the minister be spelling out the details of how to be an equal employment opportunity employer? When will all this begin? Perhaps the minister can start with answers to those few questions.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I could share this with the member, there are 67 school boards in the province with 500 or more employees. We are now at 32 of the 67, broken down so 19 are now involved, two are very close to completing their work and 11 are now talking to us about it. That is 32 out of 67 boards of 500 or more. We are targeting on them because of numbers. We hope to see some further progress beyond that, but that is my understanding.

Mr. Wrye: The minister is saying 19, two and 11, but he just told me 11 are thinking about it. He is not at 32, but at 21.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Certainly 11 boards out of the 67 are far more advanced than the remaining 35 from whom we have not even heard yet. We are now at 19. I am not trying to hide any figures. We have two very close in, and we are very actively working with 11 on this matter. In actual fact, all I can tell the member right now is 19 out of the 67. Very soon, I will be able to announce 21 and I hope to add the other 11, but they are not yet at the stage where I feel I would be justified in being that precise.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: This is my problem and I know my friends in the New Democratic Party have the same problem. We have all asked questions about where the 258 come from. Let us deal with the 11 for a minute.

The figure I was given in the preparation for my opening remarks in estimates was that we were at, I think, 44 per cent in the school boards. This would, if my math is correct -- and one of the few things I was good at in school was math -- put us at 32. This tells me that, while the minister is very actively discussing this matter, he has already assumed they should be put on the list. Am I correct?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The short answer to that question is yes, we are optimistic enough with respect to the 11 that they are now included in the list.

I was really going to be very careful, though. We go back to this business between formal and informal. I can tell the member only that today, on November 19, 1984, there are 19 school boards with formal affirmative action programs. In addition, we have two plus 11 for 13 at various stages; the two are closer to the formal stage than the other 11, but the 11 are very close behind. They are all on side in this way. That list will grow from 19 to 32 on the basis of what we have been doing. I certainly hope we can do even better but, to be very open about it, that is right.

To answer the member's other question with respect to the code, the answer to most of his questions is yes. In fact, as I mentioned to him, I went to these people and said: "Look, there has to be more going on than what we have on these lists. These lists cannot be accurate."

Certainly Jackie Smith does us a great favour today in the Toronto Star. What affirmative action needs is more open discussion of this matter, because I think presidents and chief executive officers will finally say: "We are quite serious about this. What do you mean we are not on that list? What do you mean we are not practising these sorts of things?"

As I mentioned to you, on December 5 we will have the first of these dinners and award nights at which we are going to start sharing with the larger community the commitment we have and an invitation for people to be more publicly identified with this. Certainly to the extent that even the member for Windsor-Sandwich would have some comments about this, this is fine and I hope he will be there, because he will be invited to come if he has not already been invited.

We will simply say it is about time we had more accurate information about what is really going on. There just has to be more. My list shows 218 private sector people in addition to all these others, who are not really technically in the Ontario public service. My goodness, many of the people I met with were not among the 218, but I was quite satisfied after meeting them that they were far along as far as equal opportunity employment was concerned, and they were not even on our list. I think that is what we are faced with.

So the answer to the member's question about the awards is yes, it will be a more public display of companies openly embracing these principles and, indeed, wanting to be known as equal-access-and-advancement employers in Ontario.

Mr. Wrye: With respect, I want to come back to the code, because I am not yet sure where we are going with this thing. When the minister tells me that, after all the tough talk by him and the minister back in March, we still have 35 large school boards -- I do not think the Windsor Roman Catholic Separate School Board is one of the 35; I know the Windsor Board of Education has been involved in affirmative action for some time and I congratulate it for this -- that have not yet responded in any way -- in other words, and he can correct me if I am wrong, I gather they are not even sitting down with his co-ordinating people and beginning to look at an affirmative action program -- then I am really quite appalled.

These are not exactly small employers; that is what really bothers me. I could understand employers with 125 employees who might still be reluctant and who might have trustees who are in the Dark Ages or whatever. But when the minister is talking about a school board with more than 500 employees, he is talking about some pretty big school boards with an awful lot of ratepayers. I do not care what school board it is; I really find these attitudes appalling. There is no other way of saying it, and I think the minister and I share that view.

The figures that came out on the lack of advancement of women in the senior managerial positions in the school board should have been enough to make any school board come on side.

The minister started with 19 and really he has only 13 out of 48. He has reached out to only about 25 per cent of that audience. He was not reaching out to my board. My board was one of the 19. Out of the 48 or so that he reached out to, one quarter have responded.

This is exactly why we on this side have been saying for some time it is about time to get real tough with them. Give them a deadline and then bring them on side. There is a lot of public support out there for the minister. His party takes lots of polls and I suggest he take one on this issue. It will probably tell him there will be lots of support for mandatory affirmative action, at least in the public sector.

That was only by way of comment -- a free editorial comment. I want to go back to the code. Are we talking about a formal code? I know it has not been announced yet, but whatever elaboration the minister could give would be useful. Is it going to be aimed at the big 900 again, or are we going to expand the role of the employers? To be an equal opportunity employer under this code, will one have to be public? Is this going to get us a whole new list so we can forget the anonymous 258?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The employment opportunities code or principles will include the basic measures needed for affirmative action. They are very basic measures and they will not be restricted to only large employers; they will be very general with respect to those principles.

I will not comment on the member's editorial comment, but he will know that in proselytizing one casts seeds and never knows over a lifetime just exactly what will germinate. Perhaps we have to allow time for some people to see the wisdom of those stands that are being taken from the lectern.

Mr. Wrye: Only nine months from conception, in some cases.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Many things may take longer to grow. However, perhaps it will be in retrospect that we will be judged.

The Minister of Education, I am told, is expecting to send out near the end of this month her guidelines on affirmative action and on the criteria for the incentive fund. That should be a further follow-up to what I thought was an outstanding speech on her part. She left no doubt in anyone's mind with respect to her commitment.

It may be that the school boards, saddled with other more immediate problems of budgets, have not got around to this matter yet. But maybe we could take this opportunity in committee of supply to remind them that we take the matter quite seriously. I am sure the minister will be saying that in her letter which goes out at the end of the month.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to go on and make some further comments on the affirmative action issue the member for Windsor-Sandwich and the minister have been discussing. I have a few further questions on that as well.

5 p.m.

First, though, I would ask the minister if he is planning to provide us before Friday with some of the statistics I asked for in my leadoff? Those statistics would include a breakdown of the affirmative action programs in both the public and private sectors. The public sector would be broken down into municipalities, schools board, hospitals, crown corporations and other identifiable groups.

I had hoped we would get a complete list of those in the private sector that have reported they have affirmative action programs. However, if that is not possible, we would like a list of those that have consented. Does the minister conduct any sort of regular monitoring of those firms that have consented to public disclosure? Could we have an annual report on exactly what kind of affirmative action they have?

Instead of trying to toss figures back and forth across the floor, I think it would be much more sensible if the figures that were requested of a general nature on these estimates were provided to the critics beforehand, if possible, or before the next sitting. Then we would have the sort of picture we are looking for. I hope those figures would give us both the latest year and the year immediately preceding. We could then have some sense of whether there is movement in this area.

I also asked for figures on the number of complaints under the equal pay law. The minister did give us some in his reply. However, if I heard him correctly, he has lumped three years of figures together on the number of claims, awards and amounts. This does not give us any sense of movement. We do not know whether the figures are going down or up or whether the number of complainants who are receiving awards is changing.

When the government instituted an advertising program two or three years ago, we knew there was an increase in complaints and some small increase in awards. However, that was a special situation, I do not think that advertising campaign is still going on. Therefore, what we would really like is figures for the last two years on the working of the equal pay law with whatever level of public information is in effect now and whatever number of staff are involved in investigating complaints so that they are dealt with fairly quickly.

If the minister or his staff would go through my leadoff remarks, there were a considerable number of other areas where I asked for specific statistics. I would hope the two critics could have those figures before Friday morning. That is a general comment about spending a lot of time I estimates trying to dig out individual figures and last year's figures.

Regarding affirmative action, the minister did not respond to my quotation from his May 25 interview with Jackie Smith, where he said he might look at contract compliance. This could be an intermediate step between full mandatory affirmative action and the present voluntary approach which I think is not working.

I do not think any of the figures we have had so far indicate the voluntary approach is working. Various people have worked out that it will take 1,800 years or so before we get all firms with 20 or more employees in Ontario with an affirmative action program in effect.

Contract compliance is one aspect the minister might explore. Presumably the firms concerned could include any costs in their contract, if they got one, so that the economic barrier would not be there if there is a cost in instituting affirmative action.

The minister did say he thought public sector employers who received government funds should have affirmative action programs. If we are going to have contract compliance for private employers getting government contracts, we probably should also have mandatory compliance for public bodies getting government funds of any sort. This would take us a great way along the road to mandatory affirmative action.

Ultimately, I would hope we would extend it to all employers, whether or not they have contracts from the government. At least those two steps would demonstrate to people how successful affirmative action can be.

I mentioned in my leadoff that Warner Lambert Canada Inc., for example, has had a program in effect since 1975. I asked them if they would also take a look at their wage payment figures to see if their affirmative action program had closed the wage gap to any extent. They have certainly increased the number of women in various categories and it is close to 50:50 now in the general category of the hourly rated employees in the plant.

In 1983, 58 per cent of the employees were male and 42 per cent female. The percentage of women was much smaller in 1975. They also point out that, since 1975, females in supervisory management positions have increased by 202 per cent and supervisory management males have increased by 44 per cent, so there has been a substantial movement of women into supervisory positions as a result of their affirmative action program.

On wage comparisons, they came up with some figures showing the number of women earning more than $12,000 and the number earning less than that salary in 1975. Then, they translated the figure to $24,700 to allow for inflation in the present year. They found there had been about a 200 per cent increase in the number of women who had moved into that higher category and about a 38 per cent increase in men, which proves some closing of the wage gap.

I would like the minister to respond to that point on affirmative action in regard to contract compliance and making it mandatory at least for the public sector.

The minister talks about urging women to get into nontraditional jobs as part of the answer to closing the wage gap. It is true that has to happen before we close the wage gap, but the minister has to look at the fact that the state of the economy now is making it very difficult to make it effective. Firms are not expanding, so there is no room in the area of nontraditional jobs for women to move into. Unless one is going to supplant present employees, and I do not think anybody is suggesting that, it is going to take a long time for women to get into the nontraditional jobs and receive higher pay for them.

That does not mean we should not be working at it in companies where there are expansion and movement, but let us not say that is an answer. There are still thousands of women in job ghettos who, with the combination of equal pay for work of equal value and affirmative action, could have more help in closing the wage gap. Let us not use the state of the economy as an excuse for saying employers do not have to try affirmative action now. There are a great many who can afford it and are simply not doing it because it is not mandatory. That is an area that should be looked at.

5:10 p.m.

I have one final point. We are still not clear about the $260,000 that was announced as grants money for municipalities at the convention of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario last August. Is this entirely for the use of municipalities only, or is it supposed to cover all the public sector areas where incentive grants will be made available? If it covers the whole area, there is a very small amount for the municipalities, since there are a great many agencies in the entire public sector that will have to share that $260,000.

It would appear that is all there will be for affirmative action in the public sector. The other $240,000 in the budget, of the total of $500,000 mentioned in the minister's leadoff speech, is to go to all other kinds of incentive grants. These are for a great many things other than affirmative action.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can reverse the order of the questions. The $260,000 to which I made reference is for municipalities.

Ms. Bryden: Are there any incentive grants for the other parts of the public sector?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We are developing the criteria for the boards of education. We did not talk about an incentive fund in any particular amount. As far as municipalities and the $260,000 were concerned, I was very specific.

But I am working backwards. The member was talking about getting women into nontraditional occupations. She has never heard this minister say that was the whole answer to the question of closing the wage gap between men and women.

Professor Gunderson's report and others studying improvements to equal pay legislation have been very clear about this gap. However, there is no doubt that every change we make in equal pay legislation, including the change reflected in Bill 141 which is still on the order paper, does result in some closing of that gap. I am sure the member herself would join in the chorus of Professor Gunderson and all the rest who say substantial gains are ultimately going to be made as more and more women go into nontraditional jobs.

The member was quite right in pointing out that at the moment women are seen in only 20 of the 500 job classifications used in the Canadian census. They are concentrated in sales, service and clerical, and those are the low-paying jobs. It does not take much in the way of mathematics, as the member for Windsor-Sandwich would tell us, to show us how to improve the situation. It will be improved when we start moving a large percentage of women, through training programs and academic upgrading, out of those classifications and into other jobs that are seen now by many as nontraditional for women.

I would not be faithful to my mandate if I stood up and said that was the only way we are going to do it. That course is seen by many people as long-term. People who are now in sales, service, and clerical -- in those 20 of the 500 -- ask, "What are you doing for me today?"

I agree that the future will see great gains made by moving young women into nontraditional occupations. We are working on that in a number of ways. The training programs we have and a number of other programs being sponsored in community colleges and other places are aimed at equipping women with the skills they need to break out of some of these job ghettos. Some may be quite satisfied to be discharging responsibilities on a part-time basis. I am not attempting in any way to minimize the importance of any job. I am simply talking about the choice that is available to people who may want to improve themselves.

If the issue is closing the wage gap, there are a number of things that have to be done. There is no question that we must continue to improve equal pay legislation. There is no question in my mind that with Bill 141 we will have equal pay for work of equal value in substantially similar jobs. There is no question in my mind that we will make even more progress when we arrive at some consensus on the practical implementation of the next step, i.e., equal pay for work of equal value in what are now known as dissimilar jobs. There has been a lot of discussion and some work done on that. That will bring some closing of the gap as well.

The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) knows the truth of what I am going to say because he is an educator. He would be the first to stand in his place, raise himself to the full height of the minister, look him right in the eye and say he knows this in his heart of hearts. He knows great progress will be made when we can say to the young women of this province: "There is nothing you cannot do if you want to. You should not be limited in any way by preconceived ideas as to what is man's role and what is woman's role."

A woman's place is where she chooses to be, where she wants to be. She can get involved in some of these others. That is where the big progress will be made. That is what we have to underline as one of many approaches.

With regard to affirmative action, I would point out to the member that she will have no problem with this minister in recognizing that the next step will be contract compliance with respect to those private companies dealing with the government in the provision of goods and services. We have to work out some of these details. I will come back to that in just a minute.

I am not prepared to abandon the voluntary approach. I am not prepared to agree with the honourable member that the voluntary approach has been a failure, for the reasons I shared with the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I am not sure we really know what is actually going on in the private sector. That was the conclusion I came to after talking to a number of representatives from that area of business activity.

I think there is more to be done by government leadership urging both the private sector and the public sector outside the Ontario public sector that it makes good sense from many points of view to be more actively involved in programs of affirmative action.

As far as dealing with the private sector is concerned -- that is, those companies that are dealing with this government in the provision of goods and services -- with respect to developing the procurement policy of the government where there are a number of factors put in for consideration, it might make some sense to consider this business of filing personnel practices that would show the deliberate elimination of systemic discrimination.

However we want to do it, that would be a first step to send a signal to the private sector that in spending the taxpayers' money, we feel we should be implementing, at least in this way, public policy as we understand it. In the name of fairness and justice, people would feel it necessary for employers to have some type of program in place to ensure equal opportunity for women.

When we get into the public sector, the honourable member asked, "Could you make a distinction as far as mandatory or voluntary is concerned between the so-called private sector and the non-Ontario public service public sector?" if I can put it that way. She invites us to consider that distinction in a very interesting way and asks whether there is some method -- since there are transfer payments and all sorts of other relationships that exist between these bodies and this government -- to introduce a similar signal that we expect to see something or else, whatever that "or else" may mean.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Education and, I hope, the Minister of Health will be introducing some type of reporting relationship as part of the information that is gathered with respect to these other public bodies. At what stage some other step could be introduced, short of the mandatory way, is what the honourable member invites us to consider.

Members will know that tomorrow we will have the benefit of Judge Abella's report on affirmative action. I have some information that would lead me to believe that will be made public tomorrow. That has been a pretty exhaustive study of affirmative action. I understand it has gone even beyond that subject matter into some other areas.

I am looking forward to seeing those results. She was commissioned, if memory serves me correctly, to conduct a study dealing with federal crown agencies and federally incorporated companies. Anyway, whatever her mandate was, it would be a matter of fact. We will have the benefit of that study and all the hearings she has had on the subject of affirmative action and the recommendations that will be attached to the report.

We will all be interested in having a more updated public review of this whole area of affirmative action, which might help to clarify a lot of the misunderstandings that have developed because of attempts to compare what we do here with the American experience and that sort of thing.

5:20 p.m.

I have a lot of respect for Judge Abella, and I am looking forward to having the benefit of that report. I can assure members that we in the ministry will read it with a great deal of interest. We will all have the benefit of those recommendations.

In summary, the member for Beaches-Woodbine raises three points. The first deals with the municipal incentive fund. The second is her caution that we not put all our eggs in the basket of moving people out into the nontraditional jobs and ignoring the immediate problems. The third deals with the whole question of affirmative action as it might more meaningfully include some type of contract compliance. She also mentions finding some similar way to send a signal to the public groups that are not part of the Ontario public service that we really mean business and finding some ways to tighten upon that. I have attempted to respond to her questions in this way.

Ms. Bryden: I appreciate the minister's comments on all those areas. I think they are somewhat enlightening.

Maybe we should look at the private sector again for a minute. The article by Jackie Smith in today's Toronto Star dealing with the question of affirmative action quotes Ms. Winter of Hay Associates Canada Ltd., management consultants, and states: "Winter says much of the inactivity among Ontario companies can be blamed on government's failure to provide businesses with the assistance they need to introduce effective programs."

There also appears to be a need for some incentives in the public field. I do not think simply the statement of principles the minister is talking about is going to get them going. Presumably mandatory legislation would, but I agree they will also need some very definite assistance in working out targets, timetables and techniques. It has been found that affirmative action requires work on the part of both management and workers, joint committees, to set it up.

The government could give some leadership in working out affirmative action programs through joint committees within the public sector to show how it can be done as well as by providing more consultative services to the private sector.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I saw that particular quote in the article. That is a quotation from someone who really believes that, and I am not prepared to take exception to it, if that is what the lady really feels is necessary; but I do not agree. In all the interviews I had this past summer with chief executive officers, there was not one person who indicated in any way that financial resources were needed from the government to implement these programs.

I point out that we do have other resources. Let us take a look at them. We have a consulting service within the women's directorate. There is not an employer in the province that a simple telephone call would not put in touch with us. We can share the experience of some very dedicated people and work with them. In fact, it was mentioned to me in meetings with chief executive officers that those companies with such a program currently in operation would be pleased to work with other representatives in the private sector and share their experience.

By the way, I should have apologized because more detailed information has not been made available; I had thought it would be and it will be. I have these figures, but there is no sense reading them all into the record. We will send the member a memo that will be a little more helpful.

Not only can we provide a consulting service, but also with the permission of others who are involved -- and we do have permission -- there are those who have indicated to us that they are prepared to be involved in some type of system of helping others and that we could also act as the broker, so to speak, to bring these people together.

In addition, there are training programs available through the various educational institutions, particularly in the post-secondary field. There has been a substantial amount of public money available for training programs. I am sure, community by community, the colleges of applied arts and technology were advised of particular needs in so far as corporate citizens in any other areas were concerned, and no doubt they will be prepared to respond as far as some of those programs are concerned.

I remind the member that one of the great problems I have had is convincing people that although these training programs are fine, some of the women of this province need help with basic academic upgrading so they can take advantage of the training programs. There is some inequality in attempting simply to say that these programs are available when you know that people cannot take advantage of them if they are deficient in one subject or another. They have to be encouraged with respect to these subjects. We then get back into this whole idea of the number of careers that women are closing off to themselves because they have abandoned the sciences and the maths too early in their academic career and so on.

However, not to get off the particular point raised by the member, there are training programs, and a tremendous amount of literature, film strips and all sorts of things are made available. Here again, in raising the question, the member points out perhaps one of the great deficiencies we have of making it known that this material, these resources and these people are available. This is, I think, one of the benefits of the consultations we have had in the last few months.

Let me say in response to and in support of what both the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Windsor-Sandwich have said that we must see more progress in this area. There is no doubt in my mind that this is where the public is at in its thinking and as far as basic fairness is involved, and we have to get busy on it.

I think we are in a much stronger position in this political jurisdiction known as Ontario because, having recognized this need some 10 years ago as employers ourselves, we are now able to go out and talk about it and not face a lot of people saying, "I cannot hear what you are saying because of what you are not doing." We are in a position of doing things, and we are ahead of the private sector in many cases. That is a position we should build on and capitalize on, and indeed we should follow some of the suggestions which the member has correctly made.

This is not to overlook the other matter, which is somewhat similar to what I said about sharing the experience of others, and that is the networks that are available. In fact, I am just reminded that I spoke to the Personnel Association of Ontario a few months ago. I thought that was a good group upon which to make an impression with respect to that. It struck me that most of its members are male and that it was important to indicate to them that this was fairly essential as well.

Ms. Bryden: The minister mentioned the need for training and the training programs that are being provided. I did ask specifically in my comments in the earlier part of the afternoon for a breakdown of the figures in the budget regarding training initiatives. I hope we can have those, as well the other figures, by Friday.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, I meant to comment on that. I am glad the member has mentioned it, because that is some information we have to get from other ministries. But just to be clear, it would be very interesting to find out now the breakdown of the number of women and the number of men who have taken advantage of the training programs announced some months ago, and I would be very happy to get that information when it is available.

Ms. Bryden: That is all I have on affirmative action; so perhaps we can go on to another topic.

Mr. Wrye: I think we probably should stay with the economic issues. I will move to equal pay now. I am not going to make another speech on equal pay; we will have an opportunity to continue discussing it when Bill 141 comes forward.

Let me start out by reviewing with the minister and questioning him on the figures he provided this afternoon on equal pay. They certainly were not provided in his opening statement, which, as I pointed out, managed to avoid that topic entirely.

5:30 p.m.

The figures lead me to be a little bit concerned, and I would like to get his comments right off the top. Unless I had the figures marked down incorrectly, during the past three years the number of equal pay complaints has dropped steadily from 201 to 126 to 114 in 1983-84, and the number of successful complaints has dropped from 48 to 30 to 28.

Has the minister raised the matter with his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) to find out why these numbers are dropping? Is it just that everybody is in compliance, or are they not being picked up through investigations by employment standards officers?

I see my friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), which reminds me that during the employment standards debate back in the spring, he made mention of the announcement that additional employment standards officers would be hired. Do we have those new employment standards officers in place? My friend can correct me, but I believe six or eight were to be added. What is the status of that, and if the minister does not know, could he check?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member for Beaches-Woodbine raised that question as well, and it would be helpful if we got these figures and then talked about what some of the reasons may be.

In 1981-82, as the member mentioned, the number of complaints laid was 201; in 1982-83, it was 126, and in 1983-84, 114. I take it they were new complaints, because I have other figures about cases completed; so there must have been some carryover from other years. The number of employers who were found to be in violation would be the important one. There were 48 employers found to be in violation in 1981-82, 30 in 1982-83 and 28 in 1983-84. Then there is the whole question of the arrears that were collected and the wage increases.

It seems to me that in a briefing I had a few months ago with respect to the equal pay legislation, I was told the Ministry of Labour, which has the responsibility under the Employment Standards Act and through the women's bureau, conducted quite an advertising campaign in 1980 to promote the whole question of equal pay. It was carried out all across the province and was one of these special programs designed to draw equal pay to the attention of the employees of the province.

Keep in mind that we have had equal pay legislation in Ontario since 1951. My predecessor as the member for Lincoln, who was then the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Charles Daley, brought it in equal pay legislation in 1951. We have seen changes; it was called the Female Employees Fair Remuneration Act at that time and was later embodied in the Employment Standards Act.

If memory serves me correctly, it was because there seemed to be a decline that people felt the amendments at that time perhaps needed some more publicity. There was quite a public relations campaign. Notwithstanding that, I am told, it resulted in very few new complaints of any significant number.

With the passage of Bill 141, it may become necessary to do that again; I do not know. As to what conclusions one draws from it, the member knows that at one time it may have been necessary for the aggrieved employee actually to lay a complaint. That is not the case now; the employment standards inspectors are able to do that themselves, which was an improvement when that was introduced.

I am advised the Ministry of Labour is hiring five additional employment standards officers to enforce equal pay laws. Whether they are now in place, I do not know, but I can check that for the honourable member.

In summary, the important question is this: There were attempts made just a few years ago to do something for wider circulation of what the law and regulations were, but notwithstanding that, the number of violations reported has levelled off. I repeat, whether we need some further promotion in that regard is something the member as well as others may have some views on.

Mr. Wrye: I hope the five officers have been hired.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will check that.

Mr. Wrye: If they have not -- and I appreciate the minister will check -- a cynic might suggest the government is waiting to get the new bill in, and then it will hire them and run around making the numbers look good for a little while. That is what a cynic would suggest; so I will not.

Hon. Mr. Welch: But the honourable member would not be upset if we were seen to be even more aggressive in this area?

Mr. Wrye: No. The honourable member would appreciate it if we would get on with the job and get the five people hired, because we have exactly two employment standards officers to handle all of Windsor-Essex and, I think, Kent county. It is a disgracefully low number. They are good people, but they cannot possibly do the job.

The problem, as the minister knows, is that those employment standards officers handle everything from plant closures to very complicated receiverships to employers who literally walk away. What I found in working with these individuals was that they can get a case involving a handful of workers and just spend hour after hour literally trying to track down the employer in some eases.

I hope they have been hired. As I said, my friend the member for Brantford is here, and I am sure the minister will get an answer and my friend from Brantford can perhaps pass the message on. We on this side are wishing that the promises made in the spring of 1984 would come to pass by late fall.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I feel quite confident that the competent and qualified parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, who has listened to every word the member has said, will have that information for us -- who knows, even before 6 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Perhaps he could give names by 6 p.m.

I want to go back to the numbers. The minister said the key number was that of those people found in violation. With respect, I disagree. I think the key number is the other 86 who were not. The reason I say that is the key number is that it raises the question of why they were not in violation.

Since we are dealing with equal pay, how many out of the 86 in 1983-84, how many of the 96 in 1982-83 and how many of the 153 in 1981-82 would have been in violation under the composite test?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am grateful the member has raised this now, because we can both speculate. It seems to me in that same briefing I had with respect to Bill 141 that those who are in charge of this program mentioned on more than one occasion that it was the very rigid test in the present law which resulted in their lack of success in so far as some of these cases were concerned.

I point out to members of the committee that at the present time there is a four-point test. In other words, if the member for Beaches-Woodbine and I were in the same employment and we were doing the same jobs and this was reported, to be successful she would have to be able to show the equality or whatever you want to call it of the job on four grounds dealing with skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. If she were unsuccessful in proving her point in any one of those then the whole thing would go out.

Bill 141 eliminates the necessity of making that comparison strictly on each of those four points. It has a point system whereby one would do it on a composite or collective basis so that although she might be a point or two short on effort, she could pick it up on responsibility or working conditions or skill, as the case may be. That is exactly what we want to do with Bill 141.

If I were to speculate, and I want to be very careful to say I have no factual basis for this, I would venture to guess that a good many of the 86 cases -- let us talk about 1983-84 -- were not successful because of the very inflexible, if not rigid, four-point approach which we are trying to eliminate.

5:40 p.m.

An interesting piece of research would be to find out by how many we would have increased the 28 if Bill 141 had been in operation, which is the point the member makes. The extent that it might be possible to do that would be an interesting piece of information. By how many could we have improved that result simply by having the composite test in place? I cannot tell the member that today.

Mr. Wrye: The people on the government side of the House who have been charged with the responsibility during this time from the early 1980s to the mid-1980s -- we hope not beyond -- of governing the province have all sorts of assets at their disposal. It is the people on the government side of the House, with respect, who have said time and time again that this composite test means something.

I thought the minister was going to give some figures. Quite frankly, I was prepared to hear that two thirds of those cases had been adjudicated in favour of the grievor or the ministry, if the ministry were the grievor, had Bill 141 been in place. That was because I suspected that most complaints would have been laid and lodged in areas where people actually felt they were getting equal pay for equal work, that they were in the same employment area.

I do not think there is any question that those of us on this side, certainly in this party -- I cannot speak for my friends in the New Democratic Party -- understand that the composite test will allow the government to end the wriggling off the hook, as it were, that some employers have managed to do successfully. There is no doubt about that, even if it worked in 86 out of 86 cases. Obviously, we are happy with a certain amount of improvement.

By way of follow-up to the minister, the government for months has been telling us this bill means something. Surely, somebody has taken the 153 cases that are now three years old and asked under the composite test why that work has not been done. Surely the composite test was brought in for a reason and this kind of statistic would provide us with that reason.

Would the minister recommend to his colleagues that they get on with the job and come in and report to this House? I do not think Bill 141 is going to pass next week. Perhaps if we could have that figure, it might impress us so much we might want to pass it in an hour or half an hour.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member has raised a reasonable point. It seems to me we have that information. I am only mentioning the fact that I cannot produce it at the moment. Certainly, I feel quite confident we would have shown better figures with the composite test. I am encouraged to feel that, when I do come back and I can establish that, we will have passage of that bill within five to seven minutes, simply on the basis of the production of that evidence which the member quite rightly indicates is very important.

The important thing I mention once again is that there is no question -- that I do not have to be sold -- that I am committed to this whole concept of equal pay for equal jobs. I used that language very carefully -- think about it -- "equal pay for equal jobs." It may be that we are getting hung up on both sides of this argument -- not the member, not the people who understand it -- on this whole business of comparable worth.

That is going to be the subject of litigation in Washington state. Although the lawyers were successful in the first round in the state of Washington with respect to that legislation, it is going to be appealed. If the member has been watching that, the governor and others are building up quite a case and getting involved in all the cost implications and so on. We hear about other jurisdictions and no doubt before we finish the discussion on this, we are going to have an opportunity to really go into that matter to see whether we are talking about equal pay for work of equal value in dissimilar jobs or in substantially similar jobs.

Even in the composite test, even in Bill 141, there has to be a certain degree of subjectivity brought to bear on the situation. As soon as we leave anything to a subjective approach, then we get into some problems, because everyone wants to know what the rules are by which we have to come to the conclusion. No doubt that is why everybody for so long has hung on to the four-step test, and we know some of the abuses that have resulted.

The example that was given to me to support this -- and I say this to the member for Beaches-Woodbine and others -- was that apparently right now it is quite possible for the member for Beaches-Woodbine and me to be working in a factory on sewing machines. We each have a sewing machine and we are working with material. If it happened that my sewing machine was a bit bigger and I was working on heavier material, that would be enough to justify paying the member for Beaches-Woodbine less than me.

That sounds silly to me, just on the basis of the fact we are doing a substantially similar job -- we are working with material, using a sewing machine and certain skills are involved. When I was being briefed to understand all this, this was the thing to start eliminating in order to make some progress in this whole concept of equal pay for equal jobs.

Now we are getting involved in all kinds of other vocabulary involving the whole concept of measuring comparable worth. There are very dedicated people who are quite satisfied we have arrived at the point now where we can make those measurements and there are objective ways of doing it.

If members watched the presentation in Washington as to the steps that are taken, which I did, obviously they were successful in making that point in round 1. We will see what happens on appeal. It is interesting to follow other jurisdictions as to how successful they have been in applying the principle which we have endorsed in this Legislature. Let us not overlook that.

The debate now goes on with the rate and the method of implementation. about which many of us feel more discussion would be helpful in order to proceed. In summary, I do agree with the member. I will consult with the Ministry of Labour people to see exactly to what it extent it is possible to apply Bill 141 to the situations which were not successful and to see how many of them would be successful.

Mr. Wrye: I would like one last question on equal pay for work of equal value and then I will defer to my colleague. I do not want to fight the issue again here. However, I want to raise a fundamental concern with the minister and I will appreciate hearing his response.

No one on this side and no one out there would suggest the composite test which is provided for in Bill 141 is not going to bring about some improvement. I think the best guess is an additional one to two per cent narrowing of the gap, although it could be larger or smaller. We simply do not know; that is a best guess.

We on this side have a concern and it is out there in the public. The minister knows it. There is a comment in Rosemary Speirs's column from Mary Cornish of the Equal Pay Coalition. The concern is this will bring things to a screeching halt for the next 10 years. People will say, "You got equal value, but you did not get equal value in dissimilar jobs." Then we will get into a new semantic argument.

Has the minister been urging upon the Minister of Labour, or will he urge upon him, to get us off dead centre and give people out there the view that this government is really prepared to move and that it really honestly feels more study is needed of the wider implications?

I certainly do not say comfortably this implementation of equal value legislation would be an overnight snap. It has not been in Quebec or Ottawa and I would concede it probably would not be in Queen's Park. However, the fear is the pressure for equal value legislation will go away on to the back burner with the passage of Bill 141.

Has the minister looked at some compromise which would have implementation of Bill 141 in some kind of pilot program on equal value legislation in this province? The minister talks about principles. As did 86 of us, he stood in his place and voted for the principle. Can we start getting beyond the principle?

I am not saying it would be what we, on this side, would do. We are not the government today. We may be somewhere next year; we may not be. We can debate that on the hustings. However, as long as the members opposite are the government, surely they must understand it is not good enough to say, "I stood in my place on October 20, 1983, and voted for a principle."

What has the government done for us lately? What is it prepared to do on November 19, 1984, to move that principle a step forward, to say it was more than a bunch of words it voted for; that it is willing to start in a pilot way or in a test way to implement the principle? With respect, the resolution said "implement." It was not just that we believed in the principle; we believed it should be implemented.

5:50 p.m.

One year and one month later, almost to the day, we have not started to implement anything. We are still back at square one in terms of the principle unless we are going to pretend that Bill 141 implements the principle we voted for and, with respect, that was not the principle I voted for on October 20.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The honourable member makes a valuable point, but I think in all fairness -- and I want to take a minute for this -- that Bill 141 does take a step in implementing the principle. If there are some procedures here that do stand in the way of equal pay for equal jobs, as they relate to the present legislation, and if we can eliminate them by the composite test, then I think that puts us in position.

I do not think we can say today, with the law as it is on November 19, that we have equal pay for work of equal value even in substantially similar jobs, as long as we have this four-point test. So I agree with the member. Whether it is one or two per cent or whatever it is, we will know once we get busy on the enforcement.

But we do take a step in the implementation of the principle. We are talking about substantially similar jobs. I voted for the principle; I do not have to be convinced of the principle. I am impressed by people who ask: "How are you going to make sure there is a certain objectivity in this? What is your method of measurement?" When I talk to people about that, they keep drawing my attention to the government of Canada and the government of Quebec. They say, "They are doing it." I say, "Give me one example from Quebec of equal pay for work of equal value for dissimilar jobs?" I say that today in this committee. I have been waiting ever since.

Mr. McClellan: What will you do when we give you the evidence?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is not one example that I have -- and the member for Bellwoods, if he has one, will share it with me by nine o'clock tomorrow morning -- of something that has happened in Quebec, which is always being given to me as the great example, of equal pay for work of equal value in what are considered to be dissimilar jobs.

Members are not listening to somebody who is not anxious to have that example. I am anxious to have it, because it helps me with the very point the member mentioned.

Mr. McClellan: What will you do if we give it to you?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just give me the evidence. These estimates are on until a week tonight.

Mr. McClellan: Will you read it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am serious. I am asking for an example.

Mr. McClellan: What will you do if we give it to you?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Big surprise in store.

Seriously, I have heard since these estimates started that Quebec has it. Suppose Ontario passed a resolution? But we do not really have comparable worth worked into a situation for dissimilar jobs. We do not even have it for substantially similar jobs at the moment because Bill 141 has not been passed.

The next question is, how can we be helpful in this debate by providing the type of example you need. That was one way I was going at it, saying to people who were coming in to talk to me about it: "Give me some example to go on." There was a group in Ottawa, the general service group and there is an element of similarity in those jobs too, I think; but, on the other hand, if that is the example, maybe we need more opportunity to work with some groups to see how it goes.

Mr. McClellan: Let me get those examples for you.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am not going to hold my breath. There is not one example from Quebec, which is always being used as the example of equal pay for work of equal value for dissimilar jobs.

Mr. McClellan: I think you are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I hope I am wrong.

The government of Canada, I understand, does have some equal value examples as a result of its legislation, and the general services category did do this. To go back to the point --

Mr. McClellan: I think you would rather be wrong.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, the member for Bellwoods is interjecting in a very serious debate.

Mr. Chairman: That is a good point; we all agree.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He is so tuckered out from leading the questions for his party today that I guess he is looking for an early adjournment. He wants his dinner.

I do not overlook the point made by the member for Windsor-Sandwich. That is why we have felt, in so far as the next stage is concerned, that it would be helpful if we had more public discussion to provide some opportunity for those who will be affected by the legislation to better understand the methods by which it is going to be implemented. I agree with the member that perhaps some statement would be helpful.

Members should remember what I said to the member for Bellwoods: on Friday I am going to have the examples from Quebec. I am not going to hold my breath but am I ever going to be excited when these estimates start on Friday and I have the examples.

Mr. McClellan: You will be thrilled to be proven wrong.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I did not say I was wrong or right.

Mr. McClellan: You said you would be thrilled to be proven wrong.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Absolutely.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I read into the record, from an earlier debate this session, several examples from Quebec. I have a report from the research department of the Quebec Human Rights Commission which shows half a dozen examples where equal value was the yardstick used, not equal work. There have been awards. I will bring those to the next sitting of this committee. I am surprised the minister did not read my previous speech in which I cited a number of these examples.

I do not know whether the member for Windsor-Sandwich has finished. I have some comments on equal pay for work of equal value. We do not have very much time. I do not think I will be able to ask all my questions before we adjourn.

I would like to remind the minister that he did vote for the principle last fall, but he says he is hung up on this. He still favours equal pay only for substantially similar work. That is the crux of the argument in Bill 141. I would think it might clarify the situation on Bill 141 if the government would separate the pregnancy and adoption leave clauses and let us deal with those. Then I think they should withdraw the part of the bill relating to their composite test. It does not answer the question of what they are going to do with women in the job ghettos.

Hundreds of thousands of women are in jobs where there is no similar job to compare with; therefore they are being underpaid when their jobs are evaluated. It looks to me as if the minister is just trying to protect the interests of the business community and not the interests of the women of Ontario. Professor Gunderson has said it might cost $1 billion to $3 billion, which means that women are subsidizing employers to that extent. Unfortunately, it would not be done overnight, even if we did adopt equal pay for work of equal value.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As a matter of interest, so we do not lose this point before we rise tonight, I would like to hear her argument why, at this stage, the member would want to deny the women of Ontario at least the benefits that exist in Bill 141. Why would she say they are not to have this at all unless we do something else? Why would the member not pass Bill 141 and give the women at least that benefit and let us continue to look for some ways to take the next step?

Ms. Bryden: We know how long the next step takes. It has taken five years for this bill to come in.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Why would the member deny them? I cannot understand her.

Mr. McClellan: The bill has not even been called.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That could be corrected.

Ms. Bryden: It being 6 p.m., I will hold the rest of my comments until the next sitting.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of supply reported a certain resolution and progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.