EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

On section 1:

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourned for the supper recess, I was speaking about the petitions that had been presented to the Legislature from a great many women across the province by members of all parties.

One group that also presented a petition in favour of substituting the concept of equal pay for work of equal value for the present equal pay section in the Employment Standards Act was the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, which is a Canada-wide body representing 280 affiliated organizations, a great many of them in Ontario. The total membership of those 280 organizations is two million to three million women, a very important group as far as opinion in this country is concerned.

Today the National Action Committee on the Status of Women sent a telegram to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) which reads: "The National Action Committee on the Status of Women urges you to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value in keeping with the motion passed in the House on October 20, 1983. To refuse to act is to make a mockery of parliamentary procedure and the motion you adopted last fall."

That succinctly states the case we are trying to put before the House this evening in support of the New Democratic Party amendment, which would substitute equal pay for work of equal value for the equal pay section in Bill 141.

I was also referring to previous votes last fall on this issue and pointing out that on October 20, when the principle was voted on, 82 members of this Legislature voted for it and none voted against it. When the NDP leader's bill came up November 17, it was defeated 47 to 40, with 47 Conservatives voting against it, despite the fact that 43 had voted for the principle; 20 NDP voted for it, as did 20 Liberals, but 13 Liberals were absent.

Second reading on December 5 was passed with 61 Conservatives voting for it, 20 NDP against and 19 Liberals against, but there were still 14 Liberals absent. The fact that there appeared to be a considerable block of Liberals who were not happy with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value perhaps accounts for the rather schizophrenic amendment the Liberals brought in last week. That amendment did not even mention the words "equal pay for work of equal value."

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: The honourable member has an odd way of describing an amendment she and her party voted for last week.

Ms. Bryden: I was going on to point out the ways in which the New Democratic Party amendment differs from the Liberal amendment and improves on it to a very great extent. I do not think one can call that schizophrenia.

The Liberal amendment simply took out the words "substantially the same kind of" before the word "work" which meant that the composite test would be applied to any kind of work. There was no indication of what the philosophy of the legislation would be to guide courts and administrators in deciding what work could be compared since it did not mention equal value. There would be all sorts of room for court actions and differences of opinion on what work was comparable under that vague amendment without any reference to equal value.

The NDP amendment, on the other hand, prefaces the action of providing equal pay by saying, "In assessing the value of work performed by employees employed in the same establishment..." Then an employment standards officer could go ahead and assess it. That is the difference.

The NDP amendment also gives the responsibility to an employment standards officer to work out the assessment procedures. That is what is needed if we are going to have practical legislation that will not result in a lot of litigation, arbitration, grievances and so on.

The federal government has worked out methods and manuals that are being published and is developing a body of procedures for assessing equal value. The argument that it is too difficult to implement is being met by the fact that it is being implemented at the federal level and has been under way for about five years.

While Quebec has what it speaks of as employment which is "equivalent" and which presumably means equal pay, so far Quebec has mainly had cases comparing comparable jobs, but the legislation is there. The word "equivalent" employment is still in the legislation and is there if they need it when cases are brought before them that go beyond comparing comparable jobs.

The whole point is that the Liberal amendment does not specifically provide for comparing dissimilar jobs on the basis of equal value.

Other ways in which the NDP amendment differs from the vague Liberal one is that it allows complaints to be made not only by employees but also by classes of employees in the same establishment or employees' organizations, meaning trade unions. It allows for a right of appeal, for a review of a decision or order by way of a hearing before a referee.

It also provides for annual reports to monitor the effects of the legislation. I think that is very important. We do not get annual reports from the present equal pay section except on request; then they do dig out the figures. If we had annual reports and monitoring, we might have a better idea of how it was working or how few people were affected by it.

8:10 p.m.

An interesting clause in the NDP amendment is that employee expenses are to be added to the award and deemed unpaid wages, because it costs money to lay a complaint and to go through all the processes. One may have to take some time off work, one may have to travel to a hearing; so we have provided that the employee's expenses would be included in the award. The employer, of course, can deduct those expenses from tax payable.

Our amendment also rules out the creation of separate establishments as a device to bypass the equal pay law. I understand the ministry does have rules attempting to identify what is the same establishment. They can be places that could be geographically separate; establishments set up simply to bypass the equal pay law would probably not be recognized, but it is not written right into the statute as it is in the NDP amendment. That is another reason we need this kind of amendment.

The NDP amendment includes the composite test, which is an improvement to some extent on the four criteria in the present equal pay law; but as everyone will admit, the composite test will not solve the problem of making dissimilar jobs comparable unless we do that specifically in the legislation.

For all those reasons I commend the NDP amendment to both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I understand the Liberals will be voting for it, and all we need are some votes from the other side of the House to pass it.

Before supper, I was mentioning the petitions that had come in and said the minister had replied to them in the official response to petitions as is required under the rules of the House. Let me read into the record exactly what he said, because it puts very precisely where the government stands on equal pay for work of equal value. The Minister of Labour says, on page 721 of Hansard:

"Equal pay for work of equal value–The government has stated in the past that while it is in favour of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, it is not convinced that this ideal can be completely achieved through legislation, given the difficulties in comparing dissimilar jobs and the complexities of the labour market.

''In our view, Bill 141 is a responsible move to address the wage gap problem. In broadening the basis for determining equality of work to allow a composite evaluation of the four factors -- skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions -- while continuing the requirement that jobs compared be substantially the same, the bill applies the equal value test to jobs that are capable of meaningful comparison.

"While the government does not intend to amend Bill 141 to provide for equal pay for work of equal value as between dissimilar jobs, we intend to continue to monitor the situation following the passage of the bill to assess its effectiveness in addressing the wage gap problem."

I note the minister assumes the bill will pass. Maybe he will get a surprise. He also falls back on the idea that we must continue to monitor the situation. After all, we have only had the present equal pay law in effect for about 10 or 15 years and have been monitoring its effect and finding it is very ineffective.

He tries to claim he is applying the equal value test, but only to jobs that are capable of meaningful comparison, so in effect he has said it is too difficult to implement.

The fact that 103 countries have ratified the International Labour Organization convention supporting equal pay for work of equal value would seem to indicate that a good number of countries have implemented equal pay for work of equal value.

The parliamentary assistant, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), said the federal experience in the five years they have been administering equal pay for work of equal value in their Human Rights Code indicates they are not dealing with very many cases in comparison to Ontario and their awards have been mainly voluntary settlements. I think the parliamentary assistant is not completely up to date on the federal activity in this field.

I have a letter from the vice-chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Mme Rita Cadieux, who wrote in the fall of 1983, saying:

"At the present time, the commission has 27 investigators, any of whom may be assigned to investigate an equal pay complaint. Given the technical nature of these complaints, the commission has employed, for most of the time since 1978, two equal pay specialists. These specialists assist investigators in the collection, analysis and evaluation of data and in the development of settlement proposals.

"The equal pay specialists also provide a consultative service for employers, employees and interest groups and are involved in the development of policy and procedures relating to section 11," which is the equal pay section of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

She gives the results in the five years since the act has been in operation as follows:

"Sixty complaints alleging violations of equal pay provisions of the act have been filed since March 1, 1978. To date, there have been nine settlements directly benefiting approximately 4,600 employees.

"Voluntary settlements have increased the wages of a further 1,300 persons. The cost of these settlements has been in excess of $20 million in retroactive payments and an estimated $12 million per annum in ongoing costs. There are 28 complaints under investigation at this time, and 23 complaints have been dismissed or withdrawn during investigation."

That shows they are proceeding to make substantial awards in Ottawa. They are proceeding to build up a body of opinion or methods and procedures. They may appear to be going somewhat slowly as far as the actual number of cases is concerned, but they are choosing cases that require the development of procedures that will be applied in the future to a great many cases as they emerge.

The parliamentary assistant says if we start to count heads, Ontario has been handling more cases than Ottawa. However, he has to remember that the Ottawa legislation covers only 10 per cent of the population. It covers only employees under federal jurisdiction. He had to go back four years to get a meaningful figure for Ontario, but it still works out to only about 500 complaints for four years. I understand, from statistics I have, that one in four are found not to be in violation of the act. The main reason they are not in violation is that the act is so narrow. The Ontario awards have been very minimal.

We asked the minister in the committee hearings at the beginning of this year if he had any estimate of how many more employees would be covered by the amendments in Bill 141 than are now covered by the present somewhat narrower tests of what jobs are comparable. He consulted with his staff and wrote a letter to all members of the committee afterwards saying no precise estimate could be made of how many more employees would be covered.

8:20 p.m.

I notice the parliamentary assistant has been tossing out a figure, saying that even if 10 per cent more were covered there would be a substantial improvement in the position of women in Ontario. When you have only about 500 complaints, even 10 per cent more is not going to affect a great many women in this province.

There are close to two million women in the labour force in Ontario, and most of them are not being touched by the present legislation. A great many of them are still in job ghettos where, under the present legislation, there are no comparable male jobs and therefore they are completely cut off from any equal pay redress if they feel they are underpaid; and most women in the job ghettos are underpaid, because their work has been considered women's work and the marketplace has reflected that attitude. As a result of the present legislation, all the women in the job ghettos where there are no comparable jobs cannot claim that their jobs are of equal value to jobs somewhere else, jobs occupied by men.

I have here some examples of jobs that are at present not affected by the equal pay legislation, or appear not to be affected, but that would be considered comparable under a proper equal value law. The two cases that I want to bring before the House --

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: In my view, earlier this evening in her remarks the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) was imputing motives to members of the Legislature. On Thursday afternoons there are sometimes votes on issues that come before the House, and she has chosen one particular afternoon and one particular bill to --

Mr. Stokes: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Bradley: I would not be intimidated by the former Speaker, because if a person is imputing motives, surely that is a point of privilege for this House.

On the normal Thursday afternoon, when the government blocks so many votes from taking place in the House anyway, it is a disincentive for members to show up at any time on a Thursday afternoon to vote. Her suggestion is that any member who was not here was simply not in favour of the resolution or bill being voted on that afternoon. That is clearly imputing motives and she should withdraw it.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, a prima facie case is being made by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and I do not think there is any point of privilege involved here at all.

Mr. Chairman: With all due respect, I am sure the honourable member will refer to standing order 19(d)9, and I think on reflection he will recall that it has to do with imputing motives to another member. That probably would best be defined as specifically another member.

Mr. McClellan: She was talking about a whole herd of members.

Mr. Chairman: That is what I understood. I wonder if the member for Beaches-Woodbine might continue.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I was giving an example of where equal pay for work of equal value would allow the two jobs to be compared, but the present law has so far not given redress to these people. These are employees of the Carleton University support staff, and their union has pointed out there are two jobs, one called "secretary-word processor" in the administrative services department and one called "truck driver" in the building and grounds department. The secretary-word processor is paid $7.30 an hour and the truck driver is paid $8.79 an hour, so the annual pay is $13,300 compared to $18,300, about $5,000 difference.

Their qualifications are as follows. The secretary-word processor must have grade 12 or equivalent plus formal secretarial training at a community college or secretarial school; the truck driver must have grade 10 or equivalent and a class D driver's licence. The secretary must have a minimum of one year's experience; the truck driver must have experience with truck driving but no minimum period is specified.

The secretary must have 55 words per minute, knowledge of office procedures, terminology, record-keeping, filing and so on. The truck driver must be able to deliver to user departments and do uptown pickups, and the loading and unloading of the truck.

The secretary's other jobs take half a page of her job description, such as "prepare telephone requisitions, collect information, sort and process leave forms, perform receptionist duties" and so on. The truck driver must maintain necessary records. For those two jobs there is $5,000 difference, but the present law would probably not allow them to be compared even under the composite test.

The second case this group produced was two mail clerks, one female and one male. They were classified differently. One was classified as level 3 and got $13,300 a year; the other was classified as level 4 and got $14,885 a year. The job descriptions were practically identical but there was a difference of almost 12 per cent in their pay. The same was true of two other mail clerks in a different branch. The woman got $16,200 a year, the man got $18,400 a year, and the difference was 13.6 per cent.

They tried taking these situations to the employment standards branch in January 1984. They were told that since they had a union they should go through the grievance arbitration procedure before they could go through the Employment Standards Act. They are in the process of that rather cumbersome procedure, which means at the end of that, and after they have probably spent a considerable amount of both their own time and the union's money, they may find they have not succeeded in establishing their case and may try the employment standards branch at that time. In the meantime, the women go on being paid at these low rates.

For those who do not have a collective bargaining agreement, we do not know whether the employment standards branch would even entertain such a case. Only one third of the working population is organized and probably an even smaller percentage of working women are organized. To suggest they can solve these problems through the collective bargaining process alone is not an answer to the problem of closing the wage gap.

There has been considerable discussion from all parties on the Gunderson report that the government commissioned and which purported to show that actual wage discrimination between men and women was only part of the reason for the wage gap, and other parts of it were differences in education, differences in occupation and differences in the kind of work undertaken by men and women.

Even Mr. Gunderson himself admits there are considerable shortcomings to his report. There has been undue stress on his findings. I would like to draw the attention of the members to one or two of his findings. One thing he was careful to say in his report is that all his figures are based on limited empirical data because he did not have the time or facilities to do a very in-depth study of this question.

8:30 p.m.

He acknowledges that there continues to be a debate on the legitimacy of his model of wage differential calculation. I would agree with him that the wage gap reflects both wage discrimination on equal pay for equal work and occupational segregation, but if one accepts occupational segregation as one of the variables, one is accepting the concept that has produced a lot of that occupational discrimination, that is, the concept of "women's work" and "men's work," which has resulted in considerably lower wages for those who are in what is traditionally known as women's work. Therefore, to say this is not part of the discrimination problem is to mislead the examination of the question.

In effect, these occupational differences come from what is called systemic discrimination in many cases. The whole personnel recruitment and hiring system puts women in certain occupations and men in others. The educational system also contributes to this. In total, this systemic discrimination results in lower wages for women. The only way to overcome that is by starting to compare the value of dissimilar jobs.

I would like to read two conclusions of Mr. Gunderson. Regarding the present equal pay legislation in Ontario, he says there is "rather limited scope of equal pay for equal work legislation in closing the earnings gap because it is traditionally confined to comparisons with the same establishment and occupation." He goes on to say that existing "equal pay legislation has not been able to reduce the earnings gap significantly."

He concludes by saying: "Legislating equal pay for work of equal value, like affirmative action and policies designed to improve the labour market option for females, can be regarded as additional policies in the 'arsenal of weapons.' The evidence suggests that an arsenal of weapons approach would yield benefits in terms of reducing the earnings gap."

I think we are all agreed in this House that we need an arsenal of weapons. But this government rejects the two major arrows in the arsenal or arrow holder, that is, equal value legislation and mandatory affirmative action. If the government throws those two out of the arsenal, it has not got much of an arsenal.

I want to refer to some of the comments made last week by the parliamentary assistant. One thing he said was that part of the differences mentioned by Mr. Gunderson was that women have less education as well as being occupationally segregated.

My colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) earlier today quoted some figures from the latest report on women crown employees which showed that at practically all levels women in the public service had more education than men at the same levels. I will not requote the figures he gave, but there are other studies that show that in the population --

Mr. Chairman: Order. Before the member proceeds, I would remind members on all sides of the House that there are all too many private conversations going on in all the different caucuses as well as little intercaucus discussions. Can we hold it down so that we can hear the remainder of the member's debate?

Ms. Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Independent studies of the educational level of men and women in the working force generally show that, on balance, women have more education than men when one compares certain occupations. They have more community college training, or more of them have been to university. However, their education is simply not being recognized. In many cases, that is the systemic discrimination. They are not being considered for the higher-paying jobs, particularly in nontraditional fields, and their full educational qualifications are not being recognized.

Certainly, the composite test would bring in some of those comparisons, but it is not much use if one is not going to be able to compare dissimilar jobs.

One point the parliamentary assistant raised as a bogyman was that if we went ahead with something as rash as equal value legislation we could raise the levels of unemployment and worsen the position of women.

Of course, as we know, the question of the effect of increasing minimum wages, reducing hours or improving standards has always been accompanied by warnings that it is going to ruin the economy or raise the levels of unemployment.

But let us consider the kind of economic situation we are in now. What we desperately need is more purchasing power. Think what a stimulus to the economy it would be if all the underpaid women in the job ghettos, for example, were paid their fair and proper share and were given wages equivalent to the value of their work when we compare their jobs to jobs in other sectors of society.

At the moment, those women are subsidizing employers. They are the ones who are taking the loss. If we transfer that loss to the employer, who is getting the benefit of their work, and women get fair value for their work there will be a great deal of new purchasing power in the economy. That could stimulate the economy to the extent that everybody would benefit, both men and women. There would be more jobs, more purchasing going on and a healthier economy. The higher unemployment kind of argument is simply a red herring.

The Minister of Labour used to say in 1982 that equal value legislation was impractical. The next year he said that while it was not necessarily impractical, it was more of an ideal we cannot afford. That is really the bottom line with the Conservative government. It is more interested in protecting the employers, who are now getting cheap labour from the many women who are in undervalued jobs, than in bringing forward fairness in the labour market and at the same time stimulating the economy.

For the government to say, as the member for Brantford did, that the Conservatives have been the leading edge of social legislation in this country is a bit laughable when one looks at their record.

Let me just look at the record of the Conservative Party. Thirty three years ago, back in 1951, it brought in something called the Female Employees Fair Remuneration Act. That was probably one of the first equal pay laws in Canada.

Agnes MacPhail, the first woman member of the federal House and of the provincial House, happened to be in the Ontario House at that time and she made a speech in which she indicated that what she thought fair remuneration meant was equal value legislation. They did not use the term in that day, but it was clear from the context that is what she meant.

8:40 p.m.

She stated: "I think it is a straight case of justice. I think it is a disgrace to men that they are not willing that women should get the same pay for doing the same work." When she was making a speech on that bill, some members stood up and said, "What would our wives think if we put in a vague phrase like 'equal value'?" She looked back and said: "I often wonder."

After 1951 we waited until 1962 before we got equal pay for equal work legislation in the Ontario Human Rights Code. That dealt with the same work in the same establishment. In 1969 that clause became part of the Employment Standards Act and it could become part of employment standards audits. Some time in the mid-1970s that concept of the same work was clarified to read "substantially the same kind of work performed in the same establishment, the performance of which requires the same skill, effort and responsibility and which is performed under similar working conditions."

That was the old equal pay law in the mid-1970s. It has not changed much until now when the composite standard is being brought in and those four criteria can be looked at as a whole rather than having to be equal on all four. In 33 years we have really made very little progress. We have been tinkering with the wording of "equal pay" most of that time.

We did have a seminar on equal pay put on by the Ontario Status of Women Council in February 1984. They really brought out more arguments in favour of equal value than were brought out against it, but that does not seem to have had very much effect on the ministry as far as changing Bill 141 is concerned.

I would like to commend the council for holding the seminar and bringing the top people in the field to Toronto to discuss the issues. They brought people from the Canadian office of the International Labour Organization. They brought the people from Ottawa who administer the federal legislation, and from Quebec. They brought several representatives from employers organizations and one representative from trade union organizations. It was a very good seminar, and I suggest the ministry should reread the papers that were presented there.

They also presented to us the record of awards under the present equal pay law. The head of the employment standards branch simply said, "From March 1980 to date, only 500 complaints had come in," which works out to about 125 a year.

On the other hand, the New Democratic Party members have a record of continuing efforts to bring in equal pay for work of equal value. They have pioneered in this field and tried to bring this government into the 20th century in the field of economic equality.

In 1979 the first equal pay for work of equal value bill was introduced in this House by Ted Bounsall, a member of the NDP. That bill was carried over to 1980 because it passed second reading. It must have been a great surprise to the government when it did pass second reading and was sent out to committee hearings, which were held in 1980. There were a great number of briefs in favour of the bill, but the government allowed the bill to die on the order paper that same year. It was never called for third reading.

The next bill was my own in 1983, and then there was another from the member for York South (Mr. Rae) in 1983. Mine died on the order paper and his was defeated in the House.

I think the women of this province are getting rather frustrated at appearing before more and more public hearings, on Ted Bounsall's bill in 1980 and Bill 141 in 1984. Some of them simply dusted off their briefs from 1980 and updated them because the story was still the same. The majority of women in this province very much want equal pay for work of equal value. They feel the wage gap will never be closed until they do get it and they have made very strong cases for it. I would say about 97 per cent of the briefs presented to the 1984 hearings, which lasted for three solid days, urged equal pay for work of equal value.

They came to the conclusion that the present clauses in Bill 141, which sets up the government's new equal pay law, were completely useless in closing the wage gap and that they should be scrapped and replaced by proper equal pay for work of equal value legislation.

The women have spoken. There is a growing gender gap, particularly in the United States, between the way men and women vote. More women are opposing right-wing policies such as Mr. Reagan's and supporting social policies, partly because women are far more affected by social legislation than men. More of them live under the poverty line. I think they also have a sense that it is very unfair to continue to have this great wage gap between men and women.

There is a gender gap growing in this province and in Canada. Some of the recent Gallup polls indicate that more women are pulling away from the Conservative Party to support other parties. That will grow if the government continues to ignore the demands of women for this kind of economic equality.

People often ask why we have so few women members in the Legislature. One of the main reasons is economic. A lot of women simply cannot afford to become candidates because they cannot save enough money and they do not have jobs they can necessarily leave for a period of one to five to 10 years and then go back to. If they had economic equality, they would be in a much better position to put on campaigns, to take leaves of absence and so on. There are other barriers, such as child care and home responsibilities which are still being placed 80 per cent on women, but I hope that will change over time and those duties will be shared.

I would urge government members to consider the growing frustrations of the women of Ontario and to recognize that those women are now much more politically active. They are hearing speeches from the Liberal candidates in the leadership race, particularly Mr. Turner, about equal pay for work of equal value. They are hearing speeches by Mr. Mulroney about his concern for women's issues. They are expecting all parties to deliver much more in the way of economic equality and they are expecting nothing short of equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, I might just take a few moments to respond to some of the concerns raised by the last three or four speakers on the debate, particularly in response to the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I say very seriously that I appreciate her contribution to the debate, which I think has been the most thoughtful thus far. I know she has spent a lot of time and expended a lot of effort on this issue for a number of years.

I want to respond first to the points the member raised about the federal experience. I almost hesitated to raise it this evening because as soon as a member on this side or a representative of the government makes any sort of comparison between the federal experience and what we are attempting to do at Queen's Park, we are immediately accused of fed-bashing. In my own defence I would say I only raised the federal legislation and the situation in Ottawa in response to the comments made this afternoon by the member for Hamilton East.

8:50 p.m.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine noted in her remarks that there were 27 investigators in the federal department that adjudicates these equal value and equal pay cases, and I am sure that is so. I just want to reassure her that the addition of the five employment standards officers who will be hired in response to our passage of Bill 141 will bring our provincial complement in this area to 15. I hope she will agree with me that on a per capita basis we will actually have more people investigating and adjudicating these cases than the federal government has. I hope the ministry will monitor this. If having 15 people investigating these cases is found to be inadequate for the work that is brought in, then I hope my minister will have an open mind towards allocating more manpower if necessary.

Another point that I think bears explanation, because it was brought up by the member for Beaches-Woodbine and by the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), is the point that yes, it is generally agreed that very few cases have actually been adjudicated and very few decisions actually rendered as a result of federal equal value legislation. The point was made to me very strongly before the supper break by the member for Hamilton Mountain that he thought I was ignoring the number of cases that had been worked out through negotiation between the two parties.

I want to assure him that I was not ignoring it; we are very much aware of that. In fact, I just hope members recognize that many cases are worked out on a negotiated basis between the two parties at the provincial level too, under our existing legislation.

I just want to explain this process, as I am sure members would appreciate knowing the process as it works in the provincial context. I am sure members are aware that when a complaint is brought --

Mr. McClellan: Give us one example.

Mr. Gillies: Hang on just a minute. The member will have every opportunity to put his thoughts forward. I am here and I have to respond, so please let me just get this out.

A complaint is filed with the employment standards branch, and the complaint does not normally start as an intended prosecution under the existing legislation. There are also -- and I made this point earlier -- routine audits not made in response to a complaint, but routine audits of various organizations going on by our investigators. I am very keenly aware of this because a major public sector employer in my riding has been subjected to one of these audits and has had to respond to the overtures made by our ministry. I might tell members that I heard about this in a not completely flattering light from that particular employer.

I want to make it clear -- and this is very important -- that if the employer cannot justify pay differences on the basis of the application of a seniority system or one of the other grounds that we have under subsection 33(3), and if he is found to be in violation, the employment standards officer attempts to reach a settlement on the amount of back pay to be paid and the amount of annual increment required to equalize the pay rates in question.

Mr. Cassidy: We are not talking about dissimilar jobs. The parliamentary assistant is not talking about the amendment at all.

Mr. Gillies: Is there something the matter with the member for Ottawa Centre?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman. on a point of order: The amendment is to substitute for the section a provision for equal pay for work of equal value. That is equal pay for dissimilar work where, in fact, by the composite test that work is of equal value.

The member opposite, I am afraid, is speaking about the existing legislation of equal pay for equal work, and he is telling us there is an apparatus there to administer that. We acknowledge that; it is ineffectual but it exists. But it will not and it cannot deal with the vast numbers of cases where women are stuck in job ghettos, where they are doing jobs that are dissimilar but of equal or greater value. It will not deal with the situation of the telephone operators here in this building, for example, who are paid less than the parking lot attendants, despite having the need for greater skill, greater education and greater experience.

Mr. Chairman: With all due respect, I do not know that it is a point of order.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, that is all very interesting, but it is really irrelevant. I am responding to points that were raised by opposition members about the experience in this province and in the country with the various pieces of legislation we have.

I would be pleased to stick to the discussion of the amendment as closely as other members, but I am sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that I should have the opportunity to respond to the points that have been raised. If they were in order, then I would think my response would be in order.

There is an attempt by the employment standards officer to reach a settlement on the amount of back pay, etc. Then if such a settlement cannot be reached, the director can appoint a referee to adjudicate that case under section 51 of the act. If that does not work, in turn, a case can be referred to the Divisional Court if necessary.

The federal experience has not been all roses. I say that with respect because I know we are contemplating a slightly different approach from the one they have adopted. The honourable member who spoke earlier is probably a recipient of the Public Service Alliance of Canada newsletter. She would be aware of the March 9 newsletter in which there was a rather critical article by the Public Service Alliance of Canada about the legislation in place.

I would like to quote from that. Under an article entitled "Tribunal Hears Equal Pay Complaint," the Public Service Alliance of Canada said, "The first ever federal tribunal established to hear an equal pay complaint has rendered a decision on preliminary matters."

They are talking about the case of the Energy and Chemical Workers Union, which filed a complaint on behalf of the female clerical workers at the Glace Bay heavy water plant in 1979. The article goes on to talk about the resolution of that case and makes the point: "This will be the first tribunal appointed under section 39 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to deal exclusively with a complaint on equal pay for work of equal value. Previous complaints have been settled through the conciliation process."

That is all well and good, but it leaves us with a big question mark in our minds as to the efficacy of the federal legislation when it becomes apparent that things have been worked out, some of which I understand could have been adjudicated under equal pay legislation as opposed to equal value legislation. That is also what we hear from Quebec, so the efficacy of the federal act has to remain in some question.

I would also like to respond to the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I do not think there is any disagreement on the part of the minister, myself or other representatives of the government who have spoken on this issue. She noted, and I completely agree with her, that any legislation we bring in -- I hope I am paraphrasing the honourable member correctly -- can only be one weapon in an arsenal of weapons needed to redress the situation of the wage gap. I completely concur with the member. I want her to know I do not feel there is any difference of opinion on that matter.

The difference of opinion is apparent. The difference we have is over the mechanism to be put in place by the legislation. We believe in following up on whatever successes we have been able to have in our own public service. I mentioned before dinner the fact that the wage gap in the Ontario public service closed over two per cent last year, an unprecedented narrowing of that gap for a one-year period. I only hope that if we can build on that experience and enhance our ability to enforce the law of the province, we will see a continuing closing of that gap, but the legislation can only be part of the arsenal we apply to that.

I would like to go back a bit further to the comments made earlier before dinner by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye). I see he is not here. I hope he reads this. I believe the member for Windsor-Sandwich understands this, but there was some doubt in his remarks.

When I said last week there would be five employment standards officers added to the complement of the ministry to adjudicate cases brought in under Bill 141, I want it to be very clear that we are talking about five additional staff. There are already 10 employment standards officers working in this field. With five added, there will be 15 officers adjudicating cases under Bill 141 and our equal pay legislation generally.

I was not sure the honourable member understood that. I remind the members that with 15 officers adjudicating these cases, that is more per capita in manpower assigned to this area than the federal government has done under its legislation.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: I think the member made that point.

9 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: Going back earlier, I want to touch on the remarks made by the member for Hamilton Mountain. I do not want to go over the same ground again. I want to assure him I only raised the federal experience because the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) raised it and I felt some clarification was necessary.

I do not think whatever we do should be done on the basis of who is doing what better and who is using what approach. Whatever we do has to be in the best interest of the people of Ontario and has to be the best legislation we can put in place for the people of Ontario.

The member indicated he felt I had ignored the negotiation process. If I did, it was inadvertent. I recognize that many cases, both in Ottawa and under our existing legislation, are resolved by negotiation between the parties as opposed to the conduct of a case and the final rendering of a judgement. I am sure that will continue to be the case.

I hark back to some of the members who discussed this point last Tuesday. I believe the member for Windsor-Sandwich made the point that regardless of what we do legislatively, it would probably affect only a very small percentage of the disagreements or disputes in this area around the province.

What we need is effective enforcement and the capacity for parties to get together and continue to negotiate settlements on these matters. Regardless of whether we accept the New Democratic Party amendment or the Liberal amendment or proceed with the bill as we envision it, I feel that will continue to be the case.

The member for Hamilton Mountain made some comments about the position taken by a number of employment groups and employers on this issue. He indicated most of them were favourable to legislation of an equal value nature. He harked back to briefs received in 1977 and 1979 on the various bills that have been debated.

I am sure that is the case. I am sure employers have come forward and indicated their willingness and happiness to have legislation of this kind. However, it is not as cut and dried as the member for Hamilton Mountain suggests. I hope he will look back on the submissions made to us in contemplating this legislation, as recently as January 1984. I assure him that while we are sure what we are doing is in the best interest --

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: If the member for Brantford is going to other members' comments -- he did this last week to the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) and he is doing it to me today -- he should at least have the courtesy to check Instant Hansard and find out what he is talking about.

I did not on any occasion say that most of the employers who came in supported legislation. What I said -- and he can check Hansard on this -- was that under questioning in our committee, they could provide no facts and generally backed down on the claim that jobs would be lost.

Mr. Gillies: I will indeed check Instant Hansard. I do not think that is what I heard the member say earlier.

I think he should be aware, though, that there is not only a continuing apprehension on the part of some employer groups on the question of equal value, if we were to entertain the amendment, but there is also a degree of misapprehension about the legislation we are bringing in. I ask the member to review the submissions by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, the Canadian Organization of Small Business, the Retail Council of Canada and so on.

I am quite happy and the government is pleased and proud to forward this legislation, but I urge the member opposite to review those submissions and determine whether there is the degree of unanimity and enthusiasm on this legislation that he indicated would be the case.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the member for Brantford subsided with a whimper rather than with a bang. I was not quite aware he had come to the end of his remarks.

I have a few comments to make about his intervention, and then I want to talk about the principle of the amendment that has been put forward and about some of the very real problems that exist in the work place. They are simply not addressed by the inadequate approach being taken by the government, but they are addressed by the amendment as proposed by the member for Hamilton East.

I hate to see the member for Brantford, who as a young Conservative came in here with perhaps a shinier gloss and a better image than many of his colleagues, turn into a tired apologist for the government's inaction and the government's failure to act.

I find, if I can draw comparisons, a great deal more freshness and innovation in, let us say, Jean Piggott, a resident of my riding and certainly a well-known Conservative who has been showing a great deal of leadership in trying to get her party to recognize the rightful role of women in politics, than in these kinds of tired nostrums that have come from the member for Brantford.

The member for Brantford is happy that there will be 15 officers adjudicating a bad law. If it is a bad law, it is a bad law; and if you step up the number of people adjudicating it, that is not going to turn it into a good law. That is the problem with the current principle of equal pay for equal work.

The government has broadened the composite test to a modest degree in the amendments in Bill 141 as we have it before us. None the less, it does not address the fact that most women work in jobs that are ghettoized, where there is a preponderance of women, and they are put into jobs where the salaries. the conditions, the benefits and the opportunities for advancement are very substantially less than those of men.

I tried to find this in the Bible this afternoon, but I could not find the exact reference. There is a reference in the Bible to the labourers in a vineyard; the women got three shekels a day, and the men got five. It shows that not a heck of a lot has changed between biblical times and today, when women earn 63 per cent, on average, of what men earn here in Ontario.

Those 15 officers adjudicating equal pay cases that the member from Brantford referred to would mean there would be one officer for every 130,000 women workers in Ontario. This means, if you want to get down to it, that each officer will be able to spend at most, if my arithmetic is correct, one minute --

Mr. Kerrio: Michael likes the bishops again.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. I hope my friend does too.

Mr. Kerrio: That is terrific.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Just the lefty bishops.

Mr. Cassidy: Vince, I used to be a boy soprano in the basilica choir at the Petit Séminaire de Québec, which is one of the oldest Roman Catholic churches in all of North America.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: So do not talk to me about the bishops. I almost became one myself.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Do not allow yourself to be distracted by the interruptions.

Mr. Cassidy: You know, Mr. Chairman, what bothers me is the corruption that comes in when people try to distort Christianity to the purposes of capitalism instead of using Christianity as a means of arguing for the needs of ordinary people. I do not think Jesus would have approved of Conrad Black; I do not think he would have approved of John Turner either.

The Deputy Chairman: We are talking about Bill 141.

Mr. Cassidy: I am responding to the interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Please disregard the interjections and speak to Bill 141 and the amendment moved by the member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Bradley: I have a point of privilege.

The Deputy Chairman: Are you in your own seat?

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, you are. Everybody else is out of it; that is what makes it confusing.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I think the member for Ottawa Centre should withdraw that remark about the Speaker of this House.

The Deputy Chairman: I did not hear him make any unkind remark.

Mr. Bradley: He referred disparagingly to John Turner.

The Deputy Chairman: He would have referred to him as the Speaker. He is talking about some other human being.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would never underestimate our Speaker. I was of course referring to John Turner, the candidate for the Liberal leadership.

The Deputy Chairman: Please, now, as the honourable member usually does, speak eloquently to the bill before us, Bill 141.

9:10 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I do want to speak a bit to the principle of the amendment here and to the reasons our party believes it is vitally important to move forward on equal pay for work of equal value and not to continue to find reasons to prevaricate and to delay.

Over the last few months I have spent a lot of time travelling across this province talking with experts and working people, visiting work places and looking at some of the problems we are facing today and in the near future because of the very rapid pace of technological change. That is having a particular impact on women, and the impact it is having on women threatens to be extremely negative.

We are in the process of creating a two-tier society in which one tier of scientists, technologists, businessmen, executives and such people will enjoy extreme prosperity and power and have all the information resources of the modern-day computers etc. at their disposal. At the other end, in the other tier, will be masses of people working at minimum wage, or very close to it, who will be doing jobs that are so menial and scuzzy it will not be worth computerizing, automating and using high technology to replace them.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Just for the record, I think the honourable member will agree with me that his remarks are about as close to the amendment as mine were.

Mr. Cassidy: My remarks are very close to the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: I did not hear your remarks, but I say to the member for Ottawa Centre, we are still on Bill 141.

Mr. Cassidy: That was in jest.

The point I want to make is that women are particularly vulnerable to the changes that are taking place right now. There are not many men in this building or in the Ontario government who work as secretaries. There are not many men who work as waiters at Woolworth's and similar restaurants. There are not many men who work as switchboard operators. There are not many men who work as drugstore clerks. There are not many men who work at all those low-paid jobs without career prospects which traditionally have been job ghettos for the bulk of women in the labour force.

Those are the jobs that are threatened, those are the jobs where it is extremely difficult to get advancement, promotion and greater incomes, and those are the jobs that are on the firing line because of computerization and technological change. The vulnerable workers who are women, in particular older workers but also young women, are now being threatened by growing unemployment. When there is growing unemployment, once again it is women who lose in the race, because they are already disadvantaged when it comes to competing for jobs.

The women who need training to get into new jobs are finding that training is not accessible. Even if they do get training for nontraditional jobs, they are finding those occupations are no longer open to them, because the men who have those jobs are hanging on, and already those men may need six or eight years of seniority to keep the jobs.

There are no new openings. Women who have gone into professions are finding the professions are full. They cannot get jobs as architects because architects are not being hired. Women who become engineers have found there are 10,000 engineers who cannot get jobs now because of unemployment.

These are the realities of what is happening out in the work place in Ontario today. I raise them for this reason. If we in this Legislature and in this government cannot try to respond to situations as they occur, if we are constantly falling behind, as we have been in the area of equal pay for work of equal value ensuring economic equality for women in the work place, then how the devil are we going to ensure equality in the work place of the future? I do not know.

What I see happening around us is that the pace of social change, economic change and workplace change is accelerating. That means that just to stand still people have to move faster than before. But women, because they are already disadvantaged, cannot move faster. If anything, they are finding themselves pushed back.

If they work in a supermarket, every keystroke is counted. If they work as secretaries, typists or general executive assistants, they find themselves pushed into a word processing pool where they work in semi-darkness, they never socialize with their fellow workers, they cannot learn other skills, and that is all they can do. If they worked as telephone operators, the chances are they may have lost their jobs as half the Bell Canada operators have lost their jobs over the course of the last decade or so.

Equal pay for work of equal value is not an entire response to that problem. The member for Beaches-Woodbine acknowledges that, the member for Brantford acknowledges it and I acknowledge it, but it is an essential part of a package of measures that are needed to ensure that we make equality a reality for women in the work place and not just a dream.

I remind all Conservative Party members out there of the disparities that exist right now and what those mean in actual concrete terms. If a male worker in Ontario wants to buy a new car that costs $10,000, that is equivalent to 20 weeks' work. If a female worker in Ontario wants to buy the same new car, for her it is the equivalent to 30 weeks of work.

If a male worker wants to buy a $100,000 house somewhere in the remote suburbs of Toronto, if he can find one, it will take four years' salary to pay for it. If a female worker wants to buy the same house, for her it is six years' salary.

If a male worker rents an apartment for $600 a month, that is equivalent to 50 hours' work a month; if a female worker wants to pay the same rent, she has to pay the equivalent of 75 hours of work a month. That is real disparity. That is real discrimination. That is what we want to try to address.

We have used the example again and again about the switchboard operators here at Queen's Park as compared to the parking lot attendants, who have less education, less experience, less training, less responsibility and more money.

Here is another example. In the North York public library, maintenance workers, who of course are normally men, require a high school education, decent health and a chauffeur's licence. They must be able to use ordinary tools and to perform carpentry, plumbing and other related maintenance.

The maintenance workers get $1,745 a year more than library technicians, even though the library technicians, who of course are ordinarily women, must have graduated from a two-year library tech program at a community college and have the ability to communicate effectively. They must be able to work with and train other staff.

In other words, they must supervise and train other staff and perform duties such as reference work, cataloguing, data-base manipulation -- that means operating computers -- and staff scheduling with a minimum of supervision.

In summary, they must have supervisory responsibilities, responsibilities for dealing with the public and two years of additional specialized training in a community college, but library technicians get $1,700 a year less than maintenance workers.

It is interesting that the supervisors of these occupational categories have a wage gap of $1,218, even though the librarian supervisor needs an undergraduate degree plus a two-year master's degree in library science, whereas no such educational requirements exist for the supervisor of the maintenance employees.

That is just one example of many of the kinds of situations that exist right now in Ontario.

Let us suppose we sit back and do what was done three or four years ago. We will pass the bill as it stands right now. The composite test will come into force. A few more officers will be out there, so there will be one officer trying to communicate with every 130,000 women in the province to let them know their rights. Three or four years down the line, the government, if it is this government, will come -- or we will come if we are the government -- to actually make the necessary legislative changes.

It has been pointed out here tonight that these changes will require rethinking and adaptation as far as employers are concerned. Some mediation and conciliation will be useful, in addition to strict enforcement of the terms of the new law we have proposed or as it has been proposed federally.

I acknowledge all of those things, but the government will not start that process of adaptation until it gets to the starting line and crosses it. The government is adamantly refusing to get to the starting line and cross it. It is saying, "Maybe the problem is not so bad, maybe it is not so serious and therefore we are going to try once again with something that has been proved not to work."

The reason it has been proved not to work is that even where women are paid equal pay for equal work, their chances of getting access to those equally paid jobs are extremely limited.

9:20 p.m.

I cite the example of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario clerks, because I am a regular patron of the LCBO. Ten years ago in this Legislature, I raised a case of discrimination against women. It involved the fact that the LCBO would not hire women to serve as liquor store clerks; it would hire only men. It said the reason was that women were not capable of lifting the liquor crates. There were some old crocks in the liquor stores who likewise were not capable of lifting the crates.

If one works it out, a crate containing 12 26-ounce bottles weighs approximately the same as a year-old child. Most healthy women who bear children are capable of lifting a year-old child who is not only difficult to carry but also wriggles, squiggles, squirms and so on in a way that liquor crates normally do not, unless one has imbibed some of the contents.

In other words, an irrelevant job qualification was imposed. Women were deemed not to be capable of meeting it and were kept out of a job that paid much more than many jobs women occupy as secretaries, clerks, waitresses and that kind of thing. A liquor store job pays $9 an hour these days, or maybe a bit more. It is a job women are capable of handling, but even to this day when I go into my liquor store I do not find women. The only place I find women is in the self-service stores where they serve at the cash and, guess what, the cashiers in the self-service liquor stores are paid less than the clerks in the traditional liquor stores run by the LCBO.

Those job barriers exist all over the place. I can recall talking to a woman who worked at de Havilland. I asked her how she got into de Havilland. She said, "There used to be lots of us." She went into de Havilland during the war. During the war women were deemed capable of working as machinists, assemblers and welders, doing all the complex, highly technical jobs needed to make planes to fight with. After the war de Havilland stopped hiring women.

When I talked to this woman three or four years ago, she was one of only half a dozen women still left on the shop floor at de Havilland. Everybody else had been pensioned off and the company had been quite studious about not replacing them and providing opportunities for women.

Equal pay for work of equal value legislation is not going to solve that problem on its own, but it is going to solve the problem for women who are already in the labour force. It will ensure equity for them and it will also be a clear signal in Ontario that this government is prepared to show it means business about ensuring that women are genuinely treated as equals and are not subject to systemic discrimination.

The words "systemic discrimination" are probably unfamiliar to the parliamentary assistant or to the members of the government. What it means is that when women earn 63 per cent of what men earn, it is not just an accident and it is not just because of one employer who is particularly nasty with women compared to men in that employer's work place. It means far more than that. It means that systematically and consistently in every respect, in hiring, promotion, careers and training, the Ontario government and employers throughout this province discriminate against women.

I mentioned the Ontario government and I will give an example of that. The government is responsible for apprenticeship programs in Ontario. In March 1981 -- and little has changed since then -- only 21 women were apprenticed in the construction trades compared to 12,391 male apprentices. Those trades were paying up to $15 an hour at that time.

There were 49 women training to become mechanics or getting other training in the motor trades, compared to 12,380 men. In the industrial trades -- tool and die workers, steamfitters, millwrights, machinists, etc. -- there were only 13 women out of 3,100, and there were only 91 in all in the nonregulated trades.

This is a program that has been in existence for more than 20 years, run by this government. It has been run by a government that tells us now: "Trust us. Trust the program. We have five more officers and we will clean it all up. We are going to bring women right up to what men earn and it is going to be done right away because of this legislation."

I cannot trust a government that says that when fewer than five per cent of the apprenticeships in Ontario are currently being made available to women and most of the women receiving apprenticeships are women in only one trade, which is hairdressing. If hairdressing is excluded, the proportion of women taking apprenticeships is down to about one or two per cent. Yet everybody knows the skilled trades are where the best opportunities and the best incomes have traditionally been, and the best chances of breaking through the cage of inequality that surrounds women in the work place today.

I will give another example of how this government deals with women in terms of the inequality of women and the unequal treatment they get. These figures date from 1982. The interesting thing is that in 1980 and 1981 -- it may have changed a bit since then, but not very much -- the staff development and training being offered in the civil service amounted to an expenditure of twice as much for each male worker in Ontario as it did for each female worker.

Males were being allocated 73 per cent of the total money, 68 per cent of the total days off and 70 per cent of all managerial, technical and professional training. This is hardly equal access; it is hardly equality. When we do not have that, it is extremely difficult to get equal pay for work of equal value, according to the system the government has, because the government says, "We are going to pay you equally when you are in the same job."

If men get 70 per cent of the managerial training, clearly men are going to get 70 per cent or more of the managerial jobs. Women are not going to get the managerial jobs, so the question of whether they are getting equal pay for equal work will be a nonquestion, a non sequitur, an irrelevant question because it does not apply. That is the problem in the public sector and in the private sector as well.

In the throne speech a few unhappy weeks ago, the government talked about an affirmative action program to ensure better treatment for women in agencies, boards, commissions, boards of education and that kind of thing. It came to the crunch just a couple of weeks ago, when the Ottawa Board of Education was hiring for a superintendent position. Almost all the superintendent positions right now are held by men. They pay far more than teaching positions. Of course, would one expect anything less with this government in power? Guess how many women were considered on the long list for the job? One out of 11, and a male has been hired.

This is hardly equal access and it is hardly a ringing endorsement of the principle of affirmative action, such as has been promised by the ministry. I think only five per cent of the principals in Ontario schools are women. Women cannot even get into the supervisory courses because the people who choose candidates for the supervisory courses are men. Those men choose on the standards they have found traditionally acceptable, and those standards do not count the values women can bring into supervisory positions.

The other day, I was up at Northern Secondary School here in Toronto for Education Week. This is a school with an enrolment that is 50 per cent female. The principal was male; the first vice-principal was male; the second, third and fourth vice-principals were also male. There was not a single female at the senior level of administration in that school. That is scandalous and shameful.

We cannot talk about ensuring that women vice-principals get equal pay for equal work when women cannot even get in to become vice-principals in the first place. We need to have affirmative action programs in order to get them there. We also need to have equal pay for work of equal value legislation to ensure that when women are holding a job which entails the same responsibilities and the same skills on the composite test, they get paid the same.

9:30 p.m.

The city of Ottawa is extremely sensitive to these questions, but the other month when it was hiring an equal opportunity affirmative action co-ordinator for the women's program at city hall, even that body fell into the trap. They turned around and said: "This woman, or the person who takes this job, is not going to have a lot of people to supervise. Therefore, we will put her down at a division head, branch head level, rather than the level of a department head." It finally saw the light, recognized it was making a mistake and put that co-ordinator on the same level as all of the other department heads in the city's administration.

That came only after a political fight and a ruckus when people finally recognized what was being done. It was assumed that because it was a woman taking the job or likely to take the job, therefore they could pay $10,000 a year less, give the job less status, less prestige, less information and less power than the job would have if it was held by a man.

Our amendment seeks to deal with the question of equal pay for work of equal value. We recognize the problems are serious. One of the areas I think is particularly serious is the fact that three quarters of the women workers in the province are unorganized. There are perhaps a few less after some of the Eaton drives that are going on right now, but the bulk of women in the work force today are not organized.

If they have a union, the chances that they can, through that union, gain some knowledge of what goes on and about their rights and then enforce those rights are significantly greater. That is one of the reasons the union exists. Most women do not have that. They feel vulnerable because their boss is constantly threatening or hinting that if they act up too much they may get fired. In certain cases they are being chased around desks or being pinched on the bottom by some lascivious boss who has no business harassing them sexually.

In today's economy, with nine or 10 per cent unemployed, women feel they have little choice but to hang on to the jobs they have right now because the alternative is to go on unemployment or go on the dole. These are situations that are real right now and are not addressed by the ministry saying we are going to have five more officers and a composite test.

I would like to know how a Portuguese immigrant worker in the garment industry on the waterfront here in Toronto is going to understand what the hell a composite test is all about and how it applies to her position. She may well have a sense of inequity because when she looks at what she does, she realizes it involves the same skills and the same kind of work as men working in the next shop, but the men in the next shop are getting paid 50 per cent more than she is.

How the devil does that Portuguese woman, without a union, learn there is a law to protect her, learn to understand the law, learn how to make the law apply, and then stand up against the intimidation and coercion she is likely to receive from her supervisor or employer when she tries to exercise her rights?

I want to recall for the member for Brantford, since he is the one Conservative who appears to be paying some attention, the case of the women at the British American Bank Note Co. in my riding of Ottawa Centre. These women sought to make equal pay legislation work. They failed because of the imperfections in the law and due to technicalities, which I think is part of the learning process as far as making a new law work.

However, at the very least they had something to fight with. They would have had nothing to fight with under Ontario's existing equal pay for equal work legislation, nor would they have had anything to fight with if the composite test as proposed in Bill 141 had been passed without the kinds of amendments we propose.

I talked with some of those women about five years ago. At that time a woman with 20 years' experience checking bank notes coming out of the high-speed presses of the British American Bank Note Co. was paid no more -- in fact, I believe she was paid less -- than a male sweeper with grade 10 or grade 11 education who came in to clean out the latrines, the toilets, and do other work like that.

If a woman cleaning our the women's toilet is paid less than a male cleaning out the men's toilet, I do not know how that is defensible in anyone's language.

The women had a job which involved intense concentration. Those bank notes came out of the press at an enormous rate. Clearly they had responsibility for catching errors in a product which was worth literally millions of dollars. An error could lead to very substantial consequences. It was certainly material if one sheet of $20 bills was released in error without the necessary printing being done. Then clearly something was very wrong.

The job was incredibly intense. With only a couple of breaks morning and afternoon, the women had to be on the job checking the money, watching it. Many sheets of bank notes were shooting out every minute and they had to check them all in order to make sure they were okay. It is not a skill one can learn at a community college; it is a skill one learns on the job, but none the less the requirements of responsibility, of tension, of stress and of intensity all made the job very demanding.

At the same time, the men who started as sweepers had a job where they could lean on the broom occasionally. They could have a smoke when they were cleaning out the men's toilets and could go outside and do a bit of work in order to cool off if it was a hot day. They had discretion in terms of controlling their own time. They were not governed by the speed of the machine; they were not under the direct supervision of a foreman and they were paid more.

Not only were the men paid more, their wages went up. On top of that, the career ladder entry into the skilled jobs -- the compositors and other graphics skills; skills that were involved in running the machines, machine minder, printer, technician and that kind of thing -- existed for the men who started as sweepers, while no such progression existed for the women who came in as bank note examiners.

I cite that example at some length because nothing would have been done about that by the existing legislation or by the proposed legislation coming from the government. Something would have been done if our amendment is passed, if the government for once could start to show a sense of leadership and commitment to equality rather than simply dragging its feet and trying to backpedal and go downhill.

I was involved in the hearings of the standing committee on procedural affairs when the Ontario Status of Women Council came before us back in February. Sally Barnes came before that committee. You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that the council has been urging since 1980 that equal pay for work of equal value be enshrined in legislation in Ontario. It has been fighting for affirmative action and has been very much on the mark in terms of the legislative changes needed in Ontario. That was until Sally Barnes came in.

Then my goodness, I do not know where the status of women council was, but its chairperson was suddenly throwing three and a half years of recommendations and policy out the window and saying that as far as she was concerned it was too soon to go that route and we should not be taking the risks involved in affirmative action and equal pay for work of equal value.

The funny thing is, after Sally Barnes was forced to come to an accountability session in front of the procedural affairs committee and after she and the Premier sensed an adverse reaction among a lot of people at the attitudes Ms. Barnes was taking, suddenly she changed her tune. She said she thought she had made a mistake and that yes, the government should go forward with equal pay for work of equal value. I believe to save face she recommended it be begun in the public service of Ontario and then be followed up in the private sector.

I suppose we could expect that from a Conservative. Never impose anything one can avoid on the private sector. That is not good enough. If we have any sense of commitment to women in Ontario, it is to ensure they get something more equal than wages that are 63 per cent.

This government has never been committed to the cause of women. Its actions have at times been criminal. It has had to be forced into every reform. It drags its feet on education, on day care, on affirmative action, on equal pay for work of equal value. Even when there are women in the cabinet, it does nothing to further the status of women. It refuses to see that even in the system for which it has direct responsibility, the education system, genuine affirmative action or equal pay actually takes place.

The government will not listen. It will not be aware women are facing these problems, not in a hypothetical way but every day in the work place. Every day they are facing the reality of having to get by on 60 or 70 per cent of the wages of men.

9:40 p.m.

When our technological change task force went across Ontario and looked at what is happening, we realized we are going to have to build variety into jobs. If people are going to grow in the jobs, they are going to have to have learning opportunities. They are going to have to have what the Scandinavians call a desirable future, the opportunity for careers, the opportunity for personal growth, the opportunity to move into different lines of endeavour. Those things have to be built into legislation and built into jobs in Ontario.

We are not going to get that as long as job ghettos continue. Job ghettos by their definition do not provide learning opportunities with which women can grow and with which they can move into careers rather than just have a job. We have the spectacle in Ontario that a woman who has been out of the work force for 20 years can come back in and take up the job she had before, and very little will have changed in that particular job. I cannot think it is much different waiting on tables at Woolworth's today than it was 15 or 20 years ago; perhaps the cash registers have changed and not much else.

It has not been expected in this province until very recently that women would be able to take the responsibility. Yet the parliamentary assistant knows, you know, Mr. Chairman, and I know, that every time we get down to specifics and look at a woman who is doing a job that women have just begun to break into, my goodness, we find that a woman is every bit as capable as the men who are working alongside her.

I can remember going up when I was touring a steel fabricating plant in Thunder Bay a few years ago. One of the workers seemed to be rather small. I thought maybe he came from the Philippines or was perhaps a Chinese worker. I went and tapped the worker on his shoulder, he turned around and turned out to be a young woman who had just completed her apprenticeship. I asked the supervisors how she was doing at this job -- heavy work, welding, dirty environment and that kind of thing. They said, "She is the best person in this entire shop."

I look at my own experience in Ottawa, where our family doctor is a woman, Dr. Anna Sharpe, who at 75 is still going strong. I am not sure how old she is; she stopped adding birthdays about 20 years ago. She is one of the best family doctors in all of Ottawa, and it has been acknowledged that women can certainly be the equals of men in medicine.

We are now seeing women becoming learned in the law. They are not given QCs, I guess because they have not done the right things as far as the Conservative Party is concerned, but they are certainly showing themselves equal to or better than men in regard to what they are able to do. We are seeing women as entrepreneurs beating the pants off many men in opening their own small businesses and making them succeed.

All of these things are happening, and yet we face a situation where the overwhelming majority of women in Ontario still do not have equal pay for work of equal value. They are stuck in traditional jobs such as secretary, typist, word processor, telephone operator or store clerk -- those kinds of jobs. They simply cannot get out, and one of the reasons they cannot get out is the inaction and the nonaffirmative policy of action of the government of Ontario.

We need things like occupational bridging, but we will not get them unless women are paid the same and employers cannot get by with exploiting them by paying less. We need things like job rotation, but we will not get that unless women are put on the same basis as men. We need things like revisions of job descriptions and job classification systems so that women have career prospects and desirable futures instead of being trapped as they are being trapped right now.

I just want to conclude by saying that the amendment my friend the member for Hamilton East has put forward is a positive, constructive amendment. It is innovative; I recognize that. It carries a certain amount of risk. There is the risk that it may not work as well as we had hoped. But the risk of not acting, as I said in the beginning, is that in the first place we will continue to lose ground in achieving equality for women, and they will fall back if we do not begin the road to equal pay for work of equal value in legislative form today.

The second thing is that with the microelectronic revolution that is occurring right now women are particularly vulnerable. The props are being kicked out from underneath them just as they thought they were beginning to gain some measure of equality with men. Women under those circumstances are in an extremely difficult situation where it is getting tougher and tougher to catch up.

They will not catch up unless we act legislatively to reverse centuries of discrimination against women here in this province and throughout the industrial world. I for one hope we can take that step tonight bypassing this amendment.

Mr. Gillies: In replying to the member, I should first thank him for his comments about the gloss he thought I had. I use the past tense. I appreciate that very much. It is something the member and I could talk about at great length.

It seems to me that the bulk of the member's remarks was really directed to the question of systemic discrimination and the exclusion of women from certain occupations. I hope he would agree with me, no matter what definition we were to settle on in terms of equal value or equal pay legislation in section 1 of the bill, the real thrust of the bill is in section 2 with regard to enforcement or eliminating that kind of systemic discrimination.

I will just review that for a moment for the member, if I might. Regardless of what course we chart in subsection 33(1), subsection 33(2) goes on to say, "No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall, (a) in replacing a male employee," etc., really seek to thwart the intent of subsection 33(1).

Clause 33(2)(b) says no employer shall restrict access to the work as delineated in subsection 1, and clause 33(2)(c) says nobody shall act to "exclude from the work employees of a particular sex in order to avoid the application of this section."

It is the intent and the thrust of the government to eliminate the type of ghettoization and systemic discrimination the member referred to. I feel we have very little disagreement on that point. Indeed, we are very concerned about the type of thing he mentioned. My hope would be that the very example the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) used about the employees of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, that kind of exclusionary practice, could be adjudicated under our subsection 33(2). The employment standards officers will be enforcing every clause and every aspect of this bill, not just subsection 33(1).

On the subject of the education field, again one can hardly disagree with the member when he speaks to the situation in the administrative hierarchy of our educational system. I am sure, in fairness, he will recall that in recent weeks the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) has spoken out very strongly on this point in her speech to the trustees, saying the government intends to redress this situation and there will be continuing thrusts in that direction.

I would want the member to know the Ontario Manpower Commission has recently requested that the federal government change its definition of nontraditional occupations from those occupations that have less than 10 per cent female participation to those that have less than 30 per cent so we can make real strides with regard to training grants and opportunities for women in nontraditional occupations. In that regard, we are moving in the direction the member really wanted to see us move.

That is a practical example of what we are doing, if I may paraphrase the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), in assembling that arsenal of weapons to redress the wage gap and eliminate job ghettoization.

I appreciate the member's contribution to the debate with regard to the philosophical thrust he has put forward and his concern that this wage gap be eliminated for the working women in our province. There is no disagreement there. We may disagree over the terminology in subsection 33(1), but as I said earlier, in case the member was not here, I can hardly disagree with certain clauses of the NDP amendment because they are in our bill. Three clauses in that amendment are in other sections of our bill. So we have little disagreement on some of those points.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a very full debate on the amendment. In view of seeing the debate carried forward, I hope we might see the question on the amendment soon.

Interjections.

9:50 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: I just posed the question. I wondered if we might be getting to the point where we could clearly proceed.

Mr. Cassidy: To respond briefly, Mr. Chairman, the member suggested I was talking about systemic discrimination and not talking about this amendment. I simply disagree with him, because the fact is that in the current climate we face -- and we will face it from now until the 1990s, as long ahead as members care to think about it -- the opportunity for opening up existing jobs is going to be very difficult.

People are hanging on to their existing jobs because they are the only thing they have. As a consequence, systemic discrimination which is there now is not going to vanish overnight through a touch of the wand of one of the five extra employment standards officers the member says are being hired.

That is why equal pay for work of equal value legislation is needed. That principle is needed because where systemic discrimination exists right now and women are doing work which is different but is comparable with that of men in terms of skill, responsibility, working conditions and those kinds of things -- the composite test -- we can address that now and not by waiting to see whether or not when an opening comes up five years from now a woman is considered for the opening. We can do it by looking at the disparities in pay that exist today.

Women are not stupid. They work in their jobs and they know what it takes. They know how they feel at the end of the day after putting in a full day's work. They know they feel just as tired and strung out as one of their male fellow workers. If we tell them that in five or 10 years, some Tory manana, "We are with you all the way, baby," that is simply not good enough. The government has to be prepared to respond to those very real needs right now.

I would remind the member that those women who are being discriminated against are not people earning pin money; they are people who come from families where, if there is a spouse, the income is quite likely to be less than $18,000 or $20,000 a year. They may well be single women; they may be widowed, divorced or separated. In many cases, those women trying to scratch by are single moms who are trying to support one or two kids.

On the one hand, the government zaps them with increased fees for day care or makes day care inaccessible. On the other hand, the government tells them they have to pay for their apartments, for their OC Transpo passes, for their food and everything else with dollars that will go only 63 per cent as far as the dollars that are paid to men.

That is the situation and that is what has to be addressed. I would argue very strongly that legislation of the type proposed in our amendment is needed, because systemic discrimination is not going to disappear just because of a couple of magic wands flung in the air by the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies).

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify what the parliamentary assistant said about the Ontario Manpower Commission trying to get the definition of "nontraditional job" changed to less than 30 per cent of women from, apparently, the present 10 per cent.

I cannot see how changing the definition of a nontraditional job is going to open up more nontraditional jobs to women without mandatory affirmative action. Once the definition is changed, will equal pay be extended automatically to the women who move into those jobs, as he seems to think? Could he clarify that, please?

Mr. Gillies: Yes. I was using that as a very specific example. One of the members had said earlier in the debate, "Please give us some specific examples outside of the aegis of this legislation as to what is being done," so I used that example.

What the change in definition will allow for is the opening up of more seats in these training programs for women and the application of more grants to that end. So we hope that if these nontraditional types of work are the ones we want to get women into so that they will be competing in the equivalent types of work in order that this bill can be applied, then we are moving in the right direction in that area.

If I might, I want to compliment the member for Ottawa Centre because he mentioned the case of the employees of banks having certain opportunities opened up to them under the federal legislation. I compliment him on recognizing that bank employees are, of course, under the federal legislation, because an argument by one of the members earlier in the debate was using the wage gap within the banking industry as an example of the failure of provincial legislation. Clearly, that is not the case because the bank employees are covered by the federal act, and yet that wage gap in banking continues.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on the nontraditional jobs, it seems to me we should not be saying there are so many spaces for women in the training programs. We should be looking at areas where women are underrepresented in relation to their participation in the labour force and trying to come to some sort of representation on the basis of their participation in the labour force, rather than having targets that are far below parity.

I hope the day will come when all jobs will be open on a 50:50 basis to men and women and there will be no barriers or quotas of the sort that there seem to be in training programs. I do not think that is the answer.

The other thing the parliamentary assistant mentioned earlier in the evening was that our amendment calls for class actions to be made legal as a method of applying the equal pay legislation to a large group of people together, instead of having each case fought as an individual case. He said the government is presumably moving towards class action because the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has indicated he is looking at it after the recent reports of the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

I am sure he must be aware that Mr. Lawlor, a former member of this Legislature, introduced a class action bill at least three or four times in a row and every time the government either talked it out or let it die on the order paper. I have no more confidence that the Attorney General is going to move in that field than I had when the other bills were before this House while Mr. Lawlor was in it.

To hold that out as a reason for rejecting our amendment, because the government is going to do something in the near future on one of the important sections of the bill, seems to me asking us to buy a pig in a poke.

Mr. Gillies: I remind the member that if we hark back to that part of the debate, yes, I made the argument about the Attorney General looking at the whole question of class action suits and class action generally. We hope there will be legislation in that area, but I also want to make the point that a trade union local can make a complaint on behalf of a group of employees and that complaint will be entertained by the employment standards officers. In some cases it is possible for a group of employees to band together and put together a quasi-class action. It is not strictly necessary for each case to be adjudicated individually in such cases.

Ms. Bryden: I point out that very few women are organized in trade unions at the present time. The vast majority are not. We do need the class action approach to back them up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat overwhelmed by the irony here that in the ultimate men's club to which only 13 women have been given entrance in the last 100-and-some years we are debating a question which fundamentally comes down to the power of the patriarchy in Canada and in Ontario. We are again coming up with too little far too late, with no major outcries by the three women represented on the government side of the House and the men in the House on the whole not giving this the --

10 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: There are four.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member counts better than I do.

The four women on the government side and the men on all sides of the House are arguing at this point over an amendment put forward by the member for Beaches-Woodbine on behalf of our party that would put some teeth or some better definition into an act which otherwise is mostly dressing and very little substance.

I feel compelled to talk a little bit, as other members have, about the context in which we find ourselves of the relative role of women in our society in terms of power. Their lack of power is shown by their economic status in our society and, I think, by the very nature of the legislation which requires us, in 1984, to be looking at extending notions of equal pay legislation, even if it is in the somewhat limited fashion the government is proposing.

As you probably know, Mr. Chairman, I have been travelling around the province a great deal in the last number of months to look at the issues of poverty. If there are inescapable conclusions, besides the fact that there are more poor people today in Ontario -- poverty being a relative thing -- than there have been in the past decade, the most inescapable conclusion of all is that women are the biggest single group of poor people in our society.

If we look at the recipients of social assistance and at the number of elderly people who are living in poverty, inevitably it is women who are victimized. That is symbolic of our whole political and economic structure, the role of the family in terms of who is the head of the family and who has the economic power within the family in our society.

The fundamental thing underneath what we are talking about here in terms of affirmative legislation is to assist women to come out of that position of relative poverty and to have the same access within the work force to power in economic terms that will provide them with as much political power as men have.

All the statistics have been used by other members. There is no need to go over them again in terms of the amounts of money of people who are actually working, what women receive in comparison to men and how little change in real terms there has been there. As somebody put it earlier on, they cannot eat terminology, "they" being the women of this province, many of whom are now single-parent breadwinners and more of whom will be.

The parliamentary assistant knows, having been on the standing committee on social development through our hearings on child abuse and wife battering, that as many as 70 per cent of the women who will be in the work force will have been through a single status at some point or other after marriage. It will very possibly happen in the coming decades. While women continue to be victimized, as a society, we will continue to be impoverished.

Women who have gained more power than others in the structure, and there has not been a great deal said about that tonight, have been women who have come together collectively, who have unionized. I have some figures here that I will bring to the parliamentary assistant's attention. The figures have been provided by Statistics Canada.

If we look at the difference between the wages of unionized workers, both men and women, and nonunionized workers, the average hourly wage is $10.17 for men and $8.72 for women, when they are unionized, a difference of 16.6 per cent. When they are nonunionized, the average wage is $9.60 for men and $7.16 for women, a difference of 34 per cent.

It is also obvious that the lowest-paid people can be found in nonunionized categories, and in those categories we find a greater preponderance of women. The message there is one of empowerment again, of the actions that must be taken if women are going to find their true place in the power structure of this society.

They must participate in unions. They must participate in the retail revolution that is taking place in Eaton's, Simpsons and other such groups, which are getting their fair share in those terms. They must participate in the banking institutions or in the provincial wings of those banking-style institutions, since the member wants me to stick totally to provincial jurisdiction.

They must be allowed to take over power within the unions as well. Thank God, over the last little while we have seen some moves within the union movement to provide that kind of power to women in that structure.

I suggest the government of Ontario has a very serious rule to play and it has taken it quasi-seriously in the past. It has been one of the first to have equal pay legislation, it is true, but any measurement of where women find themselves relative to men in our society today would say that legislation has not worked and is in need of major revision.

Instead, what has been proposed is a few changes in wording in terms of what can be dealt with, an addition of a number of workers to investigate cases through random searching and auditing the member has mentioned earlier on, and that is it.

What is really needed is a major, concerted, co-ordinated effort in terms of affirmative action. It has to take place in terms of work-place day care, real accessibility to day care -- because without that women will not have an equal access to the work place -- and in terms of the notion of providing real opportunity for women within the work place.

As a basic touchstone at this point, it needs equal pay for work of equal value in a way that can systematically be worked on and not just on a slight extension of the notion of equal pay for equal work, which is what is being suggested by the government.

That is why, although I take what the member has said seriously in terms of the teeth of what has been proposed under subsection 33(2), I view subsection 33(1) as being as important.

I want to take the member through what has been proposed in our amendment that is different from what he is talking about and why it is important.

Subsection 2 of the amendment speaks very specifically about who would do what. That is what is missing, if I might say, in the member's proposed amendment to the overall legislation. It says:

"An employment standards officer may assess the value of work performed for the purposes of subsection 1" -- which is a definition of pay for work of equal value -- "and, where the officer finds that an employer has failed to comply with subsection 1, the officer may determine the amount of money owing to an employee because of the noncompliance, including any expenses incurred by the employee in enforcing subsection 1, and the amount shall be deemed to be unpaid wages."

Surely that is what this is about. That is the teeth we want; that is the bottom line. We are talking about an injustice that is definable and needs to be redressed in real monetary terms. Until it is redressed in real monetary terms, it will not be providing the equality we are talking about.

I read what the member has provided in subsection 33(1) as well as in subsection 2, and I would suggest there is essentially a great capacity for employers to duck the question of the equal value of different work. It is really very easy to see how they could presume or how they could argue that certain work was not equal to a very different kind of work.

10:10 p.m.

I look at the cases that have been raised many times in the House about the difference between a parking attendant and a person who is working on a video display terminal, or the cases that have been raised in other parts about the differences between cleaners and people with a specialized skill where the specialized skill is not recognized.

I can easily see how the employer could make arguments about why those things are not the same in any sense and should not be measured against each other. However, if there is an employment standards officer who has the kind of power in subsection 33(2) of the amendment of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, I suggest we will have power actually to redress the bucks.

Subsection 33(3), as the member will know, is one that establishes a composite set of criteria for measuring the equality of different kinds of work as to the relative responsibilities, etc. Without the kinds of waffling that can be found in clause 33(1)(b), the working conditions are considered as a whole and not individually.

I have no idea why the member does not want to put in subsection 33(4) what we are proposing to make sure the use of separate establishments would not be something employers could use to duck around a situation. It seems to me to be an eminently reasonable amendment that should be considered. I do not believe it is one of the things the member talked about being covered under other parts of the act. I cannot find them anywhere.

I believe it is vital that we have some kind of notion in this act now. Given the rate of new legislation being brought before us and the long wait for class action legislation by the Attorney General, we need class action possibilities in this legislation now.

Let it be superseded later, if necessary, by an overall set of guidelines and legislation on class actions. In the immediate short term, when the structure is considered, when it is considered that the nonunionized, unorganized workers are more likely to have the larger gap and a high representation of women, and do not have the capacity at that point to have a union representing them, class action for unorganized workers is crucial and vital.

The member will know how hard it is to get a first contract. He will know how difficult it is and the kinds of strikes people have gone through at Radio Shack, Fleck Manufacturing and other places trying to get a union established and a first contract when they are at the lower levels of income. I think back to the Irwin Toy strike where essentially those people were fighting for a first contract of about 10 cents above minimum wage.

Many workers are not willing to take on that battle because of the incredible wall in front of them. This is especially so for women workers, many of whom will be more easily victimized and more easily exploited by employers because of their desperate need for work and the fact that during this high unemployment period they are easier to victimize. We do not need to say to them, "First you must have a union contract and then you can come with a class action."

Even though I would question whether it is really class action that the member is talking about, we need to have it written down very specifically in legislation that a group of women in an unorganized shop, who feel that in another part of the unorganized shop men with fewer qualifications or less responsibility are receiving money in larger degree than they are, would be able to come together for some kind of solidarity to be able to bring forward their complaint.

The member will know how easy it is to take advantage of individuals in the shaky circumstances a lot of those women find themselves in. I find it difficult to understand why members of the House who have accepted the principle of equal pay for work of equal value would not accept subsections 2 and 3 of what we are proposing in addition to what is already in the act to provide the basic protection these women need.

We have raised in the past, and my leader especially has brought this forward in the House any number of times, how long it is going to take affirmative action programs as they are structured at present under this government to get equality in the work place. I recall that 1,800 years was one of the figures used if we continued to move at the rate we are moving in Ontario.

We need now some kind of gesture that is not just a dressing up of the existing legislation for equal pay for equal work.

We need some major new plank with major new emphasis in terms of equal pay for work of equal value and we need it now.

In all sincerity and in no way in respect to a trendy political analysis around the gender gap, I suggest that as a Legislature -- and I place the responsibility on all members past and present -- if we continue to have a patronizing view of legislation for protection of women and their slow, staged movement up to equality in our society, the anger of women in the community will show itself very directly at the polls. I say that as a threat to all members of the House in very clear and unequivocal language. They will not put up with being hoodwinked again or, not even to be as negative as hoodwinked, to be given half the apple.

We have seen that, and if we look at what has been brought forward as legislation, in traditional terms it is very clever stuff. The government brings forward just a new face to equal pay for equal work, then brings in a couple of sweeteners that a lot of us have been wanting for a long time, such as pregnancy leave and other kinds of assistance with respect to changes to the Employment Standards Act -- wonderful sweeteners that do not redress the power structure but will be of real assistance to the family.

In traditional terms, both the women's lobby groups and parties in opposition would find themselves in a totally compromised situation. They would get up and give a mild debate on what should have been done with respect to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value replacing the present situation, but then probably would have gone along and voted for it or allowed it to slip through to get the other kinds of things.

The women's groups would very probably have said to groups such as ourselves as they came to lobby us, "We want you to make the principle clear and we are not pleased with the equal pay section of this, but darn it, we really do want the pregnancy leave provisions improved and they are much better."

We would therefore have gone through some kind of parliamentary charade, as we often do, in respect to the kind of conflict. That is not the message we have received from women's groups. It is not the message that has come from our caucus in terms of its discussions about what it wants to do on this.

10:20 p.m.

Members may be wondering why so many of us have been standing and speaking. We are saying to the government that it will not work any more. That kind of neat little parliamentary shuffle will not satisfy the women of Ontario who understand this issue very well, nor will it satisfy us as a party.

The government is going to have to make some changes in the equal pay section if it wants our support. At Christmas, when this was first brought forward, members opposite thought a little leverage could be used and this could be pushed through fairly quickly. They saw that would not happen.

That was not just one small parliamentary tactical aberration. We will not support this legislation as long as it stays the way it is with respect to the equal pay section, because that in our view is what redresses the power situation, until we see something from the government on that. The government will have us to hear on things -- from its point of view ad nauseam, but from our point of view with all the conviction we can muster. We will not take the half apple this time; we want the whole thing.

We want equal pay for work of equal value now. That is the message I hope they are getting from what they are hearing from over here tonight and the other night and what they are going to continue to hear from us. To us, the important part of all this is the key peg in affirmative action going along with the other things I talked about earlier, day care and other affirmative action programs; that is, equal pay for work of equal value.

I do not know whether the parliamentary assistant is going to respond to me this evening, but I do think he should take that message back fairly quickly if it has not got back to his minister and others in the cabinet at this point.

There is no half battle to be won on this. The half measure the government is suggesting to us is unacceptable. We insist that they put some meat in the equal pay for work of equal value section, that they address the principle with some teeth, or we will be fighting this legislation right to the very last minute and we will be doing everything we can to embarrass them about their lack of conviction around the principle they have supported here in this House yea these many years.

I remind the member, as one of the newer members in the House, that my maiden speech was given on equal pay for work of equal value legislation brought in by Ted Bounsall, the former member for Windsor-Sandwich. I got 45 seconds to give it.

Interjection.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It was one of the shortest, pithiest, speeches I have given, and it was probably much more effective than the 40-minute speech I have been imparting to the member now, in that we actually did win the vote that day. I am a little worried that we will not get the member to change the vote on this kind of matter now.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: The minister is about to become quiet, and the member is going to proceed, I trust.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Exactly. And what members are noticing now is the self-control that we should all be trying to strive for. I appreciate the Mississauga power struggle that just went on there and your help in this matter, Mr. Chairman. I will not respond to the man in his esteemed position. His old whipship is coming back to him, which is bringing him down to the normal kind of level we would have expected from him.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I would have to go down a long way to get down to your level.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is lovely to see the Minister of Revenue here tonight.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, just to refresh myself and to keep me out of the nastiness that could arise, on behalf of my colleagues I will adjourn the debate.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment and progress on another bill.

The House adjourned at 10:26 p.m.