Journal des débats 1984-juin-05 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members to rise and join with me in a minute's silence in observance of the 40th anniversary of the D-Day landing in Normandy.

The House observed one minute's silence.

FAMILY OF ANDREI SAKHAROV

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I simply want to give notice that I intend today to move a resolution I hope the House leaders of the other parties will find occasion to discuss at some point before we adjourn. It is as follows:

That the government of Ontario express to the authorities in the Soviet Union, on behalf of the people of the province, its profound concern for the health and safety of Andrei Sakharov and his family and its complete opposition to Soviet treatment of the Sakharov family and other dissidents, and call upon the Soviet government to live up to its obligations under the Helsinki Accord.

[Later]

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: There have been discussions with the House leaders of the other parties with respect to the motion I indicated to you. I think there is unanimous consent to move, and to move quickly, with respect to the treatment of Andrei Sakharov and his family and with a message to the authorities in the Soviet Union from this assembly.

Can I ask you to ask for unanimous consent for me to move the motion on agreement? I do not think there is a need for any lengthy speeches. I think we are all agreed it is a matter of urgency that should proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House?

Agreed to.

SMITHS FALLS SETTLERS DAYS COMMITTEE

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and to the other members of the House six members of the Smiths Falls Settlers Days Committee, who have ridden from Ottawa to Toronto in a stagecoach bringing mail and good greetings along the way. It was a 14-day trip.

All members are invited to meet them out front between 3:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. and all members are invited to come to friendly Lanark county and join in the celebrations from June 29 to July 1. They will have a good time.

I would like the members to welcome the six members of the Smiths Falls Settlers Days Committee, who are in the members' gallery on the east side.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TOMATO PROCESSING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have sent word to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) of a very serious question I would like to raise with him in the House today. He is not here, but perhaps he will be coming along in a moment. In the meantime, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade.

Through his involvement with the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, the minister is no doubt aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the grant application of Topaz Foods Ltd. for a BILD grant. He will be aware that large grants were given through BILD to H. J. Heinz Co. of Canada Ltd. and others for a tomato paste processing operation, yet this Canadian firm was refused any meaningful financial assistance.

He will also recall that the then Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Allan, indicated at the time it was government policy to support big and powerful companies that know what they are doing, instead of the Canadian entrepreneurs, whom he termed "whiners and complainers."

Is it his government's policy to favour foreign multinationals at the expense of Canadian entrepreneurs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: Then how does the minister justify this horrible mistake that he and his colleagues have made? Why was he not forthcoming with assistance for this factory?

My colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) has been fighting for months for this plant. We have all seen it. I have seen it and he has seen it. It is a respectable and good organization. Why would the minister not treat this firm in the same way he would treat a foreign multinational? What kind of screwball policies has he got over there?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not recall it ever having been the policy of this government to aid large foreign companies, as the Leader of the Opposition has quoted Duncan Allan as saying. I do not recall his saying that, but he may have. I can only say to the honourable member that through BILD we have helped many a small Ontario company in the food area. Indeed, through a whole series of BILD grants in relatively small proportions, we have helped a good many producers and manufacturers of processed foods.

I am not able to give the member the answers today. I would trust he would expect us to look at each company's balance sheet and each company's opportunity to succeed. I do know the very first company we helped was not a particularly large one, but I would have to go back and see the records.

I also recall there were very serious problems of profitability in the tomato paste industry. I would not say I know the arithmetic of Topaz, because I do not.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister not in BILD?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Certainly, I am. That does not mean I can regurgitate by instant memory all the arithmetic of a given case.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would say to the member we have been very careful, cautious and unpolitical in our decisions, unlike some of his colleagues.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could give us one reason Topaz would be less qualified to receive assistance from his government than would Heinz. Will he table in this House in written form the reasons he would not give the assistance to Topaz, when he gave it to Heinz?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, for advice on the food processing applications we depend very heavily upon the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I would be glad to look into the arithmetic. Whether I am able to table the answers in this House would depend very much upon the confidentiality of that information. Every so often the members ask for information to be given out that, once given, the companies wish it had never been asked for.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the minister that this is an alternative crop in an area where the main crop, tobacco, has been hard hit by the taxes put on by the government. Will the minister consider an increase from five per cent to 20 per cent, the same as Heinz received? Will he give a commitment to provide them with the same funding that has been given to Heinz?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any commitments today.

BY-ELECTION IN STORMONT,

DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), whom I notified of my desire to ask him this question, but in his absence I am going to ask the question of the Solicitor General. I have just sent the appropriate information over to the Solicitor General. I assume he has had a chance to digest the memo that came forward.

Because he has it in front of him, he will be aware that we have in writing -- it just came to my attention -- a note from Mr. Stephen Ault of Ault Foods Ltd. in Winchester that is, in my view, a clear violation of the Criminal Code, subsection 110(2), which provides that it is a criminal offence for anyone to attempt to buy votes in the federal Parliament or in any Legislature in this country.

I refer him to the last paragraph where it says: "Without our close connection to the present Ontario government, this project and the extra employment it means would not be possible. I hope you will take this into consideration on Thursday and lend your support to Noble Villeneuve and the government that made this possible."

That memo was forthcoming on December 13, 1983, two days before a by-election in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, as the minister will recall. I am sure he is familiar with the provisions of the Criminal Code and I am sure he is aware that this memo went to all employees, clearly a case of shameless, barefaced and transparent vote-buying.

Will the minister, as one of the chief law officers of the crown --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Leader of the Opposition will just state his question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Since it is an indictable offence --

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Oh, come off it.

Mr. Peterson: You do not know right from wrong; that is your problem. You, as the secretary --

Mr. Speaker: Will the Leader of the Opposition please place his question?

Mr. Peterson: Will the Solicitor General, because it is an indictable offence, launch an investigation into this matter, plus all previous correspondence and discussions pertaining to this particular grant and the subsequent attempt to buy votes to determine whether there was an indictable offence committed by this memo and by the intimidation emanating from it.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I just this very minute received what appears to be a copy of a piece of correspondence to all employees, as the honourable member has suggested. I do not know whether the facts are as he has alleged or suggested. However, on the face of what I see, it appears to be a company that appears to be very supportive of the government and of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and is indicating that to his employees.

As usual with a request from the Leader of the Opposition, I will consult with the Attorney General on the material and pass it on to him so he may review the meagre information we have at this time. Naturally, with the great caution the Attorney General has and that I have in this portfolio, on the strength of that piece of material I would not launch an investigation as he asks, but I may make some inquiries about it.

Mr. Peterson: The minister will be aware that half a million dollars was forthcoming on the eve of that by-election and the subsequent memo. To refresh his memory, I refer him to the Criminal Code, subsection 110(2), which reads as follows: "Everyone commits an offence who...whether express or implied, directly or indirectly subscribes, gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate...to a legislature."

Will the Solicitor General now give me his undertaking that he will investigate this matter completely, that he will not sweep it under the rug and that he will come back to this Legislature with the complete results of that investigation?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: As I said in my initial reply, I will discuss it with the Attorney General. I will ask him if there is anything more than the meagre information I have. We will then discuss whether this will proceed further.

Naturally, the member has read from the Criminal Code. I know he has never practised criminal law and is just reading from that book, but he is taking it in all seriousness. We will treat it with the same degree of seriousness. I will transfer it to the Attorney General to review as time progresses and I receive more information on it.

BEACH POLLUTION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of the Environment, who advocated yesterday the Dave Winfield solution to the problem of pollution on Toronto's beaches. In the interim report of April 1983 on Toronto area water quality that the minister issued last year, there was no mention of the Dave Winfield solution to the problem of water pollution and water quality in Toronto. There was specific mention of the following, which I will quote to the minister:

"Urban storm water runoff, combined sewer overflows and sewage treatment plant effluents appear to have particular significance in the impairment of receiving stream water quality, especially with respect to bacterium."

Given that very clear statement in the report issued by his ministry, with no mention of the seagull problem being the dominant problem in the west end of Toronto, but specific mention of water quality, sewage water overflows and so on, why does the minister continue to refuse to move in the one area where he can do something now? He can put construction workers or out-of-work people back to work and he can solve a significant problem with respect to the overflow of raw, untreated sewage directly into the Humber, the Don and Lake Ontario. Why does he not at least move on that when he has a specific report that calls on him to do so?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, in my response yesterday I did not in any way indicate that the problem of combined runoff in some of the Toronto area municipalities was not a contributing factor to the contamination on the beaches. I did indicate it was part of the problem. I also indicated there are other contributing factors, among which, as has been suggested by a number of spokesmen, not only me, are the seagulls.

With respect to the proposals on the part of the leader of the third party, I have to say that not only have we contributed some $3 million to the cleanup, as I announced in this House and indicated the details of the program we are undertaking on the waterfront, but also we have accelerated the very program the member is talking about. Not only has my ministry assisted in that regard, but the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has also assisted with the construction of some sewer undertakings in the Toronto area municipalities. We are thankful to have been joined by the federal government, which has also contributed some funds in participating in this program.

It is virtually impossible to do overnight or in a short period of time the whole job the member is suggesting. Even though I know there is a great deal of work yet to be done, I want to put on the record that there is no jurisdiction in Canada as far advanced as this jurisdiction in the field of sewer separation, sewage treatment and some of the hard services municipalities are required to place in the ground by way of environmental control equipment. No jurisdiction in Canada is as far ahead as we are.

Mr. Rae: The minister cannot deny that the section in his budget that deals with sewer separation, broadly speaking, has been cut significantly in the last two years. The facts are there. He suffered a cut of more than $40 million in that particular budget. He cannot deny that for a moment.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: He also cannot deny that the major study done on Toronto has identified the problem of sewage overflow and the failure to complete sewer separation as one of the chief contributing factors to the pollution of the Humber, the Don and Lake Ontario.

I go back to the same question because I think the minister has to answer it. Why has he not followed up on that report with measures aimed at stopping the pollution of the Humber, the Don and Lake Ontario and at dealing with the major problem, which is the inadequate treatment of sewage and of sewage overflow in the city of Toronto? Why has he not focused on that problem?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to straighten the leader of the third party out with respect to the budget of the Ministry of the Environment. It has not been cut.

Last year supplemental funding of some $30 million was added to my budget, and it went directly to the relief of some of the costs associated with the municipal undertakings. If the honourable member were to take that figure off, he would see that the budget is very much in line with last year's budget. In addition, if the same set of problems arises this year with respect to municipal funding, an additional amount of money may well be added to my budget some time further in the year to look after that problem.

There has not been a net cut in the budget, and in particular there has not been a cut in the budget on the capital side as it relates to the very programs he is attempting to identify. The reality is that we have invested -- this is an important point, and I want to share some of this information with the leader of the third party because I think he needs this information --

Mr. Speaker: I think we have heard this before.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: No, you have not. This is new.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment knows that the city of Toronto has spent more than $1 million in trying to fix up the Sunnyside bathing pavilion and that the federal government is spending $500,000 this summer to fix that pavilion and make improvements on those beaches. When is the minister going to spend his money to ensure that senior citizens and our children can enjoy the waterfront?

He knows full well that unless he acts quickly he cannot give us an undertaking that these beaches will be available for kids to swim at this summer so they can enjoy the waterfront. We want him to give us an undertaking today that the Sunnyside waterfront will be ready for the kids and for the seniors to enjoy this summer.

Can he tell us that? I was here yesterday, and he told us then that he was not sure which beach he was going to open up.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Is it my turn, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member, I am sure, is aware of the fact --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Do not be too sure.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Well, perhaps he is not, but I will try to enlighten him, and I will speak slowly so he can follow the answer to his question.

The answer to the question is that we have provided funds to Metropolitan Toronto specifically directed towards that beach, and that is where some improvements are going to be made. That program is co-ordinated by a committee that is in place and was set up between Metropolitan Toronto and my ministry. We have already committed the funds, and the work is under the direction, as well it should be, of the Metro Toronto engineering department. I think that is quite appropriate. We are working and cooperating with them to clear up the very problem the member is identifying.

Mr. Rae: Since the minister is so determined to refuse to answer very clearly the questions that are being put to him, let me ask him this: is he denying specifically that the city of York, which borders on the Humber River, needs another $90 million for sewer separation? Is he denying that East York, which borders on the Don, needs $35 million? And is he denying that the city of Scarborough needs $20 million?

Why is the government of Ontario failing to play its proper leadership role in stopping the degradation of the water quality in Lake Ontario and in the city of Toronto? Why is the minister refusing to do what so obviously needs to be done? There is a need there. There are 10,000 construction workers looking for work in Toronto. Why does he not put those people to work solving a problem that will genuinely provide something for future generations? Why is the minister being so short-sighted?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I do not think we are short-sighted on this side of the House at all. I think the party that is a little short-sighted rests over there in the third position where it will remain for ever, coming up with solutions to problems where the only option it can ever suggest is to throw more money and more government funding at problems and to create jobs in a fashion that has not worked at the federal level and certainly will not work at the provincial level.

The member knows that is not the answer to unemployment in our province or in our country. The reality is that the cost of the programs identified by the leader of the third party are municipal responsibilities; they are not provincial responsibilities. At some time, this ministry may well review its priority list and take a look at some further programs. It may incorporate some of the thoughts the member is suggesting. However, up until now, the separation of sewers has consistently and always been a municipality responsibility.

The leader of the third party would like to shift this responsibility in this House and make it a part of the responsibility of my ministry. I am not prepared to accept it today, and I may not be prepared to accept it tomorrow either.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. With the concurrence of the House, I wish to introduce a visitor in the Speaker's gallery. The Honourable Robert L. Andrew, Minister of Finance for Saskatchewan, is visiting us. I ask you to join with me in welcoming him to Ontario.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier, the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. Our party completed a random survey last week of 10 firms in Ontario with more than 300 workers to determine again what is happening with affirmative action.

Not to our surprise, contrary to what the minister has been telling us, we found that the vast majority of these firms have no affirmative action program in existence, no involvement or contact with the government's voluntary affirmative action program and that they very much conform to the pattern which has become all too prevalent in Tory Ontario of women being relegated to secondary and dead-end positions with respect to promotion.

Does the Deputy Premier not think the charade of his so-called voluntary, secret program, which is the laughingstock of every group that has studied this problem in Ontario, should come to an end? Does he not he think it is about time these companies were brought up to scratch in terms of affirmative action programs that really provide opportunities for women?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in response to similar questions from the honourable member, I have had the opportunity from time to time to indicate that this government is seriously committed to the whole concept of positive affirmative action. As we talk of the work done by this government itself in so far as affirmative action is concerned, I think it is a record that is worthy of repetition. It is a good example.

I have said we had to make sure as a major employer that we were setting an example in showing the way with respect to a positive program of this kind. I went on to point out that in the private sector, through a voluntary program, with the availability of consultants and staff people, we were working with major employers in this province and that 244 of them had adopted affirmative action programs.

There are 900 firms with more than 500 employees. Therefore, it would not be surprising that when we subtract 244 from 900, there is a bit of work yet to be done. Without knowing the list of those that were on the member's survey, I am not in any position to comment with respect to the 10 or so he and his officials consulted. It could well be they are part of that number of companies where work is yet to be done.

I think there is an increasing awareness of the equity and fairness in the whole program. We will continue to work with the major employers in this province to encourage and persuade them to join the current 244 in positive affirmative action.

Mr. Rae: At the rate the government is going in terms of its contact with companies with more than 20 employees, it will take more than 700 years for the government of Ontario to contact all those employers.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: It will take 1,800 years for those employers to put affirmative action programs into place. I hope the minister is not arguing in this House that the women in Ontario should be prepared to wait 700 or 1,800 years to see affirmative action programs in place in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: My specific question to the minister is, can he explain why companies that have major dealings with the government of Ontario do not have programs that provide equal opportunity for women? These companies range from Consumers' Gas to Du Pont Canada and many other firms that have extensive dealings with various parts of the government and are very much involved in the fabric of life in Ontario. In the case of Consumers' Gas, it is publicly regulated by the government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I certainly agree with the leader of the third party that the time frame to which he has made some reference is not satisfactory. In doing so, I do not in any way agree that is the time frame.

I believe the progress we will make will be very significant. I have already indicated the plans we have with respect to work in the educational community and the municipal area as well as with respect to those agencies that receive substantial funds from the consolidated revenue fund of the province.

As to what we might do to further emphasize the importance of this program in the private sector through some introduction in the procurement policy of this province as far as affirmative action is concerned is one of many options currently being investigated by us as a positive step.

I also indicated three or four answers ago on the same question that it is my plan to have a series of meetings with chief executive officers and personnel people in this province to indicate the seriousness with which the government views this whole area of equality of access and advancement.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine how the Deputy Premier can say that without breaking into laughter.

While he was on his feet, I did a bit of quick addition. In December 1982 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), who was responsible for women's issues at the time, told us that 224 of the 900 largest employers had involved themselves in some way in an affirmative action program. Today, exactly 18 months later, the minister is on his feet telling us we have made an enormous gain of an additional three per cent of the largest employers in Ontario.

When is the government going to get serious about affirmative action? What specific targets does the minister have as to the big 900 joining this program by the end of 1984, or are we simply going to listen to more platitudes and no action?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member asked me how serious we are. We are quite serious. I will not be satisfied until every work place in the province ensures there is that type of equality. It is a commitment we make.

We are in the position we are in today because we have a very solid foundation. Although the member may want to talk about percentages, I want him to know that when we talk about major employers of the size to which I made reference, we are now seeing affirmative action programs in place for thousands of women who are involved in the places of employment to which those plans have now been applied.

I will not be satisfied, nor will anybody be satisfied, until such time as we can accelerate this move and accomplish this result. I am encouraged that we have general agreement with respect to our objective.

Mr. Rae: The affirmative action program of this government is nothing but a chintzy, flimsy charade and the minister knows it.

Given the commitment that was indicated last week by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling), who is responsible for so-called freedom of information, will the minister at least table the nature of the government's program, the targets it has set for the employers who are supposed to be part of the program and the identity of the various companies and major boards of education that have joined the program?

If it is such a great program, why is the minister not telling the members how successful it is? Why is he not telling us exactly what it is doing? Why is he keeping it such a magnificent secret?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am glad the member asked this supplementary question. I had intended to cover that point in the answer to the main question.

That is something I am going to have to deal with employers on, because one of the undertakings given as far as this program is concerned is a certain degree of confidentiality. That has been respected. A government has to keep its word in this regard, and with all the information that is shared, we could hardly be criticized for respecting our agreements with respect to confidentiality.

I want the member to know that the 244 major employers to which I have already made two or three references during the course of this exchange cover 311,000 women in their area, not to overlook 28,000 women in the public service. When the leader of the third party uses words like "sham," he does the program within government itself a great disservice.

I have had the opportunity to speak with my colleagues, the other provincial ministers responsible for the status of women, and I am very proud of Ontario's record in comparison to that of the rest of this country. Indeed, I think it was a minister in the government of Manitoba -- I have forgotten now which political party is in control of that government -- who was very generous in his praise of what this jurisdiction is doing on this and other matters related to the advancement of women.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Can the minister tell the House whether he has been informed by his assistant deputy minister, Dr. Boyd Suttie, of the results of an emergency meeting he held on May 1 with the board of the Archway Counselling and Crisis Centre and what steps have been taken by his ministry to implement the recommendations that were made to Dr. Suttie at that emergency meeting?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the question; I believe it related to a meeting that was held with an organization called Archway. I am not familiar with that meeting; I was not present, and have not yet been brought up to date on it. Dr. Suttie could very well be proceeding to respond to those recommendations without having found any need to discuss it directly with me; I am not aware of that. I will undertake to discuss it with him, however.

Ms. Copps: Just to refresh the minister's memory, his predecessor as Minister of Health stated that mental health was going to be one of his top priorities, and back in November 1982 his predecessor felt the situation in Toronto was critical enough that he ordered the hiring of 10 new staff at Archway. Those staffers were not hired until January 1984 and they did not begin taking clients until last month.

In the meantime, the case load of Archway, which is associated with the Queen Street Mental Health Centre as an outpatient program, has almost doubled over the last two years. The response to this crisis in case load by officials at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre was to tell staffers last month to stop taking referrals, including a recent case of an axe-wielding person who needed immediate attention, but to deny that information if anyone should ask about those referrals.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: How can his ministry and his assistant deputy minister, if he has not informed the minister, condone the deliberate coverup of the facts by officials at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre? How can he sit by and see a team co-ordinator like Anne Harris, who is here in the gallery today and who paid the first rent when Archway was started seven years ago, forced out of Archway after seven years of devoting her heart and soul to a program that is becoming so mired in red tape that it is neglecting the group it was originally formed to assist?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is fine for the honourable member to stand in the Legislature and use anecdotal, albeit potentially alarming information that she has not seen fit to communicate to me at any other time, even though she did see fit yesterday to come across the House to discuss with me at length a matter related to Hamilton that she did not wish to raise as a question in the House.

Mr. Mancini: Do you want us to submit our questions in advance? Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I am not suggesting questions should be submitted in advance. I am suggesting that if her concern is so genuine and if her alarm is so great, she has had other opportunities to bring this to my attention.

As I say, it is anecdotal information. If she or the individuals involved have had reason to feel that appropriate action was not being taken by the officials of my ministry, then I would like them to demonstrate when they have previously made any effort to bring this to my attention personally.

2:40 p.m.

I have indicated to her that I will discuss it with Dr. Suttie and I shall do it this afternoon. I also think it important that she recognizes -- and makes her recognition public -- that the largest increasing portion of our budget in the area of health care in this province over the last couple of years has been in community mental health. It has more than doubled in that period at a time when government expenditures generally have been subject to very severe constraint. She cannot legitimately stand and suggest --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. I am referring to another matter affecting women in which the government expresses concern but produces very little concrete support. I am referring to the inadequate funding of the 16 rape crisis centres across the province.

My leader discussed this with the minister a week ago. The government grant of $200,000 a year to the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres does not provide for a full time co-ordinator in each centre. Most have to use volunteers to provide the necessary services. I refer to the 24-hour telephone service for victims, helping them go to hospitals to seek assistance, giving them support in court appearances and doing community education on the need for assistance to the victims of this heinous crime.

In the minister's reply he claimed the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Bryden: I will be there in one minute or one half minute.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot afford a half a minute.

Ms. Bryden: The minister claims the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres had not asked for any more than the $200,000 take-it-or-leave-it grant. Is he not aware the coalition has been asking for increased funding beyond this amount for a considerable time?

In addition, it has been asking for permanent stabilized funding for these centres so they do not have to come begging to the government and to the community every year. They want to be able to supply rape victims in this province the kind of support services they deserve.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party raised this question in the House about a week or so ago. At that time I pointed out that this whole area is the responsibility of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker). It is my understanding, and it has been confirmed following the exchange with the honourable leader, that the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres asked for $600,000 over three years.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Wait a minute now. They have received exactly what they requested. When we divide $600,000 by three we come to the figure to which I made reference.

I pay tribute to the people who are involved in this work. Many are volunteers. They have made it quite clear that they want their independence; they do not want to become overly dependent on any one source of revenue. They have dealt with the Provincial Secretary for Justice and the minister and secretariat responded to their request.

As members know, we deal with the coalition and the coalition distributes to its membership. I would think in that spirit of consultation that we have met the requests. Also, at the time of responding to the leader's question I made reference to the government's recent involvement -- I think it was at Women's College Hospital -- as further evidence of our concern. We are supportive of the tremendous amount of work that is being done all through this province by very dedicated volunteers acting in many capacities.

Ms. Bryden: While the Women's College Hospital is a move in the right direction, it is not the kind of service that a rape crisis centre can give to victims who need support, assistance and advocacy. It should be providing us with public education.

It seems to me the minister is badly misinformed about the rape crisis centres' requests. The director has informed me that they did ask for more and the $200,000 was offered on the basis of a take-it-or-leave-it thing. Will the minister now sit down with the Provincial Secretary for Justice and the other ministers concerned and work out a plan for permanent, stabilized funding for the rape crisis centres in this province and for immediate help to those in financial difficulty now?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It was my understanding that the three-year commitment was a negotiated amount and that it was significantly higher than for the preceding year, which in a year of overall restraint in government indicates some significant commitment to this work.

I would be quite willing to draw this to the provincial secretary's attention once again, but I remind the honourable member it was my understanding the government responded in the dollar figures I have made reference to, which did come in the form of a request from the coalition.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of what the Deputy Premier told the critic for the third party and I last fall, which was that his ministry would in a sense have a direct input into all these programs as they affect women.

Rather than simply drawing it to the provincial secretary's attention, would the Deputy Premier and the responsible line minister be willing to sit down with the coalition and work out a long-term policy so the Deputy Premier does not have to stand in this House and deny there is any problem when very clearly there is?

Would he be willing to sit down with the coalition and go over this three-year funding program to satisfy himself that the great needs of the coalition and rape crisis centres around this province are met?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to recognize that although we have this particular focus in government, we have a number of line ministers who are very much concerned with this issue. Let us not overlook the work that goes on in the Ministry of Health with respect to the development of the protocols or the sensitive approach in law enforcement and of the whole justice system.

Although we quite rightly pay tribute to the work that goes on in this area, there are a number of areas where, as a member of the government and charged with my particular responsibilities, from time to time I would want to bring a certain point of view to the attention of those making the decisions.

I repeat that I understand there has been a working relationship between the coalition and the Justice secretariat, and I will be glad to raise once again the concerns of the member and those of our colleague with the minister charged with that responsibility.

WHEELING POLICY

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Energy, who no doubt is aware that the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority is currently undertaking the construction of a small hydroelectric generating station at Fanshawe Dam which will allow the energy to be used in the parks of the conservation authority.

The minister may also be aware that the economic basis for this undertaking was consent by Ontario Hydro to allow the authority to wheel the power from the generating site into the Hydro grid and then to the conservation authority parks and to do this at a very nominal fee.

Is the minister aware that, contrary to its previous statements, Ontario Hydro now has refused to sign any agreement with the conservation authority and that Hydro has not finalized its policy on wheeling? Can he tell us exactly why there is no policy in Hydro concerning wheeling?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, this is a unique case, and I would appreciate having an opportunity to give the honourable member a more thorough answer and to provide him with the kind of detail that would allow him to take a possible solution back to the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

This issue has been raised occasionally with me by other members of the House. We are somewhat concerned about the barriers to this project that appear to exist, and we want to bring the project to a successful conclusion. We will be addressing that issue and working towards that conclusion.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Van Horne: The economic viability of this project hinges on the ability of the conservation authority to wheel at a minimal price. The one suggested was a quarter of a cent per kilowatt hour. Contrary to that, we hear now they are talking numbers as high as eight times that or two cents a kilowatt hour. When this wheeling policy is arrived at, can the minister give us any assurance he will consider carefully the economic implications for such agencies as the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and make it reasonable for them to wheel the power?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I think it is our intention to reach a conjoint, amicable solution to this problem. The province has invested considerable sums of money in this project, as has the government of Canada. The wheeling arrangement that was being proposed originally by Ontario Hydro appeared to be a satisfactory arrangement to the conservation authority.

As I said in my previous answer, I will endeavour to make sure the discussion continues to bring about some satisfactory solution for both the honourable member and this conservation authority.

AUTOMOTIVE TASK FORCE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Is he aware Chrysler management announced yesterday that it would not be opening the engine plant in Windsor and would be continuing to source a great many of its engines from Japan?

In view of this, is the minister willing to reconsider the statement he made in a letter to me dated May 24, that there is no longer any need to press the federal government for implementation of the Federal Task Force on the Canadian Motor Vehicle and Auto Parts Industries because the federal government is negotiating with Japanese auto firms for investment?

Does the minister not realize that we are talking about 2,000 jobs in the city of Windsor and that the automotive task force does not only address the Japanese import problem, but also addresses the problem of the Big Three sourcing auto parts from all over the world? Without the implementation of that auto task force, we are going to have real problems with the Big Three and loss of jobs with our own North American auto makers, let alone the problem with the Japanese imports.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am aware. I was in Ottawa yesterday when Mr. Lumley announced the final decision. I have been privy to the attempts by Chrysler, the union and the Japanese companies to find an economic way of making the engines in North America at a cost comparable to the cost of purchasing them offshore. I think it is safe to say Chrysler wanted that.

I also understand there were a lot of discussions between the company and the union as to what rules of work. etc., would apply if a deal was made with a Japanese joint venture company. I understand Nissan and at least one other company, perhaps Mitsubishi, were involved in the discussions. Indeed, some of the rules we take for granted in North America, particularly in Canada, were seen by the potential investors to increase the unit costs in Canada to the point where the investment was not attractive.

I hope and trust we in Canada will not find ourselves making demands of potential investors that unions or corporations in the United States do not make. I am very worried about that, because there are some other negotiations going on right now that are very critical. As the member knows, the van plant in Windsor is another example. Discussions are going on there too. I hope we all realize that if we can find ways and means to be competitive with offshore sources, we will have jobs here, and if we do not, we will not.

As far as the auto task force goes, I do not want the member to think that letter implies that Ontario does not support the Canadian content rule. Far from it. It does. We continue to press for a response from the federal government on the task force. I think if he checks a speech I gave in Windsor a week ago this morning, he will find I stressed that quite heavily in Windsor.

Mr. Cooke: In his letter to me, the minister says he does not intend to press the federal government for implementation of that auto task force report because he feels the Japanese investment will take care of the problem.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: Does the minister not realize what Chrysler Corp. has decided to do? The M-body cars that are now being produced in St. Louis will be going to Mexico, so we are going to have cars that have always been produced in North America, formerly in Windsor, now made in Mexico. They are going to retool the St. Louis plant to produce the T-115, and in the end the Windsor facilities will not be diversified. We are developing the world car with parts coming from all over and Canada is the big loser in the reorganization that has taken place in the Big Three in the last number of years.

If this task force is not implemented, the Canadian auto industry is going out and we will not have a Canadian auto industry. Ontario will be the big loser.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: Why does the minister not apply pressure and use the political influence this province should have to get that auto task force and content legislation passed by the federal government? He would not see Alberta neglecting its main industry as this province is neglecting the auto industry.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would argue Alberta is ignoring its basic industry by not having reasonable petrochemical feedstock prices at times on feedstock in Ontario. I would argue that is not at all in the interest of the people of Alberta and certainly not in the interest of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Cooke: The government has ignored the auto industry for years and the minister knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There are several variables and the member will find me making a number of speeches around Ontario in the next few months exhorting all three parts of the equation, government, union and industry, to realize work rules in the world are changing and we have to have competitive conditions and attitudes here or the investments will go offshore.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us what representations he has made or is prepared to make to Chrysler Corp. regarding the exclusivity of the T-115 in the Windsor assembly plant?

I would remind the minister that at the time the Chrysler agreement was struck to draw down $200 million in this country if necessary, Chrysler had indicated it would give us exclusivity for this van-wagon. What kind of representations is this minister prepared to make to that company to ensure Windsor is not ultimately the loser on the biggest success on the road this year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As I understand it, the present plant is running two eight-hour shifts a day. There is a chance for an unprecedented change to utilize the $450 million worth of machinery in that plant to make a third shift per day. As I understand it, that would create about 2,000 jobs in Windsor. Those people are currently out of work, so they do not vote on the proposals.

I understand there have been protracted negotiations between Chrysler and the union to determine if there was not some mutually beneficial way to see 2,000 more Canadian workers at work and the machinery used three shifts a day instead of two. I understand that would require some changes in the number of hours paid for.

I am not privy to those things. It seems eminently sensible to me that we should see the extra production in Canada.

Mr. Wrye: Why does the minister not get involved?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I cannot tell Chrysler or the union to settle.

Mr. Wrye: Why does the minister not talk about the 2,000 jobs?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: All I know is that we run the risk of seeing all the jobs in St. Louis or somewhere else if we are not willing to meet the conditions and terms other people will meet.

UNPAID FINES

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, the number of Ontarians serving jail terms instead of paying fines increased in one year by nearly 5,000 people, as outlined in the 1983 annual report of the Ministry of Correctional Services. This increase has cost the taxpayers nearly $3 million more than the year before. The total number of people being jailed for not paying fines costs the provincial prison system about $12 million annually. In view of these facts, what is the Minister of Correctional Services doing to stop this increasing trend and what is he doing to reverse it and save the system millions annually?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the member for Grey may not know because as I understand it, he has just taken over as the critic for my ministry --

Mr. Eakins: He knows more than the minister thinks.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: We will find out how much he really knows tomorrow when we have our estimates.

I would like to say to the member for Grey that my ministry does not control the intake into our institutions. We have to accept those people who are brought to our jails and detention centres by the police with proper warrants of committal.

3 p.m.

I would just like to say this minister introduced a program called the fine option program one and a half years ago. At the present time, we do have two pilot projects in the Niagara area for fine defaulters. One is in St. Catharines, which is administered by the John Howard Society; another one is in Hamilton -- and I know the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) will be aware of this -- which is administered by the Elizabeth Fry Society. We have been monitoring these two projects and are quite pleased with some of the results. We will be looking at the possibility of implementing these in greater numbers at some future time.

Mr. McKessock: Why is the minister spending $16.5 million on new jail spaces when he could free up 19,000 spaces occupied by people who are going to jail for not paying fines, if he expanded the fine option program he is talking about right across Ontario instead of just in St. Catharines and Hamilton as is the case right now? Through these programs, an offender is able to repay his or her debt to society in a useful way rather than just languishing in jail at substantial cost to the taxpayer.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: As I mentioned earlier, two pilot projects were introduced for evaluation purposes. We cannot just introduce programs across the province unless we know how well these programs are functioning. We have been evaluating the two pilots in the St. Catharmnes and Hamilton areas and we have to make sure the programs are actually doing what they are intended to do.

FAMILY BENEFITS ACT REGULATIONS

Mr. Swan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be aware that yesterday's Globe and Mail carried an article about the unjustness of the family benefits regulation, which is likely to deprive Kirk Lutes of most or all of his $15,000 criminal injuries compensation award. I am sure he is also aware that the same regulation under the act perpetrates an equally ruthless and more widespread recovery of funds from Workers' Compensation Board victims.

For instance, while the Family Benefits Act permits a family benefits recipient with children to make up to $140 a month above the FBA level before deducting anything from the family benefits, if that worker gets hurt on the job and gets WCB payments in lieu of wages, the ministry deducts that money from the FBA payments. How can the minister defend such heartless laws, and is he considering some humane changes in the regulations, particularly as they pertain to those who are permitted supplementary earnings?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the member is talking about, but we will have a go at it.

No, I am not going to change any regulations. No, I am not going to be in a position where people receive advance payments from workers' compensation and the government, acting as their banker, does not recover it. In regard to the case the member mentions, I have taken some steps so he will not lose any money while he works out a plan on what to do with the $15,000.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps if I bring a specific instance to the minister's attention, he can understand it and perhaps soften his heart a little bit, although that may be doubtful. I would like to bring to his attention the case of Miss Judy Pigeon of Welland.

Mr. Speaker: I would rather hear a question, please.

Mr. Swart: All right. May I inform the minister -- that is a question -- that she is a single-parent mother with two children who is the recipient of $575 monthly from FBA plus $100 or $125 a month which she received working as a waitress. May I inform the minister that in March 1983 she injured her back on the job and was not able to work at the job for the next nine months. Ultimately, on appeal just two months ago, the WCB awarded her $818 for her injury.

Would the minister believe that although that money was paid in lieu of her waitress's income, his ministry has demanded by letter, which I have here, repayment of every cent of that $818 and is now deducting it from her family benefits cheque? Does the minister think that is fair treatment? Does he not think the regulations under the FBA might be amended so this sort of thing is abolished?

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is probably more to it than the member has stated.

Mr. Swart: Not a bit.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Just easy, you.

I am not going to change any regulations. I will look at that particular case and if the member has not stated it correctly, he should believe me I will be right back in here.

DAY CARE

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister regarding his ministry's policy of phasing out hidden subsidies in day care centres by 1986. Municipal councils, particularly those in rural Ontario, have great concerns as to the effect this will have on the future of their day care facilities and of the service to the working mothers in their areas.

In view of the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has identified day care as a primary concern of rural women, can the minister give me a guarantee that day care in these rural areas will not suffer as a result of this policy so that I can reassure my constituents they will still have access to adequate day care after 1986?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I believe I did that a couple of weeks ago with my colleague, the Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch), when we met with the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care, including the alderwoman from Wingham who has been speaking about this. We announced we were looking into some solutions for the problem of the centres and the spaces the member mentioned.

As the member knows, that problem was brought about by the fact that the federal government said we should not be subsidizing. We believe we have another method. The Deputy Premier and I discussed it and told the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care we would be back to them relatively quickly and before 1986.

MOTION

FAMILY OF ANDREI SAKHAROV

Mr. Rae moved, seconded by Mr. Martel, that the government of Ontario express to the authorities of the Soviet Union, on behalf of the people of this province, its profound concern for the health and safety of Andrei Sakharov and his family, its complete opposition to Soviet treatment of the Sakharov family and other dissidents, and calls upon the Soviet government to live up to its obligations under the Helsinki Accord.

Motion agreed to.

3:10 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

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

On section 1:

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, we are still discussing the question of equal pay for work of equal value and we still find it difficult to understand why the minister has not been listening to the many petitions that have been read in this House in favour of this particular concept. We still cannot understand how all the members who were present in the House on October 20, 1983, who voted for the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and for its enshrinement in the Employment Standards Act cannot accept our amendment, which does provide for the enshrinement of that principle in the Employment Standards Act.

The government amendments that are in Bill 141 do not in any way implement the principle of equal pay for work of equal value because they do not provide for the comparison of dissimilar jobs. I would still like the parliamentary assistant to explain to us how the government can consider going ahead with the present form of Bill 141 in view of all those statements in favour of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, under which one must compare dissimilar jobs.

I would remind him that the International Labour Organization convention, which has been signed by Canada but which has to be implemented through joint action by the federal and provincial governments, calls for the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. It may not use those exact terms, but it talks about equivalent work, and the context has been taken in most countries to mean equal pay for work of equal value.

In the light of all those statements, we think it is time the parliamentary assistant indicated that the government is prepared to reconsider its position on this bill and to give actual implementation to the principle.

I have a letter from the Premier (Mr. Davis) to a constituent who wrote to him asking for support on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. The Premier wrote back simply saying, "Please be assured that the government will give careful consideration to all the concerns expressed on this important issue." That is the final paragraph of his letter to this concerned constituent.

This bill is not giving true consideration to all the concerns. I would remind the parliamentary assistant that when we held public hearings on Bill 141 in January, I think about 85 to 90 per cent of the organizations that appeared said the present bill did not provide equal pay for work of equal value. They asked that that section of the bill be scrapped and replaced with a section that would provide for the principle.

This is what we have done by the amendment of the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). All those women's groups -- and some groups which represent both men and women, including a great number of trade union groups, business and professional groups and community organizations -- asked for the principle of comparing dissimilar work.

The Equal Pay Coalition, which represents a large diversity of organizations and contains both men and women in many of those organizations, speaks for approximately three million people in this province. It was one of the chief groups appearing before those hearings. It definitely said: "This is what the women of Ontario want. We should end the discrimination in the work place, where women are paid less than men, partly because there are no similar jobs in their work place to which their job can be compared."

Some of them are also being discriminated against because they are in jobs where the promotion opportunities and the training and retraining opportunities are not as great. As a result, they do not move up the ladder.

There are all these causes of discrimination. If we implement the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, we will make it possible to obtain what is really justice for women. They should be paid the same rate if their work is judged to be of equal value.

I would like to read into the record the groups that did appear before those hearings. First, I would like to say those hearings were held only because the New Democratic Party insisted we have an opportunity for public input on this bill to find out what the people of Ontario really want.

As the members will recall, the bill was introduced in the fall of 1983. There was pressure to put it through before Christmas but without public hearings. It was in a state where it did not implement the principle with which we are concerned. As a result of pressure from our party there was resistance to the suggestion that the bill should go through as is if we wanted to obtain the benefits in the bill for people on maternity leave and the new benefits for people on adoption leave. We resisted the proposal that we had to put it through without public hearings.

We felt it was important also to have public hearings. At the risk of having the bill withdrawn, which was the threat that appeared to be coming forward, we insisted on public hearings. The public hearings were held in January at a time of the greatest inconvenience to the public one could think of. They started on January 9, the first full week after New Year's.

3:20 p.m.

The notices advertising the hearings went out to the newspapers in December. Most groups were not likely to see the notices over the Christmas-New Year's Day holiday season. If they did see them, they were not in a very good position to prepare extensive briefs when a great many of their staff were on holidays or work weeks were shortened.

However, in spite of that, 19 groups came out that were in favour of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and only five groups came out that were opposed. The hearings proved conclusively that there is a very strong demand in the province for equal pay and that the government is ignoring the demand at its peril.

We have heard a lot about the gender gap and the change in women's voting patterns. The government's failure to move in this field after promising action for more than 10 years is likely to have a big effect on the gender gap in the voting support for the Conservative Party in this province.

Let me read the list of the 19 groups that came out and spoke at those public hearings in January: the Organized Working Women; the National Action Committee on the Status of Women; the North Bay Women's Resource Centre; the Sudbury Women's Centre; the Confederation of Ontario University Staff Associations; the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation; the provincial status of women committee of the OSSTF; the National Committee for Independent Unions; the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario; the Young Women's Christian Association; the Ontario Federation of Labour; the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario; the Ontario Status of Women Council, which is a government-appointed body; the Office and Professional Employees union; the Ontario Public Service Employees Union; the Equal Pay Coalition; the Toronto area caucus of Women and the Law; the Canadian Association of Women Executives; the Ontario Committee on the Status of Women, which is a voluntary organization, as opposed to the government-appointed one with a similar title; and the Ontario Nurses' Association.

We had representatives of a wide number of professions, occupations, women's groups and groups that have both male and female members. They all felt it was a matter of justice to see that we did have equal pay for work of equal value in this province. They felt it was time the women of this province stopped subsidizing their employers by being paid at less than their actual value in comparison with other workers when compared on the four criteria of responsibility, effort, skill and working conditions.

I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant if he can tell us why we have not been able to persuade him so far to adopt our amendment.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, in the four or five days of debate we have undertaken on the amendment, we have had many discussions of the specific points and the philosophy back and forth among the members about the government's approach to the equal value question as opposed to the proposal put forward by the honourable member from the third party.

As I indicated in May, when we were talking about this, I fully appreciate both the depth of commitment and the length of commitment that the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has put into this question, and I very much appreciate the contribution she is making to the debate.

I hark back to a point the member made when she spoke of the wording in the International Labour Organization document on the question. That document speaks of bringing about equality for men and women in the work place in areas of equivalent work. I also hark back to the wording in our Bill 141, as unamended, in which we say that no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall differentiate between his male and female employees where substantially the same kind of work is being performed.

Where we part company with the member for Beaches-Woodbine is that we feel it is time to proceed in the evolution of bringing about the equality of men and women in the work force at this point where a meaningful comparison can be made of the two types of work. This would be done, of course, through the composite approach we are proposing whereby the effort, skill, responsibility and working conditions of the two jobs would be compared both in the aggregate and individually. We feel that we are broadening the net quite considerably in the comparison of these types of work and that we will, through this legislation, take a very positive step forward in closing the gender gap.

I remind the member again, at the risk of going over territory we may have covered three or four weeks ago -- and this has been stated by both the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) -- we as a government are committed to bringing about equality in the work place for men and women, we are committed to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and we are committed to working towards that ideal in stages --

Mr. Wildman: At a snail's pace.

Mr. Cassidy: When? In 2090?

Mr. Wildman: Empty promises.

Mr. Gillies: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I am being heckled viciously by the departing member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman).

Mr. Rotenberg: That shows how much interest he has in the subject.

Mr. Gillies: I will not comment on that.

We are committed to this and we want to go about it in steps so we can see that what we are doing is workable and enforceable. This is why it is very important that, as we introduce Bill 141 and the equal pay provision we include in it, we will be increasing the complement of the employment standards branch to enforce these regulations. There will be five more employment standards officers working exclusively in this area to enforce and make meaningful what we do in Bill 141. There is a lot of evidence to suggest -- and this has been stated by various members of both opposition parties -- that the enforceability and the enforcement of what we do are just as important as what we actually do and say in the bill or in the amendment.

While we certainly endorse and will be working towards the principle of equal value, we do have some residual concern about the workability of the comparison of dissimilar work. As I am sure the member for Beaches-Woodbine knows, with Bill 141 we are by no means closing the door to any future initiatives; we are not stopping our consideration of this matter at all. In fact, studies in various areas of the question of equal value are going on now, and we may see the results of some of them in the months to come. We will continue in that direction.

As I stated earlier in the debate, there are many areas in the New Democratic Party amendment that I can hardly criticize, because they are included in our bill; and I could go point by point through the number of things the member for Hamilton East has put in his amendment that are in our bill. But we should be very clear that where we part company with his amendment is on the first subsection, which I am afraid is a different approach from the one the government is prepared to take at this time.

Having said that, and speaking very briefly to the member for Beaches-Woodbine again, I note she commented on the public hearings in January, some of which I attended as a member of the committee, and at a couple of points in the stead of my minister, which I was very pleased to do.

The member made the point that she felt there was insufficient notice and that perhaps some groups did not come forward to the hearings that would have come under different circumstances. I hope that is not the case. I was as impressed as the member was that some 24 groups did appear and, as she said, many of them stated their preference for across-the-board equal value for both similar and dissimilar types of work. Many of those groups had the opportunity to express their views.

3:30 p.m.

The government has carefully considered the arguments made by every delegation and by every individual who appeared. I want to assure the member that those arguments were carefully considered in the progress of Bill 141. Just as important for the member because of her commitment in this area, those arguments will still be considered in the future as the government revises the bill and as we move towards the goal of equality for all people in the work force which we have endorsed on this side of the House.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to some of the comments of the parliamentary assistant. He says it is staged progress. I think my leader called it stage-managed progress because it is an attempt to indicate that something is happening when nothing is happening.

One has to look at the history of it. Back in 1973 this government brought out a green paper called Equal Opportunity for Women in Ontario: A Plan for Action. It was signed by none other than the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), who is now the Minister responsible for Women's Issues and who happened to be the Provincial Secretary for Social Development at that time. The report he signed said they would examine the idea of broadening the concept of equal pay with a view to considering the concept of value. That was in 1973.

In 1975 there appeared to be some progress. The government set up a steering committee in the Ministry of Labour as part of an ongoing program to improve equal pay legislation and its enforcement. That sounded like a good move. They set up two subcommittees of that steering committee, one to deal with short-term planning on how to upgrade the services of the department and one to look at equal pay for work of equal value.

I have a copy of the equal value committee's final report, which came out in 1975 or 1976; I am not sure which, because there is no date on it. It refers to a series of meetings that started in April 1975.

About five of the people on that committee were officials of the Ministry of Labour, and the others were outside people: Mr. H. Jain of the faculty of business at McMaster University; Miss M. Eberts of the faculty of law, University of Toronto; Miss Iona Samis of the Ontario Status of Women Council, and Miss C. Morrison of the Ontario Committee on the Status of Women.

It also included the director of the legal branch of the Ministry of Labour; the chairman of the women's bureau, Ms. Marnie Clarke, who was the chairperson of that committee; a research person from the Ministry of Labour; the assistant administrator of the employment standards office, and a person from the women's bureau.

Those nine people brought out a report of the equal value committee in 1975 or 1976. Believe it or not, they were so convinced that equal pay for work of equal value was essential that they drafted an amendment to the Employment Standards Act which they put into their report.

Let me read the proposed amendment to section 33 of the Employment Standards Act. "No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall differentiate in the wages paid or to be paid to a male and a female employee in the same establishment by paying a female employee less wages than the wages paid to a male employee or vice versa where the work of the male and the female employees is substantially equivalent upon the basis of the composite of such factors as skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, except where the employer establishes that the differentiation is based upon" -- and there are the usual exemptions -- "a seniority factor, a merit factor, a factor that measures wages by quantity or quality of production and a reasonable factor not related to sex."

I may say that two committee members wanted to drop the merit factor and the reasonable factor on the grounds that it is very difficult to say what is reasonable. Anyway, it was an amendment to the Employment Standards Act of which this committee came out in favour and about which it made some interesting comments in the text of the report.

First, the committee defined very carefully what equal pay for work of equal value is about. It said:

"Basically it would extend present equal pay laws to unlike jobs in the same establishment.... The following illustration clarifies the impact of such legislation.

"In a factory there are 27 employees. There are 25 women, all skilled sewing machine operators, all earning between $2.40 and $2.60 an hour." This is back in 1975.

"The two men in the establishment work on basic maintenance jobs. They wash windows, sweep floors and clean machinery. They both earn $3 an hour.

"Under present legislation the women could not lodge an equal pay complaint since they do not do substantially the same kind of work as the men. Under equal pay for work of equal value legislation, the two jobs of sewing machine operator and maintenance worker could be compared on specified criteria, even though they are unlike work."

That is a clear-cut definition of the difference in the kind of Legislation that our amendment proposes and the kind that was in the act then and which will still be in the act after Bill 141 is passed, unless it is amended.

I also want to read one further paragraph of this report, where the committee pointed out the value of this concept in extending the whole picture of equality in the work place. It said:

"As well as extending the concept of equal pay, the still rigid ideas of men's jobs and women's jobs may be eliminated as an offshoot of such legislation. Traditionally, all female work categories will no longer be outside the equal pay laws. As the value of such jobs is recognized, remuneration will increase and hence the job's desirability to men as well as women."

This committee was aware of the good side-effects of bringing in equal value legislation and its general effect on the position of both men and women in the work place.

I want to remind the minister that was not the last time the ministry looked at the concept of equal pay, but it kept getting more and more conservative. It would have seminars on the subject, such as the seminar held in 1978, from which was produced a book called Equal Opportunity Issues and Options, which has a great many very good papers in it but which came out with no recommendations on either side of the question.

One of the speakers was Mike Skolnik, then assistant director, administration, of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. His conclusion was:

"It is unlikely that there will be significant progress in the direction of equal pay for work of equal value without strong government action, including provision of adequate resources and possible legislation."

3:40 p.m.

He has summed up the reason we do not appear to have any action: the government is not prepared to bring in the legislation or to put the resources that are necessary in place in order to implement that legislation.

The parliamentary assistant says it would be too difficult to implement. We know it is being done in Ottawa, in Quebec and in a great many other jurisdictions. It does not involve Big Brother going into every plant and telling them they must have this or that kind of job evaluation scheme laid down by the government. It means going in and working with the management and the workers in a plant, starting with the current evaluation system, and if there is sex bias in it taking that out. That is all it involves.

It would be done gradually, on complaint from employees. The officials who are skilled in evaluating pay and compensation would go in and work with the people in the plant to develop a system that fits their particular plant. For the smaller firms, it would be a very simple system.

The Young Women's Christian Association appeared before our committee in January and gave us an exact model of how they have worked out an equal value job evaluation system for their employees. It was relatively simple, was understandable by the employees, was developed by both the employees and the management together and it had been working successfully for several years.

It seems to me the government is hiding behind two concepts as the reasons this cannot be implemented. One is that it is too difficult, although other jurisdictions have shown that is not the case; and the second is that it is too bureaucratic, which is another thing that has been dispelled. It can be tailored and adjusted to circumstances of the firm. The third reason, really the bottom line, is that the government thinks it would cost employers too much. That is what they are protecting: that the province's employers should have the right to cheap labour and the women of this province should continue to subsidize the employers.

Is the parliamentary assistant acquainted with this equal value committee report of 1975? Has he not studied their arguments as to why this concept would really improve equality in the work place in this province?

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, to reply to the honourable member, I believe I am familiar with that report. I have read many reports on this subject in the last couple of months, but I believe this was the one published when the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) was the Minister of Labour. As I recall, that report was followed up by a discussion paper. As I further recall, that paper made no recommendation arising out of the report. So I believe we are talking about the same document.

The report certainly makes its arguments very well. I also remember well -- as the member for Beeches-Woodbine recalls the delegations appearing before the committee back in January -- a very impressive presentation by the YMCA and the YWCA. I took part in the discussion of how they had implemented that model over the years within their own shop.

However, in implementing equal value throughout an entire jurisdiction where the whole marketplace is covered, the only experience in Canada to which we can look and from which we can draw is Quebec. The federal legislation only covers federal civil servants and those companies and concerns which are federally regulated, but the bulk of the marketplace, province by province, will fall under the labour legislation of the provincial jurisdiction.

As we discussed some weeks ago, we have some concerns about the effectiveness of Quebec legislation. In particular, their success rate in improving the adjudication of cases under their new legislation appears, from the information I have, to be singularly lacklustre. I have seen estimates that as few as a half a dozen cases involving a very few people have been adjudicated under the new Quebec legislation that could not have been addressed just as well by the old legislation.

We do have concerns as we move towards implementation of an effective model for bringing about the closure in the gender gap that we all want. We do have some concerns about adopting holus-bolus the Quebec model when we have some doubts about it, and have some feeling that through careful consideration and implementation we in Ontario can do much better.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in the debate. I am not sure if the word is parliamentary or not, but I must say an awful lot of what the parliamentary assistant is saying, and we normally get along fairly well, is hogwash. He keeps coming up with all kinds of excuses for inaction. I have put down a few quotes here.

He said: "We have residual concerns about the workability. We are taxing our brains in order to find solutions. There has been slow progress in resolving cases in Quebec." He automatically assumes Ontario would be unable to learn from the experience of Quebec in order to have more effective implementation of laws here.

He said, "We need an effective model for closing the gender gap before we go ahead." That really means the government is going to prevaricate to the maximum extent possible. It is going to look around for every possible excuse to avoid bringing equal pay for work of equal value into Ontario. Any time women, through the Ontario Status of Women Council, through local political meetings or in other ways, raise the issue, the government will say: "We are looking at it. We are really trying hard."

Perhaps it indicates the lack of brain power over on the government side that they are taxing their brains in order to do what seems to us to be so obvious. This is a case where one has to learn as one goes, but it is much better to go forward and take the steps as they come than to try to devise an ideal model of ideal legislation with a view to implementing it in time for Ontario's tricentennial; presumably in the year 2092, since I hope by then we will get the year of the bicentennial right.

That is not good enough. I would argue it is not good enough not only because of the need to deal justly and fairly with women who are looking for equality in the work place now, but also in sheer political terms. It is about time the Conservative Party in Ontario woke up to the gender gap, woke up to the fact its federal colleagues have found themselves on the wrong side of the gender gap, precisely because of lack of credibility.

This Conservative government in Ontario is undermining the situation for Brian Mulroney. If the Liberals were somehow to hang on to power in the next federal election, much of the reason would be because of the gender gap, which is engendered in large measure by the refusal of this government to give any sensible leadership on this issue.

I have said that what the parliamentary assistant talked about was hogwash. For example, for a number of years in Falconbridge and at Inco in Sudbury, they have had co-operative job evaluation systems that put the work of men and of women on the same basis, whether they are working in an office, on the surface or underground. One of the interesting results of that is women who are working as accounting clerks, as personal assistants or as secretaries, doing the kinds of jobs that have been seen as being typical for women, are earning the equivalent of men who work underground. In some cases, the women are earning $20,000 or $25,000 a year, because that is what a proper co-operative evaluation has yielded as what their jobs are worth.

When a Conservative government scratches its head and says: "We cannot do these things now. It is far too difficult for us," it is, as the member for Beaches-Woodbine has repeatedly pointed out, because the Tories are protecting employers in Ontario. They are protecting entrenched discrimination against women in Ontario. One way, not the only one, of breaking out of that would be the amendment that has been put forward by the member for Hamilton East.

3:50 p.m.

What on earth are the residual concerns about its workability except the concern that one thinks it might hit some Conservative contributors in the pocketbook if they had to stop exploiting women and start paying them a decent and fair wage? That is the residual concern. The government's residual concern may be that it does not want to put government people in to enforce a decent and effective law. Maybe that is the kind of concern the government has.

So the government adds three, four or five people here. It applies a bit of cosmetics to try to make it look good. It will be something that will get it through another election.

It is interesting to me that the government's position actually falls short of the position that has now been taken by the party's federal leader. It was just a week and a half ago that Mr. Mulroney made a speech to more than 2,000 women; at a Lunches With Leaders session at the Harbour Castle, I think it was. He stated: "We, as a party, are committed to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value." However, maybe this is where he shares perceptions with his Tory buddies in Ontario; he said the problem is one of enforcement, whatever the devil that means. That is talking out of both sides of one's mouth, from what I can see.

None the less, at least Mr. Mulroney, on behalf of the federal party, said he was in favour of the principle. That is something I have not heard from the Premier or this government up until now.

The parliamentary assistant is a bit more bold about these things. He says: "We are moving along in that direction." He does not tell us the markings on the speedometer but I would suggest we are moving along an inch or two at a time rather than at any appreciable pace that would yield justice for women in the near future.

In the past four generations, women's pay has been set largely by a market test, I would suggest. For various reasons, including the physical superiority -- the size, brute force of men or whatever it is -- the market test was one where women were exploited and paid substantially less than men for equivalent types of work. We have concluded that market test -- by we I mean members on all sides of the Legislature -- is no longer fair. It is no longer fair just to have the rule of the powerful, the economically powerful or the physically powerful, determining that women will earn 60 per cent of what men will.

I am not just citing the vote that was taken last October in this Legislature on the equal pay for work of equal value resolution. The current legislation, which we are seeking to amend today, already strays from a market test. It says that where one has a man and woman doing the same job, they will not be paid according to what the market might dictate but that they should be paid equal pay for equal work.

The government's draft legislation, the legal project before us today, says it wants to broaden that aberration, that departure from the market test. That, I believe, is to be supported in the sense that it is at least better than what we have had in the past. We are saying that if the government is not wedded to the market -- thank goodness it is not that backward -- then surely it should be prepared to consider our proposal. Not only should it consider it, but it should also be prepared to implement the move we have proposed in the amendment from the member for Hamilton East. That amendment would ensure that where jobs were different but equivalent, women would be paid the same as men for doing those kinds of jobs.

Of course that is straying away from the market, but the government is already doing that. The parliamentary assistant or the government's spokespeople cannot get up in this Legislature and say we must let the market decide, because the government has decided to abandon the market in this area.

That is not an innovation. The government has abandoned the market by endorsing the principle of the minimum wage. It may not be high enough -- it certainly is not. Nevertheless, once it has a minimum wage in legislation it is saying it is illegal to pay less than that even if market forces might create certain jobs that paid considerably less than the minimum wage.

When I spoke a month ago in this debate I pointed out that the historical pattern of pay for women, and this went back to biblical times, has pegged women's pay at about 60 to 65 per cent of that paid to men. I said the ghettoization of women into secretarial jobs, into retail jobs, into clerical jobs, and into food service and housewifely functions was a fact of our economy.

I received something in my newspaper the other day -- it was a federal brochure from the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission with, I think, Mr. Robert's signature on it -- that showed women in a number of nontraditional jobs such as welders and mechanics.

I was delighted to see the pictures, but the cruel fact is that when job openings are scarce and good job openings are even scarcer because of the depression that exists right now, it is damned tough to see a radical and rapid change in job distribution, such that women who are now ghettoized into a few occupations find themselves equally represented with men in high paying, skilled operations in construction, the machine trades and factory work.

It is not going to happen overnight, much as I would like to see it. If that is the case, we then have two choices. One is simply to continue to tolerate a situation where women doing important jobs with equivalent training, experience, responsibility, discretion and capacity to make mistakes, or whose mistakes are going to count -- those are the kinds of criteria we look at -- will continue to be paid very substantially less than men who have jobs with the same kinds of characteristics. Those are the choices. We either give equal pay for work of equal value or else we continue to enshrine the ghettoization for another generation, two generations or perhaps longer than that.

I am going to give an example of a situation I have recently been researching, and that is the area of banking. Some radical changes are taking place in the banking area because of technological change, administrative reforms and that kind of thing.

It is interesting that the Bank of Montreal, which I happen to deal with, has quite recently opened up a lot of managerial positions to women. That is the good side of it. At the same time, they have downgraded, deskilled and dequalified the managerial positions so women have achieved something which has turned out to be somewhat of a hollow victory. A manager's position at the Bank of Montreal now will often pay less than $30,000 a year, because of the downgrading that has taken place, and will have no or next to no responsibility for lending, in particular for commercial lending which traditionally has been one of the major parts of that role.

At the Bank of Montreal at the corner of Bay and Breadalbane there were five full-time tellers a couple of years ago; now there are only two. There are a couple of automatic teller machines and three part-time tellers. At the Bank of Montreal at Bank and Cooper in my riding of Ottawa Centre, where I also deal, there were seven full-time tellers last August; now they have two full-time and five part-time tellers.

It does not take much guessing to realize that all those tellers are female. The bank managers' offices in these cases are no longer located in the premises that used to be used for the bank manager's office. That is occupied by a roving male honcho who comes in to handle lending and functions such as that. The bank manager now sits in a bullpen along with the other female staff. She is responsible for everything that goes on there in administration, assignment and those kinds of things, but her job has been downgraded and made much more like that of an office manager than that of a traditional bank manager with pinstripe suit, cigar and large belly.

I said that because these things are happening in an important area that accounts for a substantial amount of women's work. Women were less than half of the banking staff back in 1960. Today they have moved up to be about two thirds or three quarters of the staff of Canada's chartered banks, but that does not mean they have been able to move into better jobs for the most part.

4 p.m.

Now the new technology which is changing things is downgrading those jobs, the question one has to ask is what is going to happen? How can women even hang on to their present status if jobs are disappearing around them; if word processors are eliminating the jobs of secretaries and if automatic tellers are eliminating jobs or making full-time jobs into part-time jobs in the banking field? I do not know what is going to happen in the food service field, but these changes are happening all around us.

Will governments be able to respond quickly enough to indicate they understand the concern that women have out there about the fact that they may already stand in a position to lose anything they have gained over the course of the bitter fighting that has taken place in the last 10 or 15 years?

One of the reasons women's issues are beginning to be recognized as something that political parties have to look at is that women, even those who have succeeded against the disadvantages and discrimination they face, are recognizing they cannot do what they have to do alone.

We have seen some substantial changes in a few select areas. In architecture, in medicine, in law, in business faculties and in places such as that, there has been a very substantial increase during the last few years in the proportion of women taking those courses. But when they come out into the work world, they find that the plum jobs as surgeons, as extra-billing physicians with lots of prestige in medicine, go to men. Women who qualify as architects are forced to work as draughtspeople.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Wrong.

Mr. Mackenzie: There's God again.

Mr. Cassidy: What is this? My goodness.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not true. That is not accurate.

Mr. Cassidy: It is demonstrably true, as a matter of fact. The minister who is retired from medicine, the minister who is medicine's loss and the Legislature's loss as well by coming here indicates she does not think the high-priced specialist positions go to men. I would challenge her on that because she is dead wrong about it. I suggest maybe she should go back into medicine and find out for herself.

If one looks, for example, at the relatively low-paid physicians in the community clinics across the province, one finds a preponderance of those positions are taken by women doctors. Why is this? It is because even in the medical field, where women have amply proven their equality with men, there is a pecking order that puts men first. The minister's government supports this and the minister herself supports this because she supports the government.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No way.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, she does. If she does not support it, then why the devil is she not supporting this amendment to establish equal pay for work of equal value?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If the member would speak from a factual base, I might agree with him in some instances, but he does not.

Mr. Cassidy: Fine.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, would you count the number of people here to see if there is a quorum?

Mr. Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

4:07 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: I thank all the Conservative members for coming in to listen to my speech.

Mr. Chairman, when we broke off for the quorum call, I was pointing out the difficulties created for women when they have been trying to achieve equality in the work place. They are finding that even what they felt they had gained has begun to slip away.

I had the chance last week to look into these matters in more detail. I was speaking at a conference on the impact of the information economy on banking and finance and, because of the proportion of women in that area, on women. There has been an enormous increase in productivity in banking over the course of the last 15 or 20 years, but that increase has not until very recently begun to have an impact in loss of jobs or transfer of jobs from full-time to part-time.

Between 1981 and 1983, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce actually shed 3,000 workers. It reduced its work force by 10 per cent with no loss in assets and no loss in business whatsoever. That suggests the beginning impact of all the computerization that has been running through the banking system for the past 10 or 15 years.

The banks use magnetically encoded cheques. All cheque clearing is handled automatically, once the cheque has been processed the first time. On-line banking is now a fact in all the major banks. All the major banks have automatic teller machines. When one stands in a line of 25 people, as I had to for a minute or two last week, and then thinks of the alternative of using an automatic teller, that teller becomes awfully attractive. That is certainly having an impact on women's jobs.

Automatic tellers can do from two to five times the amount of work of a human teller in the course of a month. An automatic teller's price is coming down, whereas, even if slowly, the wages of tellers are tending to go up.

We are just at the beginning of a whole new wave of automation and of automation in information handling that will affect not just banking but also finance in general.

Some members may have noticed in Canadian Tire stores that when the purchases are rung in, the cashier punches another detail, the product code, into the machine. The machine then spins out a record of what was bought, how much was paid for it, what the discount was and all those kinds of things. The information that is put in a Canadian Tire on-line cash register at that time goes straight into its inventory control, into its finance and accounting system, and is basically never again processed by human hands. That has all been wiped out.

Canadian Tire has certainly been a model of a very effective company, not only in this country but now also with its expansion into the United States. It has done extremely well. It manages its resources and inventories a heck of a lot better than most other companies in that industry, but in the process it is eliminating jobs.

We discussed last week, and this does pertain directly to women's opportunities, the fact that a tremendous number of things that are handled by clerical workers, financial workers, cashiers and such people now stand endangered by various forms of automation.

For example, if a credit card has to be validated, someone used to pick up a telephone and call a bank. That is not done any more. A local centre is called that handles people from all the banks that do business in a particular community. Rather than telephoning in, the next stage is that the credit card will be run through a machine at the retailer's outlet. That will do for validation to ensure the person has enough money to pay for the purchases on credit.

The stage after that is that one will not even have to go and pay the monthly credit charge bill because a debit card will be given to the retailer, some personal identification number will be punched in and the individual's bank account will be debited instantly, as though cash had been paid. No cash will have to be counted, change hands or be totted up at the end of the day. No one will have to reconcile what the cash box says. It will all be done automatically.

This is important for equal pay for work of equal value because until now women's jobs have not been automated. They have been in the service sectors, which have low capital investment, and have therefore been in an area that has basically been labour-intensive, albeit poorly paid. We stand in risk of women's jobs diminishing in number as clerical, service and secretarial jobs become more and more capital-intensive but continue to be poorly paid. This is something the government's bill will effectively enshrine and continue.

The 1982 Statistics Canada figures with respect to the distribution of employment in different sectors indicate that 98 per cent or 99 per cent of construction workers in the country are male. In manufacturing, 80 per cent of the workers are male. I do not have the figures in front of me, but they are of these proportions. If one looks at clerical work, one will find that 1.67 million women are doing clerical work in Canada. I believe the figure for men is between 150,000 and 200,000. So 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the people doing clerical work in this country are women. We can guess how clerical wages compare to manufacturing wages or construction wages or managerial wages. They are pretty lousy.

What is going to happen on the impact of point of sale terminals, automatic tellers and all the other machinery that is coming in, such as word processors, electronic mail, electronic message systems? There is now available, and probably installed in certain government departments, a voice message system that effectively does away with the need for a secretary to pick up the phone and say, "Mr. Gillies is not in right now." That can be done automatically. Most of the time a message can be left for the individual without the need for a secretary's intervention.

With all this happening, we are going to see a drastic reduction in existing jobs. Are we going to see at the same time an increase in other jobs? The answer is, not very likely. It is sad to say, but experience suggests that. For example, I was looking at some figures last week that show that the growth in the 1970s in high-tech employment in the United States was negligible. It is not going to take place. If it does take place, the only jobs opening up for women will be assembly-line jobs which are semi-skilled or unskilled and which, once again, are badly paid.

What we are seeing effectively is the elimination of vast areas of work which have been occupied traditionally by women. What are we going to do about it? Will we simply allow the exploitation to continue? Because there is a larger and larger reserve army of unemployed women pressing for any job, will they be forced to take less and less in pay? Will we see a situation where the wage gap, the gender gap, between women and men starts to increase again after gradually, painstakingly, agonizingly starting to come together? That could well be unless some determined action is taken.

Those women who assembled 2,000 strong at the Harbour Castle Hotel, most of whom have made it on their own because of their spunk, ability and hard work, recognized that everything they have gained is in danger of being lost unless there is determined action by the government, and that action has to include equal pay for work of equal value.

The parliamentary assistant says: "We cannot be guaranteed that it is going to work. There are difficulties in defining equal pay." I agree with him; there are difficulties. In the end, we have to make some artificial judgements which say that someone who has 13 years of education and is doing a job at a switchboard or typewriter is worth as much as or more than someone who is hefty and strong and drives a big truck, but has not had to have a lot of education to take that job. In the end, it is a judgement call, but we make those judgement calls all the time. The market makes judgement calls about these things as well, and we have come to conclude that the market judgement calls are in error and we have to start to change.

Two or three years ago Maud Barlow started to campaign across the country in the case of the Playboy pay TV issue. What she had to say was that the conventional wisdom about what is acceptable in pornographic representation and community standards has to be changed. What we are saying with the amendment moved by the member for Hamilton East is that it is damn well about time we focused not only on pornography issues with respect to the status of women but also on issues that affect women's working lives. The government has to deal with the issue of jobs for women as well and not just with the issue of pornography.

If we were to succeed in this province in wiping out pornography but still left women in a situation where they were economically as weak as they are today, we would not have made a heck of a lot of progress. One might call it a form of economic pornography, the exploitation of women that goes on when they are forced to accept wages and job prospects so much poorer than those of men.

Two weeks ago I held a meeting in Ottawa with a number of unemployed men and women. I want to read into the record the situations of two or three of them to indicate the vulnerability of women in the work force today. One of these people is an immigrant from Poland. She has a PhD in economics from the Sorbonne in Paris and is exceptionally brilliant. I was very impressed by this young woman in her mid-20s. I was appalled to learn that she has been in Canada for about nine months and has been unsuccessful in finding any kind of work.

Another person there was a government clerk-typist in her 50s. This women had a job with the government of Canada which she thought was secure, but they eliminated some man-years or person-years in the federal government and suddenly she found herself out of a job. Ten months later she is still trying to find her way back into any kind of job with the federal government since that is a major employer.

The third person was a teacher, someone who had spent a number of years in the United States and came back to her native country. She is in her early 50s, a vigorous and competent woman with a lot of talents. She too had been out of work for 10 or 12 months.

They were all victims of the depression the government does not acknowledge exists. The government tells us in the words of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) that the recession is over. Certainly for these three women the recession or the depression is not over.

4:20 p.m.

What came through to me in this situation was that women are a particularly vulnerable group. It may be that in my lifetime that will continue to be, but certainly we in this Legislature have the wherewithal, the legislative ability, to try to reduce those areas of vulnerability if we cannot eliminate them outright and overnight.

Women fall into many categories in which they stick out as being somehow different as far as employers are concerned. From my interviews with these three women and with males who were also facing long-term periods of unemployment, it seemed to me that if one was different in any way, it rendered one vulnerable in the work place today.

If one happened to have graduated from the University of Paris rather than from the University of Montreal, then one somehow stuck out as not having Canadian experience. If one was in one's 50s, despite the Ontario Human Rights Code and the equivalent federal legislation, somehow jobs never opened up. If one had come back from the United States and did not have a recent work career here, one stuck out. If one was of a different colour or racial origin, one stuck out.

We have taken legislative action with respect to discrimination in a number of areas. It seems to me that part of the purpose of the amendment today is to complement the action we have taken under such legislation as the Ontario Human Rights Code. Enshrining equality in Bill 141 seems to me to be at least one step forward.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I would have thought the Tories would have been able to keep enough members in here. I would like to have a count for a quorum again.

The Deputy Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

4:26 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: There is a quorum.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, before the honourable members abandon us again, I want to conclude by saying a few things about the symbolic importance of the amendment that is proposed by the member for Hamilton East.

I have to ask myself why the Ontario Status of Women Council, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, women's groups, advisory councils on women's issues and so on have all insisted on and made a priority of the question of equal pay for work of equal value. The reason is that they recognize not only that it will be of concrete and substantial benefit to women but also that it symbolizes a commitment to equality for women that just has not been there, at least from this provincial government, up until now. They recognize that if the government does not do this, then it will simply be playing around at the edges of the issue of equality for women in the work place.

They recognize that there are some difficulties with the implementation of the concept; but they also recognize that those difficulties will be ironed out only with practical experience. That experience is not going to be gained as long as we have academics, researchers and bureaucrats looking at the problem, trying to find different ways of prevaricating about it or delaying its inception instead of getting involved in the practical and specific problems of making an innovative form of legislation actually work.

I conclude by recalling that the federal Progressive Conservative Party has indicated its commitment to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Maybe all this means is that it is not prepared to dismantle the existing federal law, I am not sure. But it seems to me that if a Tory is a Tory is a Tory, then it is about damned well time the provincial Progressive Conservatives got on board with Mr. Mulroney and showed that in this province the government of the day is prepared to act to secure this vital step towards safeguarding women's positions, towards ensuring greater equality and towards ensuring they are dealt with fairly and on an equivalent basis to men despite the gender gap and occupational discrimination or differences.

This government ought to show that it is prepared to take the move now and symbolically indicate to half the population of the province that they will no longer be dealt with on a basis unequal and inferior to that of men in the future.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few comments --

Hon. Mr. Norton: Let us ring the bells.

Mr. Cooke: When the numbers go out --

Mr. Martel: Just let a few more go out.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Give us a break.

Mr. Cooke: It could be worse.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Cooke: It could be worse; we could be listening to the minister's answers in question period rather than the bells.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Listen, if the member were not so averse to being informed --

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Now I know of two things that are worse than the bells: the Deputy Chairman calling order and the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) answering questions.

The Deputy Chairman: Let us just listen to you.

Mr. Cooke: You are supposed to be nonpartisan, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: I am saying you have the floor and it is my pleasure to listen.

Hon. Mr. Norton: At least the member has one fan.

Mr. Cooke: One fan; I am in really bad shape.

Mr. Laughren: That is true.

Mr. Cooke: These are my friends. What are we on? I would like to make --

The Deputy Chairman: It is the amendment from the member for Hamilton East on Bill 141, deleting section 1 and substituting another section for it.

Mr. Cooke: I knew that.

The Deputy Chairman: Equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Cooke: Right; Bill 141.

I want to make a few comments. I have not had the opportunity to speak on this bill either during second reading or in committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Cooke: It does not take much to throw me off; so, please.

I want to remind the Legislature of the bill that was introduced by my former colleague from Windsor, Ted Bounsall, who really got this issue on the political agenda in the Legislature. It was one of his major accomplishments when he was a member of the Legislature. I hope in the next election he will return with us.

What confuses me most about this issue is that I cannot understand how the Tories and the Liberals daily get up and present petitions in this Legislature supporting equal pay for work of equal value. They vote in private member's hour -- some of them. The last time it came up most of the Liberals boycotted the Legislature so that the vote was lost. They say they support this issue in principle, but when it comes actually to voting on it or voting on amendments, they say it is impractical. When they say it is impractical, what they are really saying --

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I do not know what the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) is talking about. He has made several statements.

The Deputy Chairman: How do they apply to a point of order?

Mr. Mancini: I said privilege.

The Deputy Chairman: That is different.

Mr. Mancini: He said something about my colleagues not being in the House for an important vote that took place on equal pay for work of equal value. The fact is that the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) introduced a resolution some time ago and all the members of the Liberal caucus stood and voted for it. My recollection is that there was quite a significant turnout.

The Deputy Chairman: Let me thank the honourable member.

Mr. Mancini: I am not quite finished.

Second, the statement that we are not willing to enshrine equal pay in this bill is not true. I am not sure whether the member was here some weeks ago when I moved a motion to enshrine that principle in the bill. It was voted on at the time and it was supported by this party. I do not want to accuse the member for Windsor-Riverside of misleading the House. In view of that, I thought it might be more appropriate to put the true facts on the record.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. That is one way of participating in the debate.

Mr. Cooke: I thank the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), but I do not know when he has ever known anything about the truth. I would like to put the real facts on the record. When we debated --

Mr. Watson: He is abusing his privileges again.

Mr. Mancini: Are you going to allow that?

Mr. Watson: I would not allow that. My good friend has been insulted.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I say to the member for Windsor-Riverside, we are speaking to Bill 141.

Mr. Cooke: Do not look at me. I have not been interrupting.

The Deputy Chairman: I ask you to speak to it, and the honourable members will have their opportunity to participate.

Mr. Watson: Our colleague has been insulted.

Mr. Cooke: The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) should talk about the truth.

The Deputy Chairman: Do not allow yourself to be distracted by these mild interruptions.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, we know the truth in Chatham is that the former mayor was going to run for the Tory nomination.

The Deputy Chairman: No, that does not pertain to the amendment.

Mr. Cooke: The present member of the Legislature worked against the incumbent mayor so he would not be challenged for the nomination.

The Deputy Chairman: I look forward to the member for Windsor-Riverside speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Cooke: I want to get back to Bill 141 and this particular amendment.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Cooke: I will refer back to when we voted on the bill of the member for Hamilton Centre. It was a bill presented on the subject of equal pay for work of equal value and she was the Liberal Party's own member. It was on this issue that the member for Essex South said they were unified. They strongly supported equal pay for work of equal value, not only in principle but also on its implementation.

The following members of the Liberal caucus were absent: Cunningham, Edighoffer, McEwen, McKessock, Riddell, Sargent, Eakins and Sweeney. Eight out of 33 members of the Liberal caucus were away for a bill that the member for Essex South said they felt very strongly about. It was their own bill, presented by the member for Hamilton Centre. Yet the Liberal Party boycotted a vote because it did not believe it in principle and its caucus is badly split on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I object strenuously to the suggestion that any of our members boycotted that vote. Many members of this Legislature have many things they have to do for their constituents that take them away from this assembly. It is not proper to describe someone who is absent as boycotting this legislation. I will not accept it, and I think the member should withdraw that statement.

The Deputy Chairman: I ask the member for Windsor-Riverside not to impute motives on the part of other members in the House and to withdraw that reference.

Mr. Cooke: All right. I will withdraw the word "boycott." I will say they did not consider the issue to be important enough to vote on it. Instead, they were absent from the Legislature on a very important vote.

When another vote came up last year on the issue of equal pay, a bill that was presented by my leader, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), the same eight members were away again: Cunningham, Edighoffer, McEwen, McKessock, Riddell, Sargent, Eakins and Sweeney. I guess it was just a coincidence that they were doing something very important on both votes. But in addition to them, Boudria was away, O'Neil was away, Spensieri was away, Worton was away, Ruston was away --

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Windsor-Riverside should know we normally refer to a member by his constituency.

Mr. Martel: The member can say what he wants. Please do not interfere.

The Deputy Chairman: I do not want to play games.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I tried to listen very patiently to the contributions -- and I use that word in quotations -- from the members of the third party this afternoon. But we have over here Mr. Paul Hess, the head of the legal department of the Ministry of Labour, Mr. John Scott, the head of the employment standards branch, and Mr. Simon Armstrong from our research branch. They are very busy and very responsible people within our ministry.

The sum total of the contribution to this so-called debate by the member for Windsor-Riverside this afternoon has been a number of procedural tricks --

The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Gillies: -- quorum calls and absolute nonsense.

The Deputy Chairman: The member will sit down. That was not a point of order.

Mr. Gillies: I resent that.

The Deputy Chairman: I am saying the member for Brantford will resume his seat. That was not a point of order.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman --

The Deputy Chairman: I hope this one is.

Mr. Martel: I have sat here patiently watching as you have entertained a point of order over here, a point of order over there, and neither one of them was. You allowed this drivel to go on; it has nothing to do with the bill. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Hess is here, Mr. Scott is here and so on; but everybody and his dog can be here and it has nothing to do with the bill. Yet you accepted --

The Deputy Chairman: No, I did not accept it.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Martel: You and I both knew the member for Brantford did not have a damned point of order, and you let him do his rant. He did his rant for two minutes on every conceivable topic going except the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: I did not rule that as a point of order any more than I accept yours as a point of order.

Mr. Martel: You should have ruled him out of order, because you knew it was not a point of order, a point of privilege or even a point of information.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. The honourable member will take his seat. That is not a point of order either.

Mr. Martel: That is not even a point of view.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Windsor-Riverside has the floor, and I rule you out of order as well. Take your seat.

Mr. Martel: Do not talk to me like that either. You allowed the boy wonder to come in here. Look at the boy wonder.

The Deputy Chairman: I ask the honourable member to resume his seat.

Mr. Gillies: lf you want to have a filibuster, get your members in with something to offer instead of wasting the time of the House with nothing to offer.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable members will resume their seats.

Mr. Martel: Batman's assistant. Just cool it. young fellow.

The Deputy Chairman: I ask the honourable members for the third time to resume their seats.

Mr. Martel: You are getting tough with me now. You allowed all this nonsense to go on and now you are chastising me. You recognized him and allowed him to go on ad infinitum.

The Deputy Chairman: We are listening to the member for Windsor-Riverside and I would like the proceedings to continue.

Mr. Martel: Why did you not sit those birds down then?

The Deputy Chairman: All members will pay attention.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I apologize if the truth is embarrassing to both the Liberals and the Conservatives. The point I was trying to make is members of the Liberal Party get up and say they support equal pay for work of equal value, they support it in principle and they want it implemented, but when the crucial vote came 15 of their 33 members were absent for the bill presented by the member for York South. I suggest that in itself proves the point I am making. The members of the Liberal Party are split badly on this issue. Half of them do not support the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and the only people who get --

Mr. Ruston: That is completely misleading the House.

Mr. Martel: Whoops. I just heard my friend say my colleague is misleading the House. I ask you to make him withdraw.

Mr. Ruston: He knows he is.

Mr. Martel: The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) is going to withdraw before he is finished.

Mr. Ruston: I might if the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) sits down and shuts up for a while.

The Deputy Chairman: Would the member for Sudbury East please be seated. Would the member for Essex North like to keep within the parliamentary tradition of this House and withdraw.

Mr. Ruston: I will withdraw those words for the present.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honourable member.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: With regard to the member for Windsor-Riverside, I want to look up the Votes and Proceedings where I think the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) had a motion to help the people in the north. I want to look up the count. How many people in the New Democratic Party supported that motion in the vote? I think it was nine out of 22.

The Deputy Chairman: Everyone can participate in this debate. The member for Windsor-Riverside is trying to continue and we would like to give him every opportunity to do so. You have the floor, speaking to the bill.

Mr. Cooke: I am trying to speak to the bill, but when the member for Essex North and the member for Essex South get up and interrupt and then the parliamentary assistant, who, like all parliamentary assistants, lines his pockets with the little bit of extra money he gets as parliamentary assistant, it is very difficult to continue.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Windsor-Riverside is speaking to Bill 141.

Mr. Cooke: We know what the members of the Liberal caucus feel on this issue and that they are divided. We also know what the members of the Conservative Party feel and think about working people and working women in this province. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour is the one who got up in this Legislature or interjected in this Legislature and accused all members of labour unions of deliberately working overtime because they want to line their pockets rather than share in the work. That is a clear indication --

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: As he has been consistently since he first opened his mouth this afternoon, the honourable member is wrong again. I wait in anticipation for anything positive he has to add to this debate and I fear I will be disappointed.

The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Martel: Is that a point of order?

The Deputy Chairman: It is not a point of order.

Mr. Cooke: I recognize it was not recorded in Hansard, but I did read the Brantford paper. I saw the headlines. The member made the front page; that was great. We, on this side, were really proud of him.

Mr. Gillies: The member should read the Windsor paper once in a while.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Cooke: I do; I read it every day.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside will speak to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: It is a waste of time. You are letting them get away with it.

The Deputy Chairman: You are getting away with it too.

Mr. Cooke: The point I am making is when the members of the Conservative Party and the members of the Liberal caucus had the opportunity to go on record to support this principle in legislation, their numbers were not here to be counted. I think that speaks to --

Mr. Kerrio: That is not right at all. The members were here.

Mr. Cooke: -- exactly where they stand on this very important issue. I suggest that when it comes down to it and we get this watered-down version of equal pay from the government, it again shows where this Conservative government is. The government's amendment to the Employment Standards Act will do nothing to close the wage gap between men and women in this province. Through the back door, the Liberal Party is supporting the government on this issue.

As I stated before, we have been getting all sorts of petitions presented in the Legislature suggesting and demanding that equal pay for work of equal value be implemented in law in the Legislature. There are Conservative members who have the gall to present those petitions and then send their Hansards back to the women's groups and their constituents to give the impression they support the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. I think this kind of approach is nothing short of being hypocritical on the very important economic and social issue facing the people of this province.

I think we can look back on the record of this government, which was again supported on these two pieces of legislation by the Liberal Party --

Mr. Ruston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I want to make the House aware that 10 members out of 22 were present to support the NDP resolution presented by Mr. Foulds for health care in the north.

The Deputy Chairman: No. That is not a point of order. We are going to have to have a definition of what is a point of order, a point of privilege and a point of information.

Mr. Eaton: Ten out of 22 is not even half.

Mr. Ruston: They boycotted the vote.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ruston: He was the critic of the Ministry of Health and he was not even here.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. This does not seem to help. Will the member for Windsor-Riverside keep on trying? The member for Oshawa?

Mr. Breaugh: I want to help out. There seems to be some conflict here.

The Deputy Chairman: What point is this?

Mr. Breaugh: I think in replying to --

The Deputy Chairman: Is this a point of order, a point of privilege or a point of information?

Mr. Breaugh: It is a point of view.

The Deputy Chairman: It is not allowed.

Mr. Breaugh: I just want to put on the record that J. Earl supports that view.

The Deputy Chairman: No. The member will take his seat and we will ask the member for Windsor-Riverside to proceed.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of privilege, I will point out to the member for Essex South that on that particular vote I had family commitments in Windsor. My brother was getting married.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Is that all right for the member and not for others?

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister suggesting I should not go to my brother's wedding?

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Cooke: I will tell the House there is not much of an incentive to be here in this particular session. We go through question period and get no answers.

The Deputy Chairman: The member will not allow himself to be distracted by these remarks.

Mr. Cooke: There is no meaningful legislation before the Legislature. The government has made a mockery of this place.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Windsor-Riverside will speak to the amendment to Bill 141 moved by Mr. Mackenzie. Would you like me to read the amendment?

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: No, I know what the amendment is. I want to refer to two other pieces of legislation which have a very important impact on the wage difference between women and men in the work place. I think it is another indication of where the government is and where the Liberal Party is on this very important issue.

Bill 179 was brought in as a wage control bill. I sat on the committee. We had all sorts of people approaching us, talking to us and making presentations. They pointed out the effect of Bill 179 was to widen the wage gap between men and women in the work place.

Yet the Liberal --

Mr. Wrye: The member did not even let it come to a vote.

Mr. Cooke: The member's amendments were nothing but hypocrisy. Those amendments were just attempts to get off the hook because they would have done nothing to solve the problem between men and women.

Mr. Wrye: The member should not try to get off the hook.

Mr. Cooke: I know where I was on Bill 179. I was opposed to it and I am proud this caucus is opposed to Bill 179.

Bill 179 was responsible for widening the gap between what men and women got in the work place. The Liberal Party and the Conservative government can take credit for the fact women are worse off today than they were before Bill 179.

Bill 111 was the follow-up to Bill 179. Again, the Liberal Party and the government supported Bill 111. By saying the overall average should be five per cent, it will pit women against men in the work place to try to get a fair share of that measly five per cent.

The record of the Liberal and Conservative parties is nothing short of disgraceful when it comes to trying to achieve equality in the work place. They have the nerve to come in here on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value and tell us they support the principle. The message is getting out that both of these parties are in the pockets of the chambers of commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the other business groups in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Wrye: What is this? Is this the member's left-wing speech to satisfy the two socialists in his riding? The member for Windsor-Riverside has been sitting next to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) for too long.

Mr. Cooke: That might be true.

I did not plan to go on nearly this long. Had the Liberal and Conservative members not been so sensitive about their horrible past record, perhaps I would have only taken the five to six minutes I had originally planned.

I will be supporting the amendment presented by the member. When the final vote comes, I hope we will get a better turn out from the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Wrye: Was the member not there that day either? We already said we would.

Mr. Cooke: We will see how many show up.

In finishing up, I might present the statistics once again to the Legislative Assembly because the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) was not here.

When the crucial vote came up on the bill from the member for Hamilton Centre, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham), the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McEwen), the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) were absent. They were not here to vote.

When the vote came up on my leader's bill, those eight people were away in addition to the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri), the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton), the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht). They were probably in their ridings meeting with the chambers of commerce and they were probably being further convinced that their positions --

Mr. Mancini: They had family obligations.

Mr. Kerrio: They were at the member's brother's wedding.

Mr. Cooke: No, I was here for these votes.

I thank the members for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to rise to support this amendment since our critic already put forward our position, but the member who just spoke reminded me of when I was Labour critic some years ago for the Liberal Party.

I remember my colleague, Margaret Campbell, then the member for St. George, and I were the vanguard in pushing for equal pay for work of equal value for women.

We had some hearings downstairs in one of the committee rooms. It was very interesting to me that the people violently opposed at that time were not the chambers of commerce and the boards of trade, but all of the bigshots in the United Steelworkers in Ontario. The people who run the NDP, the labour unions, were against extending any assistance to women at all.

Honourable members will recall the member for Windsor-Riverside rubbing his hands and saying, "We cannot really go along with that kind of stuff, after all." Now we hear our friends to the left falling all over themselves as if they were the ones who, as usual, thought of every good idea that ever happened. Their rhetoric reminds me of Russia where the Communists are always saying they invented the telephone and the television and every other good or bad idea that has come along in the world.

I thought we should put on the record that our Labour critic the member for Windsor-Sandwich and the member for Hamilton Centre had a resolution some time ago on this very issue, as members will recall. We are not here to take credit for anything; we are here to improve the legislation, to see that justice is done in this regard. I thought the members would be interested in some of the historical context, that the main supporters and the people who pull the strings for the party to my left were amongst those originally opposed to this kind of legislation.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, it is unusual to hear a member rise in his place and castigate people who are not here to defend themselves. I can only assume the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) has a memory that is more selective than the memory most of us have.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I do not blame the members of the third party for being embarrassed.

Mr. Laughren: I want to tell the honourable member I am extremely proud of the position on the rights of women taken by the trade union movement at the recent Canada Labour Congress convention. It intends to implement that position. I never hear of any bouquets being thrown to the trade union movement from the Liberal Party of Ontario. All I hear are attacks.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Everybody changes their minds and they obviously changed their minds on that one.

Mr. Laughren: I suppose we could now have a new lottery in Ontario designed to determine which Liberals absent on the last two votes will be absent on the next one and what correlation there will be between the positions taken on the previous votes. We will see how that works out. The commutations and permutations are truly mind boggling. However, I can understand they would be defensive and embarrassed about it.

I rise to support my colleague on this amendment. There is no question the Ontario government knows exactly what it is doing and why it is doing it. I would not want to wax ideological in this chamber, but in my mind there could even be a touch of ideology involved here, just a touch, that the pool of low-paid unemployed or potentially unemployed or employed is convenient for the system.

We know the Quebec government has a system of equal pay for work of equal value and the federal government has such a system. For this government to refuse to do it is simply making a statement that it is not prepared at this time to have a measure of equality in our society that we should no longer have to fight for. It should be there and accepted.

When the government insists that the skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions are criteria essential for the determination of value, that is really a ruse to avoid implementing any sense of equality.

5 p.m.

How will this make any improvement in any job ghetto in Ontario? How will it make any improvement in a situation that persists for female labour within the same plant or a different plant? There is no way this will touch that problem. It is rhetorical for me to make the point since that is one of the reasons the government will not implement equal pay for work of equal value.

I suppose the parliamentary assistant will use the same language the Minister of Labour used. If I recall correctly, he made the point that employers cannot afford it. Correct me if I am wrong. Did he not say employers in Ontario cannot afford equal pay for work of equal value at this time?

I suppose the other side of that coin is that they need inequality to be profitable. Is that a legitimate need? Can we say that inequality is a legitimate need in the province to have employment? I do not understand how the government can argue one side of the argument, that it cannot afford equality, without arguing that it has to have inequality. It seems to me the minister has made that clear.

The government is not going to work its way towards a more equitable system if it does not combine the two things, mandatory affirmative action and equal pay for work of equal value. We must twin those two principles if we are going to achieve any equity on jobs.

I look at the Conservative members sitting there and I think, "Are they feeling any sense of pressure from society as a whole, not only from women's groups or committees, but from society as a whole; for example from their riding associations in their own communities?" Is there no sense of pressure from people saying, "We had better move on this"?

What are they stalling for? If they think they are going to wait for another six months or a year and then decide it is appropriate to introduce equal pay for work of equal value, people will see through what they have done. They will see they are simply attempting to buy female votes at the last minute.

I read very carefully the letter from Sally Barnes of the Ontario Status of Women Council. I do not know whether other members have put some of her specific comments on the record, but I want to quote a couple of paragraphs.

She said in her letter to the Minister responsible for Women's Issues on October 6, 1983, "As you will recall, when the members of the Legislature were last able to vote on the principle of equal value in 1979 on Ted Bounsall's private member's bill, members of all three parties joined in a voice vote to pass the bill on second reading." That was all three parties, including the government party.

She goes on, "I believe it is significant that, as far back as 1979, government MPPs voted in principle" -- in principle is underlined -- "for equal pay for work of equal value, and I believe it is absolutely crucial at this time that we do not lose the ground that has been gained so far on this issue."

I do not know how the government members interpret the phrase "that we do not lose the ground that has been gained." I think Sally Barnes was talking about the women's movement, but I suggest to the government members that she might also be talking about the political fortunes of the government.

Sally Barnes goes on to say: "As I have indicated to you on several occasions, my concern on this issue has always been one of implementation. I believe that if we can maintain and foster support for and commitment to the principle, we can continue to work towards the means of using this method of removing some of the discrimination and inequity women now face in the labour force."

I think that sums it up nicely. The members of the government party should think more seriously about that. They should think about what it is they are denying by denying equal pay for work of equal value. I was embarrassed when I read what the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development had to say about Canada. Canada is last in the industrialized countries in terms of the gap between men's and women s incomes. I do not know how the government members feel, but if I were part of a government, I would be embarrassed by a report like that. I see the guys over on the other side beating their chests as if they are proud they are at the bottom of the list.

I wonder sometimes how people like the Minister of Education can continue to sit in that government as a cabinet minister, knowing this and seeing the behaviour of her colleagues in cabinet and in the rest of the caucus. I do not know how she can be satisfied. It is beyond my comprehension. If we were to take that position, the member for Beaches-Woodbine would make life so intolerable for us that we would very quickly come around to the proper way of thinking.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am a very sweet and gentle person who makes life comfortable for everybody. Did you not know that?

Mr. Cooke: Except the students of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Education has the capacity to make life unbearable for anybody, including her colleagues, if she were upset about this. Believe me, she has the capacity to make every one of her colleagues feel uncomfortable if only she felt uncomfortable. Obviously, she does not. She is comfortable with this whole idea that the women in Ontario will not have put in place equal pay for work of equal value.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Equal pay for equal work indeed.

Mr. Laughren: The minister is quite satisfied, and I do not understand that. I do not know how she can sit there in complete satisfaction and not worry about what her colleagues are saying to her. She must get the message and so must the other women in the Conservative caucus. I would be terribly embarrassed.

If progress were being made, if the gap were narrowing dramatically and we were heading for equality, then perhaps the minister or even the parliamentary assistant could argue, "We are getting there in our way and we are getting there without offending anyone." The government is not getting there and it is offending a lot of people, such as half the population of Ontario.

It is not as if participation in the work force by women is a transitory thing. It is permanent and increasing. Despite that, the government sits there and says: "Do not worry. Equal pay for work of equal value is not called for at this time. It sounds good, but we are facing tough economic times and employers cannot afford it."

They say that at the same time that the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) stand up and say how great things are in Ontario, how we are leading the recovery in Canada. They say that out of one side of their mouths, but out of the other side they say, "The private sector cannot afford equal pay for work of equal value." That is what they are telling the people of Ontario.

I would like to know which is true. If the recovery going on out there is substantial, does the government not think the women of the province have a right to a part of that recovery and that the appropriate time is now, if we are on the upswing, to implement equal pay for work of equal value? What is wrong? What is the government afraid of? Is it afraid the recovery is transitory? Is the recovery in question? What is bothering the government? It does not know. It sets up for sure what the problems will be; but it also sets up all sorts of straw persons and then kicks them or knocks them down.

5:10 p.m.

I can recall about 12 years ago getting involved in a number of questions concerning the rights of women in Ontario. I can remember reading out in the chamber a long list of government boards, agencies and commissions, the total membership and the number of women on each of them. At that time it was not at all unusual to go through a whole list and find no women on any of them. That became an issue in the chamber.

What did the government do? It started putting on one woman here and two women there until the point came where one could not find an agency, board or commission that did not have at least one woman on it. Maybe I am exaggerating, but I doubt if one could find any now that does not. Are there some?

Mr. Martel: Token.

Mr. Laughren: I am told there are still some out there. I am surprised at that, but I am told there are some that still do not have women on them. What the government did then was transparent. It simply went out and put one or two women on them to silence the critics.

The fact remains that we still do not have a society in Ontario in which women have equal opportunity. They do not even have equal opportunity, let alone equity. There is a difference between those two phrases which I hope the parliamentary assistant understands.

All I can say to the government members is are they ever lucky the Minister of Education agrees with them. Do they know how doubly blessed they are that she has decided to let the women of Ontario live in a system where they do not have equity on the job? The Minister of Labour has decided that. The government members must go home every night and count their blessings that the Minister of Education has decided that is all right, because if she ever turns her wrath upon them, they will change their minds and we will have equal pay for work of equal value in Ontario.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member presumes too much.

Mr. Breaugh: No; we know her powers.

Mr. Laughren: I presume the minister has some influence in the caucus. I saw what she did with Bill 127. I saw the power of the minister at work. I am not guessing or presuming anything. I know the power of this minister. If she were to say to the cabinet and to the Premier, "We either get equal pay for work of equal value or I go public in opposition to you," I know that within days, minutes perhaps, we would have a statement by the Minister responsible for Women's Issues saying, "We have decided that perhaps it is time." He would say the fullness of time has arrived and the government is going to bring in equal pay for work of equal value.

The Conservative government certainly has read the Minister of Education well and decided she will acquiesce and not speak out on behalf of her sisters in Ontario. I am surprised the feminists let her get away with that. I would have thought the business and professional women's clubs across the province would have exerted some considerable pressure on the minister. As a matter of fact, if I could sum up the Minister of Education's position on this, I would say she has engaged in gender malpractice.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You wait. I have a rusty scalpel for you.

Mr. Laughren: I have had that operation already.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was another I was thinking of.

Mr. Laughren: A little advertising never hurt.

Mr. Chairman: We have this rule, member, about not using language that will provoke.

Mr. Laughren: Have I broken any rules, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: No, it just provokes the interjections.

Mr. Laughren: I shall not go on, but I really do believe the time has not only come but has passed when we should be fighting for equal pay for work of equal value and for basic equality in the work place. I always thought mandatory affirmative action was almost a gentle demand to improve the lot of women in the work place. I think equal pay for work of equal value is a gentle demand. It is not at all strident. It is the kind of demand to which I would have thought this government could accede. It is not at all a radical demand. It would not transform the work place overnight either for women or for employers in Ontario.

What the government is really saying is that it is not prepared to put in place a system that at least works towards equality for women in the work place. That is what the government is saying; it is not saying anything else.

The government may think it is saying it does not want to impose any economic hardship on the employers of Ontario. That is an easy out on the government's part. This is not the kind of legislation that would impose economic hardships on employers. I am not saying there would not be reason for some alterations in the relative incomes of jobs out there, I know there would be; but that is the way it should be; that is necessary. If it were not, we would not be calling for this legislation.

I really believe the day will come when the government will not be able to resist either mandatory affirmative action or equal pay for work of equal value. The trouble is that this government has learned over the years to resist, resist, resist. Then when the forces become irresistible, it gives in and tries to look like a hero when it thinks the time is appropriate.

We have seen that time and time again. That is the kind of game the government plays. In the meantime, while it may understand the politics of it and play them very cleverly, what it conveniently overlooks is what it does to people while the government is waiting for the particularly opportune political moment.

Mme Copps: M. le Président, ça me donne un grand plaisir de me joindre à l'amendement qui était projeté par le Nouveau parti démocratique. Je suis contente au moins que le Parti néo-démocrate, pour ce moment au moins, à pris sa décision de nous rejoindre dans les travaux que nous avons déjà faits à propos d'un salaire égal pour travail de la même valeur.

On sait déjà qu'il y a quelques semaines, quand on a introduit notre projet de loi, le Parti néo-démocrate a pris une position à quatre heures, une autre position à cinq heures, vers six heures il a pris une autre position à propos de notre amendement, qui était le premier d'être mis à propos de ce projet de loi.

Je suis contente que les députés même qui ont dit à quatre heures qu'ils ne pouvaient jamais accepter l'amendement du Parti libéral ont décidé à partir de six heures de l'accepter. Parce qu'on sait qu'en notre parti on fait des arguments qui devraient convaincre tout le monde, qui ont déjà convaincu le Parti néo-démocrate de nous joindre, et j'espère que nous pouvons convaincre le parti du gouvernement de donner l'appui à notre amendement aussi.

5:20 p.m.

I just wanted to reiterate that. First of all, I want to thank the New Democratic Party and I want to join them, of course, in supporting their amendment, as I wanted to thank them for finally joining to support our amendment. Some of those in the New Democratic Party have rather short memories. I am sorry the member for Windsor-Riverside is not here because, unfortunately, he was also absent the day the discussion on the Liberal amendment was embarked on in the Legislature. The New Democratic Party took one position at four o'clock, another position at five o'clock and by six o'clock had finally got its collective act together and decided to support the Liberal amendment, even though some of their members said an hour earlier they could never support it because it was totally ridiculous and absurd.

I am glad to see they agree to support our amendment. I can understand why they have agreed to do that. It is because of the persuasiveness of the arguments that have been presented by our Labour critic and by other members within the party. I am sure the government side will be vulnerable to those same persuasive arguments which have been advanced by the Liberal Party as well as the New Democratic Party over the last number of days and weeks.

I am also sure the government will want to act immediately. I am glad the discussion of the Minister of Education was raised. I am sure the government will want to ensure, when it implements the total package of this legislation, that it will move first and foremost to correct an inequity that exists within its own civil service.

This is another instance of the government telling the people, the businesses and the employees of Ontario that it wants to make a move in a certain direction when it is not prepared to show leadership in that area. I am speaking specifically about the amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the current practice of this government regarding leave for parents who have adopted children instead of natural-born children.

The minister and members will no doubt be aware that the federal government passed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act earlier this year to ensure that families who adopt children have the same rights to parental leave as is currently established under law for families with natural-born children.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, this government has not shown leadership in that area by moving immediately to amend its own personnel requirements. It should have moved to ensure that any civil servant who is the parent of an adopted child has the opportunity to take the same kind of fully paid parental leave as is available for parents of natural-born children.

The current government policy for parents who adopt their children allows six weeks with no pay. This comes from a government that is suggesting in this amendment to the Employment Standards Act that employers should be obligated to extend the same rights to employees who have a right to adoptive leave as to employees who have natural pregnancy and natural parenting leave.

This is a very clear and sharp example of where the government's stated policy is at total odds with its own current personnel practice. I am sure the Minister of Labour, when he becomes aware of this discrepancy in his own personnel policies, will move immediately to ensure that civil servants in this province, many of whom have the pleasure and opportunity of entering into adoption agreements, are accorded the same rights under the government's own personnel policy.

They should have the same rights as we now give to other employees, whose benefits we will be extending in respect to pregnancy leave. To suggest that parents of an adopted child are not entitled to the same provision under the law as natural parents is totally against the spirit of the amendment the Minister of Labour has introduced here.

I know the Minister of Labour, given his professed commitment to working people, is going to return to this House eagerly in the next few days with an amendment that will deal with this discrepancy in the law. I certainly encourage him to do so.

With respect to the amendments that are now on the floor regarding the whole issue of equal pay for work of equal value, we have had a number of very thoughtful presentations from a number of members, both on the government side and on the opposition side, trying to look for solutions to what we all recognize as the current gender ghettoization of salaries in Ontario.

The Minister responsible for Women's Issues, the Deputy Premier, may be very well intentioned in his suggestion that all the problems in Ontario's employment sector would be solved if women studied more maths and sciences, but I urge the minister to listen to his colleague the Minister of Education. She will no doubt be happy to apprise him of the fact that the women of Ontario, on average, are better educated than their male counterparts.

Unfortunately, the supposed link between lack of education and low-paying jobs does not bear out in reality. Most of us have, in our own constituency and legislative offices, legislative assistants -- some would euphemistically call them secretaries -- who are required to perform functions which include, in many cases, public relations. They often have to correct the spelling and grammar of members who may not have a forte in that area; they have to be diplomatic; they have to be jills of all trades and masters of none. Is the Deputy Premier suggesting to those women that they would be better off if they went out to seek a nontraditional job on an assembly line where they could use their education to a more fulfilling capacity?

The point has been made time and again, relating to the issue of equal pay for work of equal value, that women will not seek equality in the trenches. Many of us who have an involvement with and an understanding of our immigrant community, for example, will realize that.

I have very many friends in my own constituency who have made their living by the sweat of their brow as employees for the city -- who dig ditches, for example -- or people who have jobs that have provided their families with a good living. They have said to their children, "I have come to this country so you might have the opportunity for something better."

If we are going to suggest to the women of Ontario that the way we can get ourselves out of the economic ghetto is by going into those nontraditional areas, we are taking a step back into the past rather than a step towards the future.

Members should look at the contribution made in the care of our children, for example. That is supposed to be, by all intents and purposes and by the proclamation of the government of Ontario, the greatest natural resource of Ontario. Let us take a look at the education we require of graduates of early childhood education programs. At present, in many cases they are required to have a two-year post-secondary diploma from a community college before they can be hired to work in an early childhood education setting or in a day care centre, often for minimum wage.

On the one hand, we as a government say our children are our most important natural resource. Any social scientist in the room will know Piaget and other eminent social scientists have clearly pointed out the most important formative years for a child are the years before they enter into the ordinary public or separate school stream. Yet we say to those, primarily women, who occupy the occupations of early childhood educators: "You are looking after our most important resource. You are required to have a two-year post-secondary diploma to carry out this function, yet you are going to be paid minimum wage because you are in an undervalued, genderized job where society is justified in paying you 63 cents for every dollar earned by your male counterpart."

For the minister and the government to suggest the problem is going to be solved by giving women greater expertise in the maths and sciences, for example, is failing to recognize that, as a society, we have put women's value on the jobs perceived to be women's work.

In a formal way, we have to institute an opportunity for reflection and review where individuals and organizations across Ontario will be required to take a look at salary scales. I might point out for the benefit of those members who need convincing -- and I am sure there are a few on the government side of the House -- that the Toronto Young Women's Christian Association found that implementing equal pay for work of equal value in its organization actually led to more cost-effective service delivery. For the first time in the life of that organization, it had to actually sit down and decide in a constructive way why it paid what it paid.

5:30 p.m.

Whether we use the Hay formula or any other formula, equal pay for work of equal value is going to be a subjective job evaluation system. Currently, job evaluations are done in an extremely subjective way, and for us to suggest one subjective system can be replaced by another system that has been proved to be less subjective is totally ludicrous.

Although we had some indication earlier this year that the government was having a change of heart, I do not expect the government will come through and promise to implement the resolution it supported in a unanimous way last October. I think the government in one respect is missing the boat vis-à-vis the women of Ontario.

I urge the members on the government side of the House to take a look at trends that are currently developing in the United States regarding what is known as gender voting. If we look at the current president of the United States, we will know the disproportionate support he is receiving from the men of the United States is the only thing keeping him in public office. if we look at the difference in percentage terms of his support by men and women in the United States, we will know that 27 per cent fewer women than men support the policies of the current president of the United States.

We also know that kind of gender voting is developing in Ontario. I am assured the Ontario government has done extensive polling in this area so that it might make its decision on what kind of policy initiatives it is going to take.

On this issue, I think the current government has missed the boat. Notwithstanding a motion introduced by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Association of Women which supported equal pay for work of equal value, and notwithstanding the initiatives not only of a number of labour interests but also of business and professional groups across Ontario in support of equal pay for work of equal value, the government continues to insist that throwing this sop in the embodiment of this piece of nonlegislation at the women of Ontario is going to shut us up.

The women of Ontario are not that foolish. I think it has been said that one can fool all the people some of the time but one cannot fool all the people all the time. I suggest that adage is doubly appropriate where the women of Ontario are concerned, the women who for too long have borne the brunt of the refusal by this government to adopt progressive economic policies that will allow women an early opportunity to start to bridge the gender gap.

Gunderson says that equal pay for work of equal value will not do it all. We know that no single strategy will do it all; however, we do believe that unless this government is prepared to bear the wrath of women voters entering into the next election, it had better come up with some kind of serious attempt to implement, at least on a pilot project basis within the public service, the resolution dealing with equal pay for work of equal value.

The staged progress promised by the minister, which endorsed policies introduced in this Legislature before I was born, is not the kind of response women's groups across Ontario expected when they came en masse to the Legislature to support the initiatives begun by this party last fall.

I urge the government side of the House to join with us and with the New Democratic Party in a nonpartisan way to work together to bring in equal pay for work of equal value, at least on a pilot project basis within the public service. I think we should take this issue beyond pure politics.

I know the government is going to be very concerned about the increasing trend towards gender voting in Ontario. I know the government is extremely concerned that the last province-wide poll showed that the majority of women who had a voter preference in Ontario supported the Ontario Liberal Party. I know that has this government running scared. This government has been trembling in its boots about the results of the so-called initiatives by the Deputy Premier which have been treated by women's groups across Ontario as a laughingstock.

I know the government of Ontario is somewhat disturbed when the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario labels its legislation a sham. The government has to have some fear and trembling when it realizes it is going against the policies of its own Ontario Progressive Conservative Association of Women.

I urge the government to rethink its position, to get back into the mainstream of thinking in the province, to get out of its antediluvian approach to economic equality and to join with the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party in endorsing an amendment that will at least begin to take women along the long road to economic equality, which has been waiting for us for far too long. I hope the government will consider its responsibilities in this regard very seriously.

I see the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) yawning. I know the hour is late.

The issue is important. I urge those members to join us in the fight we have begun for economic equality for women.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, let me start with the new boy in the back row, the member for Brantford, who is carrying the bill.

I heard the honourable member on the radio telling how he was supporting that other great piece of junk the government has before the Legislature at present, the freedom of information bill. He did not do it well; he did not convince anyone. It was like his performance on this bill this afternoon about poor John Scott and Paul Hess. I suggest he send them home, because we are not going to get done and the member will not need any answers from them.

I do not think they were disturbed by being here. They perceive this as part of their job. The Minister of Health used to come in with 45 staff in the Ministry of the Environment estimates. They were sitting there into the evening and they did not panic. It is only the new boy on the block who gets up here and gives us nonsense about tying up poor Paul Hess and poor John Scott. I am sorry. I apologize for tying them up. We regret it; but unfortunately, c'est la vie, that is the way it is going to be.

I want to tell the member that his performance this afternoon with respect to how we were delaying the passage of the bill was something to behold.

I wanted to talk to the member for Rainy River, but he is gone. When he was convinced about something and he wanted it changed, he spent seven hours in a filibuster to try to get it changed, whatever it was, some years ago. This afternoon he spent 30 seconds. Maybe that is the difference in the commitment.

As to where this bill came from, I could say I am amazed at the member for Hamilton Centre, but I am really not. She plagiarized the bill and the resolution.

I have been here now for almost as many years as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). Over those years I have always been amazed at the positions taken with respect to labour by the Liberal Party.

Ms. Copps: It is not a labour issue; it is a people issue.

Mr. Martel: It is that great party that defends labour continuously.

Mr. Boudria: How well are you doing in the polls?

Mr. Martel: I do not worry about the polls. I was told I was a one-tripper 17 years ago. I am still here. It has been a long trip. If I played to the polls as some members do, I would have given up or would have sold out my principles, which I am not prepared to do.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: Talk about the bill.

Mr. Martel: Most members started their comments by not talking about the bill. The member from Hamilton Centre told us how it was that the Liberals converted us on the road to Damascus. The real conversion in the votes, from where I have seen the Liberals stand over the last 17 years, is over there. There are only about two left-wingers in the whole group when it comes to labour, the member for Hamilton Centre being one of them. I have to give her credit for that. Genghis Khan is further left than most of the Liberals.

I want to get to the bill. I am glad the Minister of Education is here, because the thing that has amazed me in Ontario as I have watched over the years is that the teaching profession has managed to achieve equality in terms of pay, if not in terms of affirmative action. As one who negotiated for the teachers, I know full well that way back we insisted all teachers on staff get the same pay.

As a professional group we had some clout. It took a little while, but the difference between men and women, and there were some men getting paid for extra little titbits here and there --

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: Yes, but it has now changed. It still has to be changed in terms of affirmative action, so women have as many rights to some of the administrative jobs, principals and so on -- we have a long way to go there -- but in terms of basic salaries and increments, depending on one's qualifications, by and large they have achieved parity.

If we look at the medical profession, I do not expect female doctors to charge less than male doctors. They have the same rights and obtain the same rate of pay as men. The same applies to lawyers. These are the strongest unions out there. I know teachers do not like the word "union,' because I used to belong to one association. They say, "Do not call us a union. We are a professional body, as are doctors and lawyers." That is a lot of nonsense.

Whatever word is used, profession or association, the important thing is they have power. Because of their power, women in those groups have parity. They have equality in base rates and everything up the line. They might not have affirmative action yet, but what we are talking about today is pay. They have achieved that because they have powerful associations. That is not so for the immigrant women who either do not have a union or have a union that is not strong. They have not achieved it. What is most frustrating, of course, is the government of Ontario has not seen fit to ensure that women have it.

I recall when this bill was introduced before Christmas my colleague and I met with the Minister of Labour and the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. We had a little chat and we suggested the bill had to go to committee. Heaven forbid. The government decided it was withdrawing the bill. They said we were opposed to women's rights, and used the same line we got a few minutes ago from the member for Hamilton Centre, "We have seen the light."

We insisted the bill should go so women could be heard, could present their views. The government did not want it at all. They threatened to withdraw the bill and called us everything in the book. They did not want to have to listen to the women's associations in the province. We have heard it all before: "The bill is a phoney piece of junk. It is not going to do a thing. We are going to reclassify and make it easier for some millennium down the road when we are going to decide that women are on a par with men."

We have not accepted that. If we had accepted it, there would not be a person in here voting against the amendment this afternoon or tomorrow or whenever we get to it. We do not recognize that women have equality in our society yet. For all the nonsense --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are superior to men.

Mr. Martel: Well, all right, you are superior. Then why are so many women getting a hell of a lot less pay than men? Where is the superiority the minister talked about? All that most of the women I know want is equality in pay and so on. They are not looking for superiority; they are looking for equality, and it is Tories who do not want to give it to them in pay.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, bunk.

Mr. Martel: If it is bunk, then get up on your feet and demand that women get equality in pay in this bill.

Mr. Harris: Equality according to you.

Ms. Copps: A dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

Mr. Martel: No, in dollar terms. Would my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) agree that there should be equal pay for work of equal value?

Mr. Harris: I ask, "According to whom?"

Mr. Martel: I just asked a question. Equal pay for work of equal value? The federal government has been able to come up with a definition, has it not?

Mr. Harris: I am really proud of the things the federal government has done --

Mr. Martel: Quebec. How many other provinces?

Mr. Harris: I am proud of these two fiscally responsible governments.

Mr. Martel: Is fiscal responsibility the end result? You achieve fiscal responsibility by depriving women of equal salary for work of equal value? Is that fiscal responsibility?

The Deputy Chairman: If the member for Nipissing wants to participate, he can stand up and speak in his turn.

Mr. Martel: I am amazed that you have obtained fiscal responsibility by depriving women of income. I ask my friend the parliamentary assistant who is carrying this bill, is that what is predominant in the minds of the Tories? Does he speak for that member and the Minister of Labour?

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: That is exactly what you said.

Hon. Mr. Dean: No, it is not.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not what he said.

Mr. Martel: Well, get up and contradict me then, because that is exactly what my friend said: "We have fiscal responsibility because we put the boots to the women."

Mr. Harris: I did not say that.

Mr. Martel: Sure you did, because without that fiscal responsibility women would have equality.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is sheer distortion and you know it.

Mr. Martel: Oh, I heard what he said, Bette. You should read Hansard, because that is what he said.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You might try reading it once in a while.

The Deputy Chairman: The Minister of Education --

Interjection.

The Deputy Chairman: No, more than that. Order. The member for Sudbury East may sit down. The Minister of Education will please withdraw that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: "Distortion"? Well, it is an interesting fabrication.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable minister knows there are certain rules of the House.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, when the honourable member opposite embroiders the truth in such a way as to make it entirely opposite to that which was intended by the individual who interjected, it calls for some remark. If you do not like the word I used and if it is not parliamentary, then I shall withdraw it.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honourable minister. The member for Sudbury East is speaking his own mind, and he also will try to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, that makes my day; I feel much better now that she has withdrawn her remark. I hope she gets up before this is over and joins in, because she herself said she believes women should have this equality. As my colleague the member for Nickel Belt said, if she were to lead the fight over there as she did on Bill 127 we would see a rather different piece of legislation before us.

Let me remind members before the member for Nipissing --

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: I am not listening to him.

Mr. Martel: I am just waiting for them to --

The Deputy Chairman: I am trying to simmer them down and let you simmer on.

Mr. Martel: I appreciate your help, Mr. Chairman. It is welcome.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. All members have every opportunity to participate.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Martel: I might just interject that there is another interesting place where equality has been achieved, and that is among members of the Legislature. We do not pay women members or cabinet ministers less than male members, do we?

I suspect cabinet ministers, whether male or female, get the same salary. I guess I am trying to make the point that where there is strength, there is equality. Before my friend interrupted, I was saying women who do not have that sort of voice, who do not have that sort of collective power, have a lot less income. It is totally unfair that the most powerful can achieve it and the weakest in our society cannot. It is time we intervened.

I want to remind members that in a meeting just last week or the week before in the city of Hamilton, the chamber of commerce asked that the second part of the legislation elevating the minimum wage, that portion which comes due in September or October, not be implemented. Is that not magnificent? That is less than $4 an hour in this day and age which comes to $160 a week. That is roughly about $8,000 a year if one is fortunate enough to have a job. The chamber of commerce is saying, "Do not give them the other few cents because it exceeds the five per cent guideline."

It boggles the mind that those who have power, influence and strength would again go after the most vulnerable in our society, those with the lowest income, the working poor. In many instances, women fall into that category and the government's friends do not even want the second part of the minimum wage to be increased. With that increase we might just reach the level the other provinces reached several years ago. We lead in everything, do we not?

I guess what bothers me --

Mr. Bradley: Except advertising.

Mr. Martel: Except advertising. The member is right, we lead there. We even win achievement awards.

An hon. member: They are second to no one in advertising.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: We have 22 for 30. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) has been crying for three years about 30 for 22. I am not doing badly. How about the member for Niagara Falls? He has 32 now and in another couple of weeks he will have 31. I mean he is getting close.

The Deputy Chairman: Speaking to the bill.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Martel: They are bailing out like rats abandoning the sinking ship.

Mr. Boudria: Are you jealous? Does the member know what will send them back.

The Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with Mr. Mackenzie's amendment.

Mr. Martel: I understand.

The Deputy Chairman: Please respond to Mr. Mackenzie's amendment.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Bill 141 is the subject before the House.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Sudbury East is going to continue to speak on Bill 141 and the amendment.

Mr. Martel: I am speaking about the bill.

Mr. Havrot: After looking across the House, he cannot stand the members.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: I have not even started yet. These are just my introductory remarks. I am in no hurry. Is the member for Niagara Falls?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I want to speak.

Mr. Martel: I have to quit at six. The chiropractors are waiting for me, so I must continue.

Mr. Kerrio: They will not bend the member.

Mr. Martel: I do not know. I will be there.

I want to go back a couple of years, because it is an interesting amendment before us. I cannot help but recall when my friend Ted Bounsall moved this particular bill. It went out to committee -- in fact it got second reading.

Ms. Copps: Who?

Mr. Martel: Dr. Ted Bounsall. It went to committee and we had clause-by-clause debate there. Everyone supported it, including the Tories. Then the government refused to call it for committee of the whole House and third reading.

I find that to be deception at its finest, because the public was led to believe the government supported this legislation.

Mr. Lane: The member could have forced it.

Mr. Martel: How can we force it? My friend should learn the rules around here. I want to tell my friend that he is again wrong, because the only people who can call an order of business in this Legislature -- maybe I am wrong, but just going by memory -- is the government, not even a Tory back-bencher. The people who call the orders of business for the day are the members of the cabinet. I want to remind the member that none of the cabinet ministers was prepared to call that bill back.

Mr. Lane: That is not what the members of the third party were saying in those days when we had a minority government. They were saying they would not vote for it.

Mr. Martel: We said that?

Mr. Lane: You said that.

Mr. Martel: I cannot recall saying that. That was the government's reason for not introducing anything; it was afraid the bill was going to be lost or that it might have an amendment it could not carry, and therefore it pretended it could not do anything.

I would just remind my friend that what will be called in the zoo here and the order in which it will be called rests solely with the government. If the government chooses not to call it back then it does not get called. Unless the rules have been changed since this afternoon it used to be that way.

We had a motion some time ago from the member for Hamilton Centre, and lo and behold they all supported it. Again, I really find it disturbing, and I am sure the chairman does too -- such an impartial chairman -- that all those government members voted on a piece of legislation some time ago, it went to committee, came back to the House and the government would not call it. We then have a resolution all the government members support. Then the government introduces a piece of legislation and that important principle is left out. We in this party thought it was accidental and that is why we, in trying to help the government, moved the amendment, just to give it another chance, because on several votes the government has indicated its support.

I cannot understand how some of the members could have voted at least twice; and now, when they have a third opportunity with the legislation going through, they are going to vote against it. Where is the principle? Maybe I need a crane to extract the principle from where it is lodged. Where is the principle that members voted on? They should bloody well be ashamed of themselves. If they do not believe in it, let them not mislead the people. Let them not pretend they are for it and, at the same time, vote against it. That is what is going on.

The Minister of Education can say, "No, that is not true; we are for it." That being the case, she should rise in her place when the time comes and support the amendment, and so should those other members --

Ms. Copps: Such as the member for Nipissing.

Mr. Martel: Oh, no. I understand why he will not, because he thinks it will lead to fiscal mismanagement and economic ruin. Are there any other good words we could use? We could not have stability if we had equality for women. We could not have that fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Harris: The honourable member has trouble speaking for himself, let alone for other members.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell the members that some of them who have been here long enough have voted twice on this principle.

I guess what I find so difficult to understand is how members can vote for it to try to create the illusion they are for it, then not allow it to go through. What is it that says to them, "We will not introduce it"? Is it the chamber of commerce and their donations at election time? Is that part of it?

Mr. Bradley: Only in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I read that very interesting letter this afternoon about Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I am glad the member reminded me of that.

Mr. Villeneuve: You need to be debriefed.

Mr. Martel: Be brief?

Mr. Villeneuve: Come on, debrief us.

Mr. Martel: I must say that was the most amazing letter I have seen in my 17 years here. It says: "Without our close connections to the present Ontario government, this project and the extra employment it means would not be possible. I hope you will take this into consideration on Thursday and lend your support to Noble Villeneuve and the government that made this possible."

Whoop-de-do. I understand --

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Sudbury East might feel it is time --

Mr. Martel: Are they a subsidiary of Molson's or some brewery?

The Deputy Chairman: -- for the chiropractor's dinner.

Mr. Martel: Labatts. They needed it, did they not?

The Deputy Chairman: Would the honourable member break off his remarks.

Mr. Martel: With your indulgence, I would move the adjournment of the --

The Deputy Chairman: It is not necessary.

Mr. Martel: Not necessary, but I want to save my place so I will move it anyway.

The Deputy Chairman: We will look for you on the next appropriate occasion.

The House recessed at 6:01 p.m.

5 juin 1984