1971-03-09

THE PRIME MINISTER


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On many past occasions I have had the opportunity of saying a few welcoming words to the Prime Minister when he has returned to the House from various sojourns. However, none of these occasions has been quite so pleasant as the one that presents itself today because this is the first occasion on which I have the opportunity to extend a double welcome.
Just a few days ago in this chamber we happily welcomed our annual floral notification that spring was born anew in British Columbia and would soon be moving eastward. This floral gift always cheers us up after a long, hard winter. Today we happily welcome the arrival of another much more significant gift from that province, and we must extend our thanks to the Prime Minister for the part he played in acquiring this gift and transporting it to Ottawa. The fact that he was able to make it a surprise gift is, of course, a tribute to his artistic ingenuity.

Last Friday, through the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the members of my party offered their best wishes to the newlyweds. At that time I was held up by the storm in Montreal where I met some constituents of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who congratulated me on the quality of my French.
Having then been away from the House on that occasion, just as the Prime Minister himself, I would like today to express my best wishes to the Prime Minister and his bride.

The Prime Minister has done away with suspense in the most splendid way. Suspense ends best with a big surprise, and in this case the surprise is most welcome. Having had this big surprise, Sir, we will be prepared for any future little surprises.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, although the leader of this party expressed our pleasure at the news of the Prime Minister's wedding when that news reached us on Friday morning, I am
most happy to join with the Leader of the Opposition once again in expressing our happiness and our very best wishes to the Prime Minister and to his bride.
The only advice my colleagues gave me as I rose to speak was to be brief, and I intend to follow it. I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that if he will look at Hansard, for February 1, 1958, he will discover that the last words uttered in this place by his father-in-law referred to the rights of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think it is one of the rights of this House to see Mrs. Trudeau at an early date, and I hope that right will be extended to us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join my colleagues in greeting the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the House of Commons.
With all hon. members of Parliament, my colleagues and I extend his wife our warmest welcome to the national capital.
We wish the right hon. Prime Minister and his young bride happiness, health and long life.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my wife and myself I should like to thank very sincerely the Members of Parliament who today and Friday expressed their feelings on the occasion of my marriage. I thank them for their expression of feelings, but I confess that my lack of experience both in this House and in matrimony leaves me a little bit dubious as to how I should deal with this matter.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke of a question of privilege. It may be a question of privilege; it may be a point of order. However, I do want to give a solemn assurance to the House, on behalf of the individual concerned, that there will not be a repetition of the incident so touchingly recalled the other day by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I do not know how I shall reconcile this undertaking with the suggestion made by the spokesman for the New Democratic Party. If an appearance is made I shall make sure it is silent, but I

March 9, 1971
Transport
think I can also assure the House that it will probably be the only occasion on which I will be able to ensure such silence.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that my joy during the past few days has been sobered considerably by the sudden death on Saturday of Ab Douglas. Ab brought with him to this House in 1968 a degree of dignity, an unquestioned integrity and a sense of devotion to duty which soon won him the respect and friendship of all hon. members. I found when I visited Ab's family in his riding not so many months ago that this same respect and friendship were very evident amongst his neighbours. I think we all realize that when Ab Douglas spoke in this House he did so in the perspective of countless generations of men who have tilled the soil and who understand the honesty and the beauty of nature's work.
I wish to join with all other hon. members who have already offered their sincere condolences to Mrs. Douglas and her children.

Mr. Speaker, my feelings of grief over the loss of a colleague who passed away Saturday, and of gratitude towards the members of all parties in the House who joined me in my happiness are obvious proof that the spirit of Parliament is something precious. Here is a place where emotions are at times tense, at times happy and filled with kindness, but one thing is sure, and that is that Parliament is at all times a place where human feelings prevail, where the men and women elected as members give their best in the service of the country. I am honoured, Mr. Speaker, to be a member of this assembly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages- (Mr. Clermont).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of recent disturbing reports indicating that the principal CNR car-rail ferry, the John Hamilton Gray, is being considered for transferral from the Prince Edward Island service to the Newfoundland operation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should ask for a ten minute adjournment for a caucus- and the obvious importance of this car ferry to ensure adequate passenger and freight transportation to and from Prince Edward Island, in view of the complete lack of prior consultation between the Department of Transport and the provincial government of Prince Edward Island and the people of the island, and considering the basic responsibility that the federal government has to ensure under the constitution adequate and continuous transportation and communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie):
That the government of Canada immediately undertake to assure the people of Prince Edward Island:
1.	That there will be no deterioration in the service presently being provided to the people of Prince Edward Island either in terms of its annual heavy transportation commitments to tourist traffic during summer months or in terms of the heavy movement of primary products and construction materials during the fall, winter and spring months.
2.	That no change be made in the present ferry operation until there is satisfactory experience that the two new ferries to go into service this May will adequately compensate for the removal of one or more of the present ferries in operation.
3.	That if it becomes necessary to move the John Hamilton Gray from the Northumberland Strait operation during the summer period that a firm undertaking be given that the ferry will return to Prince Edward Island service by early October-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that I have to bring to his attention the limitations imposed by the Standing Order. I suspect he is coming to the end of the motion but I have doubts whether it is entirely proper to present a motion of the length and extent of the one proposed by the hon. member. In any event, I invite the hon. member to indicate to the House as soon as possible the full terms of the proposed motion.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I fully understand Your Honour's point and respect your judgment in this matter. I merely wish to outline the nature and complexity of the problem. The concluding words of the motion are:
-and remain In that service until the end of May in order that no dislocation may occur to the normal movement of rail and truck traffic so vital to the island's economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont under the terms of Standing Order 43. The Chair must inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 9, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the hon. member that there is not unanimous consent and therefore the motion cannot be put under the terms of Standing Order 43.



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE AMENDMENTS RESPECTING HOURS OF WORK, WAGES, VACATIONS, TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT, ETC.

Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I move for leave to introduce an Act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will first put the motion.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: for leave to introduce Bill C-228, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether the minister proposed to make a statement. As he knows, it is not customary to make a statement in support of the first reading motion.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thought that hon. members might have wanted an explanation in the House rather than outside.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Woolliams:: This is most refreshing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of housing about the government's experimental program regarding low-cost housing. Has the minister had an assessment of this program made? If so, is he prepared to table or make public the assessment of the results of the program carried out so far?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minisier without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the assessment is under way; it has been
Inquiries of the Ministry
commissioned for some time and it will probably take some time to complete if it is to be an in-depth evaluation. Indeed, at best it would have to be an interim evaluation because I think it will take some years, in some cases, to determine truly the good and the bad of the program. Most certainly, however, when the interim report is available I shall be pleased to make it available to all hon. members.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the House will be asked to vote further funds for this program and in view of the charge made that the result of the program so far has been simply a lowering of standards and an increasing density, is the minister prepared to appoint a task force or an assessing party from outside his own department and outside CMHC to assess the program and to make its assessment known?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of examining the report to which the hon. member is referring, although I read the article in the press this morning, as the hon. member perhaps did. I would much prefer to have that opportunity before elaborating on what might take place as a result of it. My previous statement about the evaluation process stands, and I think it will be useful for all members when it is available.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister assure us that an interim assessment of the sort he mentioned a few moments ago will be available to the House before the House is asked to decide about the continuation of the program or the precise form in which the program should be continued?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate that when the capital budget of CMHC goes before the appropriate committee for examination all the information available will be distributed to hon. members. Whether it will be a formal evaluation or assessment report, with the quality that I would hope to achieve, I could not promise at this time. Nevertheless, all information that we have we will make available on that occasion.



CONTINUATION OF INNOVATIVE FUND-REFERENCE OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL REPORT TO COMMITTEE

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, does the minister intend to continue the innovative fund in this year's building program?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I announced when I tabled the CMHC budget that we shall wish to continue the innovative theme and thrust. I think circumstances this year are not the same as they were when we announced the program last year so there will be differences in approach. They are being worked out now and I hope fairly shortly to be able to announce them to the House. Of course, members can judge them on that occasion.


John Gilbert: Would the minister agree to refer the report of the Canadian Council on Social Development to

March 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the appropriate committee so we may study it in depth? Also, will the minister attend the committee hearings?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this is within my purview but I am sure an ingenious way will be found to examine that report and deal with it before the committee.



INNOVATIVE FUND-AMOUNT TO BE EXPENDED IN 1971-72- FLEXIBILITY OF PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAM

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for housing. In view of the fact the minister gave some indication last year regarding an amount of $200 million, has he determined any particular sum or amount that he is prepared to expend on the innovative program for the next fiscal year?


Robert Knight Andras: Not precisely, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary regarding the same topic. In light of the emphasis placed on innovation in housing, and in light of the rigidity of the legislation permitting the expenditure of the $253 million recently announced by the minister as earmarked for public housing, and because of the usual cost-sharing arrangements, both of which make innovation impossible, is the minister contemplating a review of the legislation and the cost-sharing arrangements in order to arrive at more flexibility in this area?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to think that a great deal of flexibility is available both to the provincial governments and the federal government in the public housing program. There is a series of changes taking place. I think the hon. member is aware of them. I cannot elaborate on them in the brief time that I have to answer the question, but I rather reject the idea there is that much rigidity now built into the legislation.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN LAND ASSEMBLY

['Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member might allow the Chair to recognize a few other questioners and then return to the hon. member in a few moments.']
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for housing. In view of the ever-increasing price of land facing the major Canadian cities, is the government going to undertake a program matching last year's $200 million innovation fund to help the municipalities finance land assembly projects?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is a sizeable budget devoted to land assembly. The provisions of the Act were amended in 1969. If I remember correctly, I think I announced that some $43 million would be available for land assembly in 1971 from the capital budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Walter C. Carter: I have a supplementary to my previous question to the minister responsible for housing and
urban affairs. In view of the serious need for more serviced land in our big cities, and in view of the fact that the amount allotted by the government of $43 million is obviously inadequate to meet that need, would the minister undertake to have an assessment made of the problems facing our cities and if necessary increase the amount to accommodate the need in various areas?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of assessing the needs of our cities. If we do increase the amount it will have to come from some other source and we face the question of general constraints on budgets. We are always examining the matter and I will certainly take the hon. member's views into consideration.



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question should perhaps be addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. In light of the forthcoming visit to Canada of Brigadier Pattakos, one of the leading figures in the Greek military dictatorship, and in light of the moral condemnation of the world of that regime for its resort to torture and other totalitarian methods, will the Prime Minister give assurance that no official recognition of the visit will be accorded by the Canadian government?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question deals with a purely speculative news report and as far as I know, the Canadian government is unaware of any forthcoming visit to Canada by Brigadier Pattakos.


Walter C. Carter: I have a supplementary to my previous question to the minister in charge of housing. I recognize-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member might allow the Chair to recognize a few other questioners and then return to the hon. member in a few moments.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has he received a communication from the Commission on Biculturalism

March 9, 1971

and Bilingualism to the effect that this commission intends to bring its work to an end but will not publish the reports it was to prepare? If so, what was the government's reaction? Shall we demand that the Commission complete its work in order that we may be informed of the expenses it has incurred and the studies it has undertaken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This letter has been brought to my attention today only. I have not yet replied to it. There has effectively been a letter such as the hon. member indicates. I shall see what reply I am to make and, should the House be interested, I have no objection to informing it of the text of my reply.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister give us some indication before the end of the week as to the government's position in the matter and perhaps also table his reply to the letter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will reply as soon as possible, probably within a week. If the hon. member then reiterates his request, I will be pleased to give the reply verbally or to table it providing of course the senders of the letter are agreeable to the tabling of a copy of their communication.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry arising out of the statement he made last Friday concerning the imposition of the 12-mile limit. What has been the response of countries which have been contacted in connection with this matter, and I refer particularly to those which are deemed to have traditional rights in Newfoundland waters? Will the minister also assure the House that no foreign trawlers will be given privileges denied to Canadian trawlers?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Certainly I can give the House the assurance that no foreign trawlers will be given privileges denied to Canadian operators. I might also add that the entire west coast of Newfoundland is closed out to the 12-mile limit to foreign trawlers, as is the stretch of coast from Cape Ray to La Poile on the south coast. Under the new policy, any section of coast around Newfoundland can be closed but at the moment, as I say, the entire west coast and the stretch from Cape Ray to La Poile are closed to foreign trawlers. We have received no objections from foreign nations in this connection.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of reported incursions by foreign ships into the Fortune Bay area and off the Avalon
Inquiries of the Ministry
Peninsula in Newfoundland, does the government intend to extend the 12-mile limit to this area as well? Also, what has been the response of the government of France with respect to its territorial rights over the island of St. Pierre?


John (Jack) Davis: Where there is the likelihood of a clash of gear between small Canadian vessels and large foreign trawlers we will close the area, but the information I have received today is that there is no prospective clash in the areas the hon. member has in mind.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twiliingate):: In view of the fact that subsequent to the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries violations of the 12-mile limit by vessels of a number of countries have been reported to him and to Members of Parliament from eastern Canada, what measures is Canada taking to enforce the declaration made by the minister two weeks ago and repeated last Friday?


John (Jack) Davis: There have been no violations of the 12-mile trawler limit, if I can refer to it in those terms, since my announcement of last Friday. Of course, if there is a violation the full force of the Canadian law will be employed against those responsible for the violation.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: Can the minister advise the House whether air surveillance is taking place and whether patrol boats are in the area in which the draggers are fishing now?


John (Jack) Davis: There is air surveillance. Additional ships are in the area, our own protection vessels. There are no foreign vessels within 20 miles of the Newfoundland coast today and due to ice movements, I understand foreign vessels are moving out of the gulf at the present time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: further question for clarification. The minister told us he had asked certain countries whether they had any objection. Might I ask him what his attitude would be if one of these countries did register an objection? Would the law respecting the 12-mile limit still be enforced against such a country?


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to intervene at this moment, but the question as asked is hypothetical. Nevertheless, the minister might like to give the information for the benefit of the House.


John (Jack) Davis: The assumption upon which the question is based is wrong. We have not asked these other countries whether they would obey our law; we have informed them of the steps being taken to prevent a clash between small Canadian vessels and large foreign trawlers within our 12-mile limit.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):: Would the minister tell the House what response he has received from the government of France with regard to the regulation as it applies to the fishing zone around the French-owned islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon?

March 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John (Jack) Davis: That is a question which might be answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he is in the House. I have heard of no objection; indeed, I have heard of no protest at all from France to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Chair should allow one further supplementary question on this subject and then we should go on to another subject.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One further supplementary to the Minister of National Defence. Is the government giving any further consideration to placing Tracker aircraft or some other kind of surveillance-type aircraft in and around eastern Newfoundland to see that the law is enforced with respect to foreign trawlers?


Hon. Donald C. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that the Canadian forces based at Summerside have been quite effective in this regard.


John Howard Lundrigan: I direct my supplementary to the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to give him the opportunity of clarifying his statement made to the Leader of the Opposition that we have not asked the various traditional fishing nations to move outside the 12-mile limit but that we have informed them of our decision that they stay outside. Can the minister reconcile that statement with his former statement in the House last Friday, as reported at page 3988 of Hansard, when on three occasions in the fifth paragraph he said we had asked various nations to stay outside the limit. Have we informed them that they must stay outside or have we asked for their co-operation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have asked them to stay outside and for their co-operation.



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE MATCHING OF PROPOSALS IN BILL BY PROVINCES

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that we are usually advised that before improvements can be made in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code there has to be a consensus between the federal government and the provinces, may I ask the minister whether he has held consultations with the provinces on the basis of which he can assure us that the steps proposed by him in his bill which he introduced today will be matched at the provincial level?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I cannot give that assurance, any more than I have been able at any time to give an assurance that the provinces will meet the existing minimum wage requirement. But there has been adequate consultation with the provinces in respect of those changes to the Act which might in some way affect provincial-federal relations.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Though the minister did not have a chance to make a statement this afternoon it has been indicated that one of the changes proposed will be the inclusion of a cost-of-living escalator. Can the minister say whether this is now to be government policy and whether we may expect similar amendments to existing legislation in connection with assistance and pension plans and also with respect to certain white paper proposals concerning unemployment insurance and welfare policies?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Nowhere in the bill is there any reference to a cost-of-living escalation clause.



ALLEGED RECRUITING OF MEDICAL DOCTORS OUTSIDE CANADA

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Would the he tell us whether the Canadian government has decided to recruit some 1,250 doctors abroad each year during a 20-year period, as Professor Mathews of Carleton University was reported as saying during the weekend?


Mr. Speaker:: The question thus worded cannot be allowed. The hon. member is asking a member of the government to confirm or deny a report. Perhaps the question could be asked directly and to save time, the Prime Minister might want to answer the question as directed by the hon. member.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of this question on behalf of the minister responsible for immigration. As far as I am concerned, I have not heard of such a report.



AIR TRANSPORT


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question in connection with air piracy. Has he received representations by telegram or otherwise from the Canadian Airline Pilots Association regarding the need for a law covering piracy and hijacking similar to the law which presently exists in the United States?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe such representations have been made, but whether within the last week or so or not I am unable to say with certainty. We have been in consultation with the Canadian Airline Pilots Association for several months and have involved the association in discussions with regard to the whole issue of hijacking. As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Justice has


March 9, 1971

indicated his intention to bring forward just such a law as the hon. member has referred to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is there any reason Canada is not a party to the international air agreement which covers this subject?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not aware of the specific agreement to which the hon. member refers, but as far as I am aware we are participating in all international actions relating to the hijacking problem. As far as I know, we have not only accepted all international agreements presently in existence but, in addition, we have proposed various initiatives of our own which are now under consideration internationally.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Can the minister tell us why Canada is still without a law covering this subject, though such laws have been adopted by the United States and other western nations? Is there any special legal problem or peculiarity which is responsible for the delay, apart from questions of administration?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, quite a complicated problem over and above administration. I think I have indicated to the House on previous occasions that, with all due deference to other countries, we have been in the forefront in putting forward proposals. Perhaps the argument may be as to whether other proposals are as effective as the ones that we are suggesting, in other words, that some of the measures which have been put forward, including the laws to which the hon. member has referred, are not considered by most countries to be wholly effective. In summary, I think the situation at the moment is that all countries who subscribe to the ICAO convention and related documents are now working on what they hope will be an effective solution. But there is no conscious delay on our part.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAYS


Mr. Gasion Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he could use his good offices to remedy the serious shortage of freight cars in western Quebec at this time, an area served by the Canadian Pacific, in order to prevent temporary lay offs?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have checked in regard to both these questions, not only the one the hon. member has asked but also ones asked by some members from western Canada who inquired about shortages of cars in their vicinities. I have been advised by both railways that the basis of the problem is essentially the extremely adverse weather that we have had in the past few months which has made it extremely difficult to get cars back to their destinations quickly. I am told that there is now some
Inquiries of the Ministry
evidence that the situation is improving and should continue to improve from now on.



QUEBEC-BY-ELECTIONS IN CHAMBLY AND TROIS-RIVIERES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering that two Quebec ridings, those of Chambly and Trois-Rivieres, have been without representation in this House for the last few months, considering also the rumours of a general election in the fall, would the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to call a by-election in each of those two ridings in the near future or if he prefers to wait for the general election in October.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister state what effect the air transport study of the Atlantic provinces which was tabled in the committee last week is going to have on air policy for the Atlantic provinces?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. member refers is purely and simply an assessment made by consultants as a possible guide to future action. I can state categorically that it does not in any sense represent the policy of the Department of Transport at the present time, nor have any moves been made or are they likely to be made in the immediate future to implement any of the suggestions. They are merely being examined as of this moment.


Louis-Roland Comeau: In order to set minds at ease, would the Minister of Transport make a full statement soon regarding the proposals for Atlantic provinces air transport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have just completed three sessions before the transport committee of the House at which I thought I made a fairly comprehensive statement on many aspects of the matter. If the hon. member has some specific inquiries I will be glad to do my best to answer them. Indeed, I am in the process right now of replying to a letter the hon. member wrote me a few days ago on this subject.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the minister's words of reassurance on this subject, if any of the cities involved wanted to

March 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
make representations would the minister provide a forum for them to do so?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be more than pleased to do so. In fact, one of the main reasons for releasing the report at this time was to invite such public discussion.



FINANCE


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance a question regarding the 33 per cent increase that the banks have levied on the handling of cheques and the minister said he would refer the question to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and added that he imagined the Prices and Incomes Commission would also be looking into the matter. May I ask the minister whether he has received this reference and, if so, what action he intends to take?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague took the matter up with me immediately. The Prices and Incomes Commission is conducting a preliminary inquiry.


Max Saltsman: Could the minister give an indication when the Prices and Incomes Commission will be reporting, and could he also indicate whether he intends to ask the banks to suspend these charges until that report is available?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no, I cannot. They are masters of their own work and when they have completed their inquiry will of course make a report. In answer to the second part of the question, I suspect that an inquiry of that sort coming from the Minister of Finance would have more effect than one coming from me.
a position to confirm that Canadian aid to Caribbean countries will be increased during the current year.
I wish to add that further to our regular program of bilateral assistance, we will contribute to an agricultural development fund for the West Indies.
Finally, I should like to tell the hon. member that we are also members of the West Indies Development Bank, whose activities are merely beginning to make themselves felt, and to which Canada will certainly contribute in a significant way.
* *
*



AIRPORTS


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the minister has received a letter from the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto concerning the announcing of the location of the proposed site for a new international airport for Toronto, and in view of the board's concern that delay in making this known has an undesirable effect on private investment decisions for commercial and industrial establishments directly related to air transport, would the minister now advise the House where the site is to be located or when he will be able to make this announcement?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's mail must be more efficient than mine because I have not personally seen that letter to which he has referred, though it may have reached the department. In reply to the second part of the question I can only repeat what I have said on numerous occasions, namely, that I am waiting for an appropriate time to meet with the government of Ontario. Initiatives are being taken today to see whether such a meeting can be arranged for next Thursday or Friday.
* *
*
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Can he tell the House whether the government intends to increase substantially, during the next two years, Canadian aid to Barbados, as stated recently by Senator Richard Stanbury, president of the Liberal Federation?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am in



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing and urban affairs. As the Lithwick report has confirmed that the source of the problems facing the municipalities is the discrepancy between their responsibilities and their revenues, can the minister tell the House if his department will go as far as the report recommends that his colleague the Minister of Finance go, that in the actual constitutional revision the municipalities be provided with a more adequate share of fiscal revenues?

March 9, 1971


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it would obviously be premature for me to make any such commitment or comment.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of the importance of the post office in the games people play could the Postmaster General inform the House and the people of Canada when we might expect resumption of mail service with the United Kingdom?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: will look into that, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT ON POLICY-PRESENTATION PRIOR TO DECISION ON MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When can we expect a statement in the House on Canada's energy policy?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think I make many statements in the House on Canada's energy policy. I will try to make them more lucid so my hon. friend can comprehend them.


Randolph Harding: Will this government policy be presented to Members of Parliament and the Canadian people for discussion before any decision is made concerning a possible pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any necessary correlation between any pervasive or new statement on energy policy and a decision in respect of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-ECOLOGICAL SURVEY

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources inform the House whether his statement of March 3, in the House that the National Energy Board will be conducting the ecological survey of this pipeline is correct or whether the department of the environment under another minister will be conducting such a survey?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I think the guidelines issued by myself and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in August of last year make this very clear. The ecological issue is one thing that is inherent in any application before the National Energy Board, but
Inquiries of the Ministry
because the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has special authority over the northern territory that department too will have a responsibility in respect of the ecological safety of the pipeline if built.



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-CONSULTATION WITH PEOPLE OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Mr. Eric Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, will the relevant departments be consulting with the people most concerned through their elected representatives, namely the councillors of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): That is a responsibility which would fall under my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but certainly in the guidelines issued by the two departments it is envisaged, and I think stated very clearly, that the rights and well-being of the indigenous people would be one of the prime considerations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister said he has made many statements on this and indeed, on other subjects, will he inform the House which of these many conflicting statements is government policy?



THE SENATE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, but first of all I should like to take this opportunity to welcome him to membership in the husbands' union. On December 28 the Prime Minister stated to the press that he intended to give consideration to the possibility of appointing the Hon. John Robarts to the Senate of Canada. Has he had a chance to consider that matter in recent weeks along with other important matters he has had on his mind, and can we expect an announcement in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must confess my mind was on other matters in recent weeks. When it comes to joining a union the only one I would want to commit myself to now is the union with my wife.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the

March 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister advise if he has now communicated with the Premier of Prince Edward Island regarding the spiriting away to Newfoundland of the largest and newest ship of the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick ferry fleet, and has he given firm and formal assurance that this boat will return to service between Borden and Cape Tormen-tine annually from October to May?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question the hon. member asks may I say I have had extensive conversations on the telephone with the Premier of Prince Edward Island. As is his custom he expressed great concern for the wellbeing of the province of Prince Edward Island which he directs so well-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: -and certainly I really did not need a copy of the earlier proposed motion because it is verbatim almost as if it were taken from a much earlier submission on this subject made by the Premier of Prince Edward Island to me. I am preparing a reply to that now with a view to having it tabled. I will be glad to table it in the House as he will do in Prince Edward Island.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The minister advised my colleague from Calgary North that he was considering legislation against pirating of aircraft. Is he doing something about the pirating of ships?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the same connection may I say I resent-and I might phrase this as a point of order-the suggestion that perhaps my motion was in some way an attempt to repeat the earlier representations from the Premier of Prince Edward Island. In relation to my supplementary, in connection with the two new ferries that supposedly are to go into service in May, one in the early part and one in the latter part of May, will the minister give assurance to the people of Prince Edward Island that no substantial change will be made in the car-ferry service until both these ferries have proven themselves, as I believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance. I have already given it to the hon. member for Hillsborough before the Committee on Transport on two separate occasions. Any proposals for changes in the ferry services will not be carried through until such time as the new ferries are operating satisfactorily. I have also given the commitment that we will certainly make sure the service to P.E.I. is maintained at a high level.


James Aloysius McGrath: I wanted to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can assure the House, and especially members from Prince Edward
Island, that the acquisition of the new ferry, the John Hamilton Gray, will increase the carrying capacity of those ships servicing the gulf to the point where substantially increased quantities of P.E.I. produce moving into Newfoundland will be carried?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is part of the plan, Mr. Speaker; indeed, we have started on that already. There is a subvention provided for that in the estimates at present.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Egmont might be allowed to ask a last supplementary.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the possible transfer and possible renaming of the ship, I wonder whether the name "Benedict Arnold" has been considered?


John Howard Lundrigan: Can the
minister indicate whether the John Hamilton Gray has been renamed Joseph R. Smallwood? If not, can he-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my short question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Can he indicate whether negotiations will resume soon between his department and the striking east and west coast ship repair workers?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to reassure the hon. gentleman that there will be conversations tomorrow, Wednesday, between the dockyards' council and Treasury Board.



POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL MINERAL EXPORT AGENCY

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he advise the House whether his department has been meeting with industry to discuss the establishment and/or need for a centralized Canadian mineral export agency?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and I have checked.

March 9, 1971



BANKRUPTCY


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I should like to know when the minister will entrust to an appropriate committee of the House consideration of the report on bankruptcy that is now in his hands. Also, I should like to know what answer has been given by the minister to the Quebec Minister of Justice, who has expressed serious reservations regarding this report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In answer to the first part of the question, it is my intention to introduce a bill which in the normal course of events would, of course, be referred to a committee of the House. In answer to the second part of the question, I have had no communication from the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec other than his wanting sufficient time for the province to formulate its position on the report and make that position known to me and to the public. I have willingly acceded to that request.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question.
Does the minister intend to give sufficient time to all parties wishing to make representations about the report on bankruptcy to appear before the Standing Committee of the House in order to discuss it and to express their views on the subject?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No it was not, Mr. Speaker. Of course anyone-and I have made this very clear

who wants to comment on the report is free to do so. I have been having some meetings with groups that are interested and my officials have been meeting with others. Over the next few weeks we have a number of meetings planned with groups that have asked to see us on the question of bankruptcy.



INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN ACTS

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Following his announcement regarding amendments to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and in view of the fact that other Acts, particularly the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act are so interrelated, is the minister in a
Status of Women Study
position to announce now when he intends to bring in amendments to the Acts just mentioned?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As the hon. member indicated, I hope to bring forward substantial changes to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in this session of Parliament. We also have completed within the department a review of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, and we are now formulating policy and recommendations for the cabinet.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the debate that is about to take place on the motion of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). May I suggest a slight change for today in Standing Order 58 (13) which provides that the mover of the motion and the person replying for the government shall have 30 minutes and everyone else 20 minutes. I think you will find that there is general agreement to permit 30 minutes to each of the four party spokesmen who lead off and a maximum of 20 minutes to the rest of today's speakers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the first four speakers, including the hon. member who is moving the motion, be allowed 30 minutes and that all other contributors to the debate be allowed 20 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Francis Andrew Brewin: That in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately designate a minister of the Crown to co-ordinate the implementation of the proposals contained in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which come under federal jurisdiction, and that it should give special and urgent consideration to the implementation of those recommendations designed to establish a basic equality of rights between men and women, including the recommendation for the inclusion of housewives in the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, the provision of maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the adoption of a national day care act, the initiation of a family planning program and certain amendments to the Criminal Code, and equal treatment in the federal public service; moreover that the government should convene a federal-pro-

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
vincial conference to consider the implementation of the recommendations of the commission which fall within provincial jurisdiction or which are the joint responsibility of the parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion which I have moved is designed to encourage the early and substantial implementation of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. We wholeheartedly approve of the central principle of the report. A meaningful equality of opportunity to share in the responsibilities of society as well as in its privileges and prerogatives should be afforded to everyone in Canadian society. The commission's report clearly reveals that at the present time women in Canada are frequently being denied their fair share of both the privileges and prerogatives.
The report is based on the principle enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that all people are equal in dignity and rights. The implementation of the report would effect a needed and important change in society. It deserves the support of all citizens, of men as well as of women, and the serious attention of this Parliament.
We are, of course, well aware that legislative changes by themselves are not enough. We need a change of attitudes as well as of laws; we should not delude ourselves that equal opportunity of employment for women is likely to become a reality in a society which does not make and carry out the necessary plans to provide full employment for all. Nevertheless, the carrying out of the recommendations of the Royal Commission in the legislative field will have a tremendous symbolic and educational effect. It will bring about a genuine social revolution.
We are encouraged by the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Toronto last Wednesday in which he indicated his concern about this subject. Perhaps I could take as a text for my remarks two statements made by him in that speech. The first one is:
It is always easy to talk of change-talk Is often an excuse for inaction.
Later, he said:
I invite all Canadians to exhibit impatience with our rate of progress in this respect.
We agree with the Prime Minister that talk of change in this sphere of the position of women in our society will not be enough. Inaction cannot be tolerated. It is time we in Parliament exhibited the impatience with our rate of progress which the Prime Minister has invited. I am sure the women of Canada are impatient. We must be impatient, too. What the women of Canada fear, and what we fear, is that the Prime Minister's words will be verified and "talk" will replace "action". It is for this reason that the motion which I have introduced proceeds beyond the realm of generalities. It calls for action upon certain specific key areas covered by the report of the Royal Commission.
The approval by this House of the motion which I have introduced will give the go ahead signal not for further studies, not for further task forces, but for legislation by
this Parliament in accordance with the recommendations of the report. Our caucus has already studied the report. It has approved the report's main recommendations in a statement which we made public. We have promised to put the full weight of this party behind 50 of the report's recommendations which come under federal jurisdiction. It is impossible, of course, to mention all of the 50 recommendations in the time that I have available, but we have specifically emphasized in the motion certain key recommendations.
The first of these key recommendations is the adoption of a national day care act. The provision of day care centres is centrally important. As the royal commission points out, that was the subject of strong representations from every part of Canada. Day care centres are of supreme importance to women who are in the position of a single parent, who do not wish themselves and their families to depend on welfare, and who, if they are to take employment, must provide for the care of their children. Day care centres are important to large numbers of other women who, whether or not we approve of it, are involved and will continue to be involved in the labour force, and to many women who are not in paid employment, such as housewives who, for one reason or another, need day care services for their children.
p.ra.)
We agree with the report when it asserts that it is not trying to compel women to take employment. The report recommends freedom of choice but this freedom of choice involves an opportunity to be employed under conditions of equality with men. There is a nation-wide need and demand for child care services. As the report says, private initiative cannot begin to cope with so large a problem. I remind the House that other governments have effectively done so.
We are aware, of course, that under the present Canada Assistance Plan the federal government pays half the operating cost of approved day care centres. The commission, however, points out that this has not brought about the provision of day care centres in numbers anywhere close to the need and the demand. It, therefore, recommends that the federal government should not only pay half the operating cost but, during an initial seven year period, 70 per cent of the capital cost.
My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis), who is herself a shining example of the effective role that women can play in public life-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: -will take part later in the debate and will expand on the need for national assistance for day care centres. I would just like to remind the House that the provision of day care centres is not something which should be done to satisfy a small group of women. It is of the utmost importance to the welfare of a very large number of children. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics, in its report made in April, 1967, shows that one in five mothers of children under 14, a total of 540,000 mothers,

March 9, 1971

are working and make up 24 per cent of the Canadian female labour force. Among them they have more than one million children of school age and pre-school age, about 18 per cent of all Canadian children. Of these it is estimated that about 167,000 do not require arrangements for their care, but this leaves some 908,000 children who require care arrangements. About 9,000 children in Canada are, in fact, getting this day care.
Research by Dr. Benjamin Bloom, who was mentioned in the commission's report, led him to conclude that 50 per cent of the individual's intellectual development takes place between birth and the fourth year, before the child has any contact with the school system. We have a grave social obligation to assist in the development of nearly a million Canadian children. It is not enough to say, as the Prime Minister did on Wednesday night last, that the Department of National Health and Welfare is prepared to enter into discussions. It must be prepared to make positive offers of increased assistance, as recommended by the royal commission. In this debate we would like to hear from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) not merely general statements of approval of the report, or of vague discussions, but an undertaking to proceed as rapidly as possible with this central recommendation of the commission on day care centres.
The work of the housewife does not appear in the statistics of the gross national product, although the work of the housewife is just as much that of a producer of goods and services as that of the paid worker. In a Canadian study prepared by this commission in 1968 it was estimated that the work of housewives, excluding volunteer work, amounted to 11 per cent of the GNP, or $8 billion. However, the housewife, because she is not paid a wage or salary, does not appear officially in the labour force. She is not able to provide for her security in old age as are wage and salary earners. Our resolution proposes that the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans be amended to allow a spouse to participate in these plans.
Women are entitled to adequate maternity leave, and paid maternity leave. The United Nations declaration on the elimination of discrimination against women provides not just for the principle of leave but for the principle of paid leave. We, therefore, propose and have mentioned in the motion that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be amended. It should be amended to provide for women contributors to be entitled to unemployment benefits for a period of 18 weeks, or for the period to which their contributions entitle them when they stop paid work temporarily for maternity reasons, or during a period for which they are receiving unemployment benefits and are unable to work for maternity reasons. The same principle requires the amendment of the federal Fair Employment Practices Act to provide for employed women's entitlement to 18 weeks maternity leave, and the prohibition of the dismissal of an employee on any grounds during maternity leave to which she is entitled. The provinces should also follow suit.
We are glad to read that the legislation introduced today by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to amend the Canada Labour Standards Code will include
Status of Women Study
provisions for mandatory maternity leave. We will scrutinize this legislation carefully to see whether it lives up to the standards proposed by the report.
The government of Canada itself should be giving the lead in affording equal opportunity to women, not only for entry into but promotion in the public service. It is hard to preach to others what you do not practice yourself. Of employees under the Public Service Employment Act, there are 41,000 women. Almost 83 per cent hold office support or administrative support jobs. Only 1J per cent are professionals and scientists. In 1968 only 444 women out of a total of 43,796 made over $10,000 annually.
In a report to the Public Service Commission by Kathleen Archibald, made in 1969, entitled "Sex and the Public Service," the following statement appears:
The Canadian government has in the last few years adopted a passive approach, i.e. one that merely attempts to ensure that the existing structure is administered fairly; it does not concern itself with inequities built into the structure, but concentrates on educational campaigns to change attitudes, individual cases of discrimination brought to light through formal or informal complaints, and "token" appointments, that is, active attempts to get minority group members into a few particularly visible positions, with respect to equal employment opportunities for women. For several years before that there was no approach. And before that, the approach was on the negative side of passive -it was one of promoting unequal opportunities for women.
There may have been some improvements in the last year or two, as the Prime Minister has claimed, but they are minimal. The picture remains very much the same as that portrayed by Mrs. Archibald. The federal government must lead the way to ensure that those limits that contribute to discrimination in the Public Service are removed and provision made to encourage and enable women to work out of the home. In this connection it is my understanding that a program for part-time employment of women was instituted in the Public Service and has since been discontinued. This should be looked into and the question of part-time employment reconsidered. We recommend to Parliament the setting up of a women's program secretariat to promote the increase of women working in all levels of the Public Service.
The recommendations of the royal commission are all geared to providing women with more opportunity to compete for available jobs, and the recommendations are welcome. To this end, the Federal Adult Occupational Training Act should be amended so that full-time household responsibility be equivalent to participation in the labour force in so far as eligibility for training allowances is concerned. A bill to this effect, Bill C-89, has been put on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. In the absence of government involvement, it will suffer the usual fate of a private member's bill.
More effort should be made to satisfy the educational needs of immigrant women. The report recommends, and we support this proposal, that there should be education in the native cultures for those in the public services dealing with Eskimo and Indian women, and encourage-

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
ment of native women to take training to equip them to work in the community building process.
The royal commission report deals with "Women and the Family." It refers to the statement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that, "The family is a natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state." With this statement we are in entire and enthusiastic agreement. I have already dealt with one of the major recommendations in this field and that is federal assistance for provision of day care centres. It would certainly have the effect of strengthening the family.
We also approve of the proposal that a family planning program should be initiated by the Department of National Health and Welfare with the objective of making birth control information available to everyone. This would include federal financial aid to establish birth control clinics and funds to train health and welfare workers in family planning methods. I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or someone delegated by him, will state his views about the implementing of this recommendation. I know that the Prime Minister has said that the Department of National Health and Welfare is taking steps to support the development of family planning in Canada. We would like to know what are the steps, and if they are the same steps as those specifically recommended in the royal commission report.
In our view abortion should be removed from the Criminal Code. The commission recommends that the Criminal Code be amended to permit abortion by a qualified medical practitioner at the sole request of any woman who has been pregnant for 12 weeks or less. This is a subject which the Prime Minister did not mention in his speech the other day. I would very much like to hear from the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) on this subject. The present provision in the Criminal Code has been a complete failure. It produces discrimination, degradation, and the present state of the law is responsible, in some cases in my view, indirectly for premature deaths. My colleague the hon. member from Vancouver-Kingsway will be discussing later in this debate the question of a family planning program and the question of abortion.
We also agree with the proposal in the report that the Divorce Act be amended to allow divorce after separation for one year. There is not much reality left in a marriage where the parties are separated for so long a period.
Part of the report of the commission deals with taxation and child care allowances, and recommends that the federal Income Tax Act be amended in order that the extra exemption allowed the taxpayer for a dependent spouse be reduced from the present $1,000 to $600 when the dependent spouse is under 60 years of age. Frankly, we do not agree with this recommendation. We think that the taxpayer is entitled to at least the present exemption but we do support the proposal for a federal
annual taxable cash allowance for each child under 16 to be paid in monthly instalments to the mother.
We have supported and will continue to support a guaranteed annual income which would eliminate the need for separate deductions for dependants and family cash allowances. Until the day when this is implemented we think the recommendation of the commission should be adopted. We also agree with the proposal that the family unit concept be recognized under the federal Income Tax Act. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is taking note of this recommendation and will incorporate it in the proposed tax reform.
The royal commission deals with the question of poverty. Pending the institution of a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians, we do heartily support the recommendation of the commission that a guaranteed annual income be paid by the government to the heads of all one parent families, and that the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security benefits be increased so that the annual income is maintained above the poverty level and that the supplement be adjusted to the cost of living index.
The royal commission recommends symbolic but important changes in the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act, and I hope that the ministers in charge of these respective subjects will take note. I also hope that the Minister of Justice will look carefully at the proposals for the amendment of the Criminal Code. In particular, we support the proposal to repeal the discriminatory clauses in the Criminal Code dealing with prostitution and vagrancy.
Chapter 7 of the report deals with "Participation of Women in Public Life". The record on this subject speaks for itself. We do not believe, however, that the situation can be remedied by the recommendation in the report that two qualified women from each province be summoned to the Senate as seats become vacant. This recommendation seems to be inconsistent with the principle that women should have equal but not special status. We cannot support such a token recommendation.
We are happy to say that this party does not have a separate women's organization and that women as well as men are full members of the constituency, provincial and federal, organizations. I would like to point out to other parties which have not adopted the same rule the way in which this system works. We have developed within our party a fellowship based upon an equality of status. It works well. But although our party has led in the number of women candidates for election, we realize we have a long way to go before the goal of equality in practice is reached and political representation by women is accepted as a matter of course. We believe that we must all make an effort to have more women active in all areas of public life.
I have already made it clear that we attach the greatest importance to the actual implementation of the proposals contained in the report. As a first step to this end, we urge the designation of a minister of the Crown to be responsible for planning, co-ordination and implementation of the recommendations. I have already

March 9, 1971

indicated that many different departments of government are affected, including the Prime Minister's office, the Department of Labour, the Department of Justice, the Immigration Department, the Secretary of State Department, the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Finance, and no doubt there are many others. What is everybody's business is nobody's business.
Perhaps the Prime Minister himself would undertake the responsibility, but it may be that the burden of his other duties would make it impossible for him to do so. If so, the duty of following this report through, taking the responsibility in cabinet, giving adequate priority to the legislative program arising out of the report, should be delegated to a senior minister.
Those familiar with the report will be well aware that many of the recommendations fall within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. This is particularly true in the field of the recommendations with regard to education which are designed to ensure that education as a whole, including textbooks, will portray women as well as men in diversified roles and occupations and not in restricted stereotypes. In fact, over 30 of the report's recommendations specifically call for a joint approach, that is for participation and co-operation between different levels of government. We, therefore, have included in the motion a proposal to convene a federal-provincial conference to consider the recommendations of the commission which fall within provincial jurisdiction or which are the joint responsibility of the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces.
It is our conviction that if the report is effectively implemented it will make for a healthier and happier society. The onus is on us. We know that an extensive legislative program is not carried into effect overnight. But we suggest that there is more than the usual need for urgent, persistent and even impatient activity to implement the report. The confidence of a large part of the Canadian people in the efficacy of parliamentary institutions is at stake. There are many people, including many women, who are watching what we propose to do in this regard. This party will co-operate and even insist, in so far as lies within its power, that this report will not be pigeonholed. We urge that the report should be used as a basis for a fundamental far reaching revision of human relationships and for greater justice for women in Canada.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, a 17th century French feminist complained that "All that has been written about women by men is suspect for the men are at once judge and party to the lawsuit". I wonder if it is a valid query whether all that will be said today will be equally suspect.
I shall try to be objective as I respond to the motion on behalf of my party but I often question whether there is or, for that matter, should be total objectivity. I speak, hopefully in no way smugly, from the vantage point of
Status of Women Study
watching members of my own family who in days gone by asserted their right to independent status. A great aunt was amongst the first graduates in nursing from Bellevue Hospital in New York and another was dean of women at McGill University. Their nieces, equally independent were and are part of the university scene in Canada and the United States. One, of unforgettable memory, was so anxious to avoid platitudinous farewells from people she did not particularly like that she retired from university service one year early. My sister was, almost until her death, a lawyer with a busy practice. I cite what are obviously personal references so that my colleagues will understand the perspective from which I address myself to this question. I am strongly dissatisfied with the traditional restrictions on women's role. Most enlightened males share this view and join women in opposition to the restrictions. I cannot imagine that very many people would want to close off any traditionally male occupations to competent women or condone unequal pay for equal work.
Where the agreement breaks down, suggests a note to the reader in the current issue of Dialogue, "is on the relative importance of biology and culture in determining the past and present roles of women in society. Has modern technology made the bilogical distinctions between the sexes largely irrelevant to their social functions? Or are there profound instinctual and temperamental differences that point to at least partially different paths for fulfilment?".
It is my hope and expectation that today's debate will help to answer these questions, and that the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women will be used by the government as a program for action, so that the rights and needs of women in Canada will be met. It is neither trite nor tendentious to say that Canada and the world need the special talents of women for nurture and conservation. Margaret Mead, one of American's most distinguished anthropologists, sees the liberation of women coming from a new partnership with men, rather than a struggle against them. Margaret Mead writes evocatively of the expansion of women's role of staying close to the hearth, caring for young children and preparing food. "However much later generations elaborated this pattern, with greatly extended families, complex systems of feudal inter-relationships and one-sex religious communities, this central core remained."
She went on to write:
But such was added to it. To the care of the infant and toddler was added the protection of young people through adolescence, the care of the sick and the care of the old. And a place was found for the wisdom and wider generosity of women past childbearing, who were heavy with the memories of earlier solutions and free to care, not only for their own children-with fierce maternal protectiveness, as the young mothers did-but with a wider concern for all the children within the community. Elaborate rituals grew up around death, and it was women who straightened the limbs of the dead and washed their bodies for burial. Knowledge of midwifery grew, and it was women who attended woman in labor, washed the newborn, and wrapped him, in bark or swaddling clothes, and laid him on his first bed.
Wherever religious or social attitudes flowered in a new concern for the welfare of the poor and the sick and the

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
orphaned, it was women who arranged to take on these widened responsibilities. As widows or members of religious orders, they continued these extended activities that had once been confined to the home. Then as nurses, and as teachers, their traditional role was widened. In the early days of the United States, it was the raised voices of valiant older women, who fought against slavery, against child labor, against the horrors of the slums; who fought for schools, for libraries, playgrounds, legislation and funds, to improve our communities and to protect our children. Many of these women were unmarried, and gave their entire lives to make a world safe, not for their own children, but for all children. In England, even as late as World War II, it was devoted unmarried women who carried a tremendous amount of the burden in the days of bombing and buzz bombs.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are the inheritors of this tradition; of women who left their homes, many of them never to return, to extend the services once performed within the home to the wider world outside. We may well ask, in these days of great freedom, when education is as open to women as to men, when the great professions of medicine and law, teaching and scientific research are open to women, how do we stand? The answer is very simple: we stand very badly indeed. The royal commission spells out just how badly, and presents the government with a substantial list of recommendations. I want to discuss the report and some of its more important recommendations as I proceed in this debate.
There are three central and pointed criticisms generally made of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. They all, I think, contain some merit. The first involves the too great attention to detail by the commissioners themselves. This, say critics, will go some way toward preventing the quick acceptance of major recommendations. The second criticism relates to the possibility or perhaps probability that the report has been superseded by events. A great deal has happened regarding women's rights since the commission was established. "Women's Lib." has become a force to be reckoned with, and there are those who say with some contempt that the mild recommendations of the report do not go nearly far enough. The third criticism relates to a form of tokenism noticed in the report. This is evident, particularly in those recommendations regarding representation in the Senate and parts of the public service.
There is another, general comment that is often made about the report, and it has to do with its readability, or lack of it. I am not sure whether I am a fair judge of this. One observer noted that, "as a literary document, the report rates somewhere below that of the Royal Commission on Taxation and rather higher than the one on farm machinery." The problem with this criticism regarding the elegance of language is that it tends to give an excuse to those who would summarily dismiss the very valid list of recommendations contained in the report. There is, of course, some truth to all the criticisms. I have listed them in order to make this debate, hopefully, more relevant. The fact of the matter is that the general criticisms really have gone beyond the point of relevancy. They are now irrelevant, because the only valid criticisms of the report much be specific and in reference to particular recommendations. The tone of the report, the general
thrust, must, I suggest, be approved, along with recommendations on some of its particular suggestions.
These provisos are not brought forward in any attempt to protect myself or my party. They are, instead, an attempt to give validity to the whole series of recommendations. Each recommendation, obviously, must be studied and judged, not on the premise that women deserve special status or have been discriminated against in the past and so require special treatment now, but on the firm belief that they should be treated and judged on their merit as individuals, nothing more or less than that. The systematic and thorough listing of these inequalities in law, the documentation of discrimination, is probably the most valuable aspect of the report, and it enables us to deal with these inequalities in a systematic way.
However, the report illustrates the basic difference between equality of rights and equality of opportunity. Equality of rights can be achieved through the implementation of some of these recommendations, some of those regarding taxation reform, day care centres, maternity leave, and especially those involving reform of the criminal law regarding the laws of vagrancy and so on. Equality of opportunity is more difficult. It involves not only a change in the law or new legislation but rather, or in addition, a change in the basic attitudes of society.
The old maxims and accepted beliefs that a woman's place is in the home are being outstripped by urbanization, increased leisure time, new social welfare measures and new technologies. We require new and more realistic responses to a rapidly changing social order. The organization and function of each member of the family has been gradually altering over the years. Indeed, Governor General Georges Vanier pointed to this as one of society's great challenges; to recognize and deal with this change in family life, and to do it in such a way that the family is not torn apart in the process is a matter of fundamental responsibility for government and Parliament. He was one of the first of Canada's public figures to recognize this and launch research projects into changing family life in the modern world under the auspices of the Vanier Institute of the Family, the funding of which was established in his memory. I think it is a useful adjunct in the ongoing research into this very basic and core matter of our whole social order.
We adapt to this change and try to make it as easy as possible for a woman to live her life to the fullest, while at the same time ensuring care for her children. The woman, on the other hand, must realize that, with her new status, she has added responsibilities. The basic problem, even after government action is taken on all aspects mentioned in the report, is the attitudes that society holds towards women. And these will still be with us. One of the Toronto daily newspapers attempted to criticize the commission's report on the basis that it did not give us an answer on how we can change this attitude. It chastised the royal commission for not coming up with an answer to this dilemma. As a philosopher said in another context, you cannot compel men to be just.

March 9, 1971

All that governments can really do is lead. That is their mandate. They can influence people because of the information they give and the leadership they exercise. They can lead people into changing attitudes and ways of thinking about problems. Surely, this is what must be done with reference to the report of the royal commission.
The government can make itself a model by ending all forms of discrimination against women in the public service, for instance. All governments can work together toward establishing day care centres so that the women can be free to find self-fulfilment in the career of their choice. I suggest that if the government finds a constitutional hangup on the matter of day care centres, it could exercise leadership by establishing as a pilot project a national day care centre for the children of people in the public service in this capital area. Experience would be gained from this pilot project and provincial jurisdictions and other federal jurisdictions, such as the armed forces and the RCMP, could find their fulfilment in day care plans.
We must not over-react to the situation. I find that a good deal of debate, not particularly here because unfortunately we have had very little debate, but some of the public debate is so shrill and strident that the issues being discussed are being drowned out in slogans and rhetoric. Unfortunately, this is all too true of much of public discussion in our time.
A former moderator of the United Church has pointed out that Canada is put in a paradoxical situation because the status of women in developing and so-called backward countries, such as India, grew much earlier and more rapidly than for women in Canada. He said:
Therefore, the struggle for equality instills over-reaction- This is not healthy, nor is it in balance.
This tendency to over-react has led to what are, in effect, other forms of discrimination. The recommendation of the commissioners regarding appointments to the Senate are an example of discrimination in reverse; women are not being appointed on their merit as individuals but because they are women. This does nothing but perpetuate a form of discrimination. This particular recommendation has received more criticism, I suppose, than most. This is good, because it shows that the public realizes what is wrong with it.
No doubt the type of over-reaction expected of us in this House is of the other kind, the reactionary approach typical of male chauvinists. I say with all earnestness that what we seek is a balanced view of an extremely important and fundamental subject. I entered this debate armed with a mass of statistics, most of which can be found in the report. There are one or two which might be useful in underlining my comments.
The 2.5 million Canadian women who work at paying jobs occupy an obviously inferior status to their male counterparts. Women hold less than 1 per cent of the top corporate positions in Canada. Only 2.3 per cent of all working women were in managerial positions in 1967. Women receive less than 20 per cent of the total incomes of men and women, 37 per cent of gross dividends from
Status of Women Study
stocks, 36 per cent of rental income and, if anybody cares, 31 per cent of mortgage interest. Women earned 15 per cent to 22 per cent less than men working under similar conditions according to 1961 census figures. In universities, women academics earn an average of $2,000 per year less than male academics. In the federal public service, 41.2 per cent of women earn less than $4,000 annually as compared with 7.1 per cent of the men. I will not go on to bore the House with a long list of statistics. They are in the report and in other research data on this subject.
The commission adopted four principles: first, that women be free to decide whether to work inside or outside the home; second, that the care of the children be a joint responsibility of parents and society; third, that women need special treatment because of pregnancy and childbirth; fourth, women will need special treatment to overcome discriminatory practices.
I have tried to identify what I think are eight or ten of the more important of a very long series of recommendations. Hon. members will recognize that these are choices that I have made. Other participants in the debate will obviously have another list that commends itself to them. The first surely must be the recommendation about the day care centres and a national day care act. I suggested that the government might spearhead this with a pilot program for children of people working in the public service. There are amendments to the National Housing Act which could permit loans for the construction and renovation of buildings for use as centres. I am sure this is part of the consideration in which the department is even now engaged.
As those who have read the Commission's report will know, there is a dissenting opinion by Professor John Humphreys. He rejected the proposal to spend half a billion dollars on day care on the ground that it would be an intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction. More than that, he believed the concept was wrong because it would establish day care centres as part of a welfare scheme. With great respect, I do not accept this dissent. I believe the urgent need for day care has commended itself to people who work in this field; perhaps it has not yet commended itself to all parliamentarians, but it certainly has done so to those who are concerned with on-going social needs.
The second on my list is the issue of abortion. The Commission speaks of this issue very clearly. Obviously, an issue which affects each of us in such a fundamental way should be made the subject of a free vote in parliament. Surely, a change in the law cannot be too much longer delayed. It seems to me that the law governing abortion must match with other social legislation so as to provide a comprehensive approach to the whole issue. Many women find motherhood a happy prospect but must resort to abortion because they cannot extricate themselves from difficult living or working conditions. Until there are sufficient opportunities for women to maintain an acceptable standard of living through easy access to day care centres and fair labour regulations,

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
simply liberalizing the abortion law will not solve anything.
There has been a statistical battle, a battle of figures, going on all this winter between the extremists on this issue, those who want abortion on demand and those who feel, very sincerely and genuinely in my opinion, that there should be no alteration in the law. I beseech the government that when this issue is considered by us, Members of Parliament should be allowed to vote as individual members according to their consciences.
I have already used a great deal of the time allotted to me, but there are five or six other issues which remain. The report suggested the government study the idea of permitting the spouse at home to contribute as a selfemployed worker to the Canada and Quebec pension plans. There are other recommendations affecting family allowances and taxation. The difficulty here is that the recommendations run counter to the approach taken by the government in the white paper on income security. The idea of a taxable bonus in respect of every child under 16 has met opposition from those who believe that the world population explosion should be discouraged, not encouraged. The recommendation did not place a limit on the number of children in respect of which a mother could receive $500.
The recommendations go on. For instance, the minimum age for marriage should be 18; the Divorce Act should be amended so that the three-year separation period now provided would be reduced to one year. Then, there is a very helpful section on the whole question of a guaranteed annual income, whether by way of negative income tax or by a rationalization of payments. As I have mentioned, there is a recommendation in relation to public office; it is recommended that a certain number of seats in the Senate be reserved for women. Personally, I do not accept this recommendation believing it to be an extension of the very discrimination which the report seeks to avoid. Then there is the point which was well-made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin); it has been made by others engaged in the practice of the law, namely, that prostitution should be regarded as a social, not as a criminal problem. That part of the Criminal Code which deals with vagrancy, section 64(1) (c), is discriminatory because it singles out women and restricts the right of women to move about in freedom. Surely, at this stage in man's evolution the section to which I have referred should be changed.
The report contains some plans for action. It speaks of establishing implementation committees at federal, provincial and municipal levels composed of senior administrators and so on. It suggests the establishment of a human rights commission at federal, provincial and territorial government levels. It looks to the establishment of a permanent Status of Women Council, national in scope. I agree with the point made by the hon. member for Greenwood: there should be one minister responsible for the on-going aspects of this report. The government cannot allow this report to lie fallow.
As stated by the Canadian Federation of University Women, the issues which arise are not beyond the area of
interest or concern of any Member of Parliament. The concerns we discuss today are real concerns felt by real people. If I have a minute left for philosophy, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help noticing the aptness of a quotation by Tom Wicker in the New York Times who reminded us of an occasion when Robert Penn Warren spoke wittily of the forgetfulness, among politicians, of real issues. He was commenting on American poetry. Marianne Moore had said her kind of poetry deals with real toads in imaginary gardens. The kind of poetry in Congress, and it would not be stretching it too much to include this parliament, might often seem very similar to hers. It deals with real solutions to imaginary problems. Occasionally, it deals with imaginary solutions to real problems. Sometimes, however, and this is where genius begins to be inflamed, it deals with imaginary solutions to imaginary problems of imaginary people. If that kind of poeticizing could not touch us where we live, Robert Penn Warren asks us, then what can? The answer is easy: any kind that is real, for the disease of our time is the sense of being cut off from reality. Man feels that a screen has descended between him and nature, between him and other men, between him and himself.
What I have been trying to do is to discuss this issue first from a little bit of a philosophical view followed by an appraisal of the Commission's report, some statistics to give the necessary thrust, and then an identification of the more important recommendations. As I have suggested, the government ought to designate a minister to be responsible for the co-ordination and implementation of the recommendations. The partnership of which I spoke at the beginning of my speech, the new partnership between women and men rather than a struggle of women against men, prompts us to recognize that women want to be treated as people, as full human beings. There must be a new regard for women's traditional occupations, within and outside the home. Otherwise there is a very real danger that we shall lose what is most precious in human life, the ability to give devoted and cherishing care to other human beings, just at a time in human history when it is most imperative that we learn how to expand our capacity for caring and translate it into ways of protecting the earth itself.
We have been told how to begin, Mr. Speaker; let us then begin.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, first may I thank the mover of this motion which allows us to state our views on the status of women in Canada.
Many comments have been made already on the report of the Royal Commission, but those of the people's representatives are obviously very important since the Canadian electorate has give us legislative power.
When we speak of the status of women in Canada, we must go back to what precisely started this talk. For centuries, our eastern mentality has been conditioned to a factual situation. Woman is not the equal of man. The analysis of what brought our world to this line of

March 9, 1971

thought would take too long. I will therefore limit myself to an acknowledgement of this situation.
For many generations, outstanding evidence has been offered that there were no reasons for considering one half, at least, of humanity as inferior to the other. Little by little, a few scraps of rights and privileges were granted, which no doubt improved the situation.
An individual capable only of preparing meals and looking after children was made a more responsible being by the granting, for instance, of the right to vote. Then this was discussed more and more widely, until some degree of civic and legal equality was achieved.
In other words, the total emancipation of women is accepted, but with some reservations. All too often, this emancipation remains theoretical. In practice, people continue to act as though women were at an inferior level.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this situation is deplorable and that it even proves disastrous. The result is obvious, in the form of a society headed almost exclusively by men. I realize that a whole mentality and deeply rooted habits may have to be changed in order to achieve complete equality. Perhaps women themselves are not enough aware of every opportunity available to them.
However, I feel we should do a lot more to speed up the process of emancipation and progress of Canadian women. On the basis that there is to be no difference between man and woman apart from the physiological point of view, one is entitled to wonder why practically all management and legislative activities are carried out exclusively by men.
Obviously, if the true principle of democracy were to be integrally applied in this House, half of our representatives would have to be women since the population of any country is divided somewhat equally into males and females. Fortunately, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) is here to save a small fragment of democracy.
This situation would be corrected by effecting a new distribution of the Commons seats. Canada could have some 150 constituencies represented by both a male and a female member. Then the absolute equality we are seeking would thus be achieved at the parliamentary level.
Some people will laugh at this suggestion but when we see so many men apparently lost in a maze of thoughts which are more or less constructive, I wonder the practical way of thinking and action which characterizes women could not bring a little more efficiency to the business of this House.
Their practical common sense, their taste for what is concrete, and even their intuition would offset the lucubrations of some hon. members. Women in this country have been proving for generations that they know how to manage a house and are quite able to do so. Most of our homes, at least in Quebec, have been managed by women. They have been entrusted almost exclusively with the education of children at home, and they have done a marvellous job.
And what about the tremendous success obtained by all the institutions run by nuns? Mr. Speaker, I say it
Status of Women Study
again, there is a lack of women in our government services. They have neither soul nor heart. How I understand why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has at last decided to fill the void in his life! May his charming wife, by sharing somewhat his authority, make more flexible he who was turning into the greatest dictator of all Canadian Prime Ministers.
To come back to the precise wording of the motion, I would like to point out the uselessness of the recommendation for-
-the inclusion of housewives in the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans-
-and I explain myself, Mr. Speaker.
All women who contribute to pension plans will be entitled to benefits. Therefore there is no problem in that area. The problem is not there, but rather in the fact that the housewife, in the home, is not considered a worker in the same capacity as any other employee. She works unceasingly to achieve a grand objective, that of preparing our youngsters to take their responsibilities tomorrow, or to support the actions of responsible adults. In short, the woman in the home is a professional and at the same time a manual worker. Yet, she is not paid for it. That is unfair, Mr. Speaker. And so, the problem would be solved by granting adequate compensation to the woman in the home. She could be included in pension plans and receive the benefits provided for at the proper time.
The maternity benefits mentioned in the motion under consideration deserve my whole support. It is loathsome to see unemployment insurance investigators discourage mothers-to-be by telling them that they are not entitled to benefits owing to their condition. This is degrading the most beautiful function of mankind, which has enabled all of us to be here and is responsible for our existence. This deficiency should have long been corrected.
As for the establishment of a family planning program, I am reluctant when I think about the real intentions of our good friends from the N.D.P.; as for their planning, ranging from all kinds of contraception means up to abortion, 1 cannot accept it.
In a country as rich as ours which has to deal with overproduction problems, in a vast country where communication problems arise, a country in which, among other things, the birthrate has decreased to a point which I find alarming-especially in Quebec where the average has suddenly declined from 5.4 to barely 1.8 per family, such conditions are, in my opinion, disastrous.
At this rate, the francophone element of our country shall disappear more or less rapidly. That is no doubt one of the reasons why certain people want desperately to establish a boundary around Quebec.
As for the other recommendations of the motion, I think that these deserve full consideration from the House. Equality of treatment in the public service is intimately tied to the basic principle: equal work, equal salary. No discrimination should be tolerated in this respect.
Calling a federal-provincial conference for considering implementation of the Commission's recommendations

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
which pertain to provincial jurisdiction, or which are under joint jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and of the provincial legislatures, is essential. Quebec has particular rights that it wants to keep in their integrity, and unilateral decision making in this field would be most unwelcome.
Mr. Speaker, in short, the importance of the question raised in this debate is self-evident. I hope that all Canadian women will realize that the time has come for them to assume their responsibilities and to stop letting the men alone work out their liberation. We of the Ralliement creditiste are ready to let women invade our ranks. In saying this, I am in no way referring to Gil-berte Cote-Mercier and her group, nor even to the wife of a certain Pierre Mercier of Vancouver.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe the New Democratic Party does us and Canada today a service in bringing out for public debate the matter of the status of women in this country. The government welcomes the debate. We hope it swells and continues across the land. I say that for the sake of Canadian women and for the sake of the general goals in respect of social equity in Canada, and not specifically for the sake of the New Democratic Party. I might add that the party that thinks of itself as both the conscience and the foretaster of Canadian politics does well to act as our polestar today, pioneering for women with all the vision of Lester B. Pearson and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Perhaps my hon. friends opposite will forgive me if I should appear to be a little partisan, which is not my natural style. However, I must say that my moral indignation at the mediaeval laxity of this government regarding women is a little hard to raise when the N.D.P. attacks us just six days after the Prime Minister, in a major statement of policy, made this promise:
I pledge the full support of the Liberal government to the removal of discrimination and the provision of opportunity to women in all fields of Canadian life.
That may be a case of unfortunate timing for the NDP, but it is a solemn promise by a government that does not make many promises. It is a promise of quick government action on all the recommendations, that are considered feasible and within federal purview, of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. As hon. members know that report was tabled in December and, as I shall detail later, we have already begun to implement as far-reaching process for action. The royal commission in 1967 was asked to recommend what steps might be taken by the federal government to ensure for women equal opportunities with men in all aspects of Canadian society. That Commission was instructed by the government of Mr. Pearson. After two and a half years, it has reported in lengthy detail and raises complicated and interlocking questions of policy.
I do not think it is any secret that this government maintains, and constantly updates, a listing of our chief
priorities which we try to follow fairly closely. I think it is true that all Canadian governments have felt, rather uneasily, that perhaps they might have provided more leadership and reform in the provision of opportunity to women. We have in this House done much which affects women, not the least of which has been in respect of divorce and abortion laws. So, we may have been better than most. I must say, however, that while I shall not state precisely where women were on our priority list before, they have recently ascended it as fast and as far as any ski tow goes up Whistler Mountain.
There are many specific things this government has done and will do. They are important and will have a far-reaching effect not only for women but for the improvement of Canadian life in general. I wonder, though, if they provide all or even very much of the answer to the question of the inclusion of women as full and equal partners in Canadian society. That is the real issue, even more than the specifics of pension provisions, minimum wages or special hiring practices.
A prime issue for society in the contemporary world is the inclusion of women in the society of modern Canada, or the inclusion of the young, or the poor, or the old, in fact the inclusion of all those who have not been quite brought in, all those who do suffer discrimination. Our own Parliament, in terms of social background, is not fully representative of the people of Canada. Certainly by denying women, and all the other groups, we deny our society. The Public Service, the public bureaucracy at all levels of government, does not represent well the Canadian mosaic-nor do trade unions, major private enterprises and other institutions. So, I guess no one group in society can point a finger at the other. Certainly, we, as governments, must remove the legal and employment barriers to those who are excluded as the first step.
There is also the question of how a society looks at itself, and how that can be altered. What about the attitudes of all the institutions of our society such as the family, the neighbourhood, the trade union, the firm and public enterprise? How do they mould and motivate individuals? How and why do they exclude large segments of our population from their activities? More importantly, how and when will they take positive steps for inclusion, not exclusion? I think it is certain, as the Prime Minister said last week, that we do know that immense numbers of talented persons have not had a chance to compete and contribute in the fields of their choice, whatever bent their talents might have disclosed. But why are they not in the mainstream? In my opinion, the answer rests in the degree of commitment by which a society and its individual members and groups pursue objectives of equity and social justice. In other words, the buck quite properly passes back to Canadians individually, singly and in groups.
I am increasingly aware of the truth that national objectives of equity and social justice remain words until people support policies and measures that are designed to increase equity. As an example, I cite measures such as tax reform where a little generosity of spirit would be welcome. In my own field of responsibility, housing, we have sought, to the best of our ability, to shift our

March 9, 1971

objectives to the provision of housing for low-income people. Is that popular? One would like to think so, but I continually have to resist pressures across the country to shift our direct emphasis back to providing housing for the middle-class or to place low-income housing projects somewhere else, in some other neighbourhood.
So, what I am saying is that governments can lead, and this government has done so, but until we Canadians stop our rhetoric and participate through our own pocket-books and through changing our own built in attitudes, progress will be slow. Until we do that, the exclusion of and discrimination against many groups from participating in our society will continue. But I believe that a climate for such change is developing in Canada. However, this process is slow and painful. The government will help the process along with regard to women. I would say in passing that all members will appreciate the fact that when you are in the business of encouraging a major social upheaval-and that is what any real inclusion of women will be, an upheaval that will change institutions from the family through to the Public Service Commission-life can, and probably will, get quite complicated.
Policy solutions are not as immediately obvious as one might think. Take for instance the subject given considerable and justified attention in the debate so far, the question of day care centres. It is increasingly obvious to most of us I think that day care centres add immensely to the quality of life, both for children and for parents. They are more than parking places for kids, or certainly should be more than that. The best means of providing children with superior care must be found, ways that involve parents in the operations of the centres. Right now, through the Canada Assistance Plan, this government shares the operating costs of day care centres with provinces which regulate and administer the centres. But we recognize that some drawbacks in the legislation and the programs are becoming evident. For instance, the initial capital required is difficult for many groups to raise. The wellbeing of Canadian children is certainly a national responsibility, and we are exploring ways to improve the legislation.
The recommendations of this royal commission directly affect the programs of 25 federal departments. Actions on the recommendations can easily be counter-productive, tending perhaps to cancel each other out if they are not very carefully co-ordinated. This government wants action, as the priority pledge of the Prime Minister indicates, but it does not want a mish-mash. So, there has been established a central co-ordinating function within the Privy Council office. I might go so far as to say that if our friends in the opposition will help us get through the government reorganization bill, it might even happen that the minister chosen to handle this subject will be appointed. In the meantime, an interdepartmental committee is being established to examine all the recommendations and to draft policy suggestions for the cabinet.
Status of Women Study
I might add here that in seeking the best brains available for the committee and its working parties, the chief co-ordinator herself is seeking, wherever possible, women of competence who may not, as yet, have quite pushed to the front of the public service. This is part of an emphasis directed toward women that this government will continue. A decision to seek out wherever possible women for Order in Council appointment is another instance of this emphasis.
The interdepartmental committee to which I referred will submit to cabinet immediately, as they become available, the policy alternatives that it supports from five working parties. The working parties cover the following areas: First, the economic participation of women, what the federal government can do regarding women as investors, homeowners, producers of goods and services as well as employees. The second area covers women in political and judicial life. I might say here that the government is already planning to attract more women into citizenship programs, into the administration of corrective institutions and other areas recommended in the report we are discussing. The third area is a workshop dealing with education and training of women. This will include such issues as formal professional education for women, occupational education, and continuing education.
The fourth area is family and community services. Here, policy recommendations and guidelines will be in the areas of abortion, family planning, day care centres and other matters. The fifth working party will be particularly attending to the problems of disadvantaged women, in which we include the aged, the disabled, the poor, women who are the sole support of their family, women of minority groups, immigrants and geographically isolated people.
The cabinet expects to have policy recommendations before it well within this year. We have already seen considerable progress. The Canada Labour (Standards) Code, to which amendments were presented to Parliament today, will be of special interest to women. Amendments to the Fair Employment Practices Act are under consideration. The white paper on unemployment insurance proposes broadened coverage and the provision of benefits for interruption in employment owing to sickness and maternity. We plan legislation removing discrimination against women with regard to citizenship.
The report recommends the establishment of information and referral services at the local level, which is certainly in harmony with some of the aims of Information Canada; in fact, some pilot projects are under way now.
In my own area of housing, there will be a change made in the national housing loan regulations in line with the first recommendation of the report. It will remove the discrimination inherent in any federal regulations against women as creditworthy mortgage borrowers. Last spring we made provision for an allowance for one parent families in the calculation of income to which

March 9, 1971
_____	Status of Women Study
the rent scale for public housing is applied. Similarly, the previous allowance for working spouses was increased substantially.
I also announced that space for social and recreational facilities, which can and I hope will continue to include day care centres, will be eligible for federal assistance when provided in housing for low income people. Furthermore, I have asked the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to look into the report's further proposal that CMHC make loans for the construction, purchase and renovation of buildings for day care centres. This, I might say, is not an issue for CMHC or myself alone to decide, but would have to be one possible aspect of a wider federal policy for which I must admit having a bias.
At various levels of government, not only federal, we can and should remove discrimination and constraints. I suppose that many will argue that we should stop there and thereafter let women as well as men make their own way. But this government has a feeling there is some catching up to do. There may be a need for some special incentives.
To address myself specifically to one other recommendation here may I say that we are not biased against the idea of a federal-provincial conference. If our informal discussions which will be taking place support this idea, it is very likely that we will proceed.
The debate is useful, and I will summarize by saying that our bent as a government is, in areas open to us, to encourage and to seek out women of competence, to provide special support where that is feasible and practicable, and to encourage other levels of our society to do the same. I hope and expect we will give leadership. More important, I think that as individuals and as groups Canadians have to address themselves to this question of the elimination of discrimination wherever it appears.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in this important debate I must first congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for bringing this matter before the House this afternoon, and on doing it in such a substantial way by the motion he has presented to the House. It is quite likely true in this discussion, as in many others, that the events and realities of the situation may greatly outdistance both the type of discussion we have here and the issues which are of principal concern. However, even if we are dealing with this subject somewhat late in the day, in comparison with the concerns and interest expressed in this far-reaching question of the status of women, better late than never must surely be the axiom and this must justify the argument that we should be spending the time of the House on this particular issue.
In fact I feel that, in dealing with it in the context of a one day debate, we do nothing more than open a host of questions that need to be raised and looked at very carefully in the hope that we may first discover the exact nature of the problem and, secondly, determine whether there are certain steps that can be taken by Parliament
to alleviate the most serious aspects of the problem. The question that confronts us in this debate is a basic one. Are half the members or our society living in an inferior or discriminated position with respect to the other half? Is there in fact a basic question of inequality for women in this country today, or has this whole concern for women's rights and women's liberations simply been generated as another in the endless series of fads that seem to be the product of our culture, and are perhaps the result of the tremendous flowering of the devices of mass communication in our time?
Is it not true, as an earlier poet was moved to comment, that "the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world"? It is a pleasant phrase, a phrase that I am sure all hon. members have heard. I would assume that in an earlier day it was a convincing one. In spite of the fact that men occupied the prominent positions in society, became heads of state and for the most part, produced works of art, the person who stayed by the hearth, who cared for the young, who provided a home for her happy warrior when he returned from another victory, provided evidence of the essential truth in this statement that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
Well, of course in this age of enlightenment we are finding that that was one of the clever put-downs of an earlier time, one that may still be used by some people who would like to believe that in our modern society women enjoy all the opportunities, all the access and status that seem inherently the right of their fellow citizens of the world, men. But of course we know it is not true. We know it is nonsense. In fact, we are not so many years removed from a time in which some of the discrimination was so obvious and blatant as to be impossible to believe. Here, I refer to the time of good Queen Victoria when the ladies were concerned about such basic things as having the right to vote and about being recognized as human beings. It was a time when Queen Victoria was moved to comment: .
The Queen is most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Woman's Rights" with all its attendant horrors ... It is a subject which makes the Queen so furious that she cannot contain herself. God created men and women different-then let them remain each in their own position.
One would have liked the opportunity, having heard the Queen declare herself in that fashion, to ask her whether or not there should be a limit put on such things as the right of succession. However, I gather one did not ask those kinds of questions of Queen Victoria. We know, however, there were those who tried to respond to the problems of women's inequalities in the early part of this century, such as the well known Mrs. Pankhurst who, trying to make her point crystal clear, at one stage said:
Trust in God: She will provide.


David Anderson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes.


David Anderson: I am just wondering whether the hon. member is implying that Queen Victoria did not have

March 9, 1971

enough power and should have had more. I thought Queen Victoria was a lady of considerable ability, and if anyone would have made it perfectly obvious that women should be treated equally it would be her. I hope the hon. member's suggestion is not that the most powerful woman in history should have been given more power, remembering that her husband played a very subservient role in comparison with her status.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when the hon. member tuned into my speech, but the point I was trying to make was that Queen Victoria was a person who obviously was a prisoner of her own time, reflecting a view commonly held by a great number of women at that time concerning the woman's role in society. At the same time, however, she supported a double standard because she was willing to acknowledge for herself a great number of powers but was in no way willing to see such powers exercised by her colleagues in her day and age. I cited this as an illustration of the fact that while it may seem a long time since the reign of Queen Victoria, in the history of the world it is but a short time. When we hear a statement like that now we think we are living in a completely different age, and that there is absolute equality and acceptance for women. We could well ask the question, as I ask it rhetorically this afternoon, are women accepted as equals in our society, or should we be concerned about the increasing number of demonstrations and discussions centring on the role and status of women in society? I answer that we must be concerned, and concerned for a number of reasons.
Time will not permit me to deal with all of the reasons this afternoon, but we should recognize the fact that in our civilization today we have a most unique situation in which we have in our midst an oppressed not minority but majority. Unlike many minorities who suffer because of racial, religious or ethnic considerations, women in our society, who are not even a minority but perhaps a majority, are oppressed. Women in our day are oppressed in a new and much more sophisticated fashion and that is why I find the speeches made this afternoon, and the motion proposed by the hon. member, unsatisfactory to a degree. Essentially, I am not criticizing the motion for going too far, but rather I feel the motion does not go far enough. I must immediately hasten to add that I would have great difficulty in drafting an effective motion to try and deal with what is a very pervasive and thorough going form of discrimination towards women which exists in our society.
It is all too easy to recall times when, because of technology and the nature of society, a woman was very obviously in a discriminated position. She was treated almost as a beast of burden; she stayed at the hearth and carried out all of the chores. As one person has said before, and as has been repeated many times since, a woman's work is from sun to sun. She did all the manual tasks necessary to maintain that family unit. She suffered drudgery to such an extent that today, when you
Status of Women Study
walk through an old cemetery, you can see recorded on the tombstones the premature deaths of a host of the women of this country.


An hon. Member:: Men, too.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: We know as well that there was a particular horror associated with giving birth. In a sense, a life of desperation was lived by the women in earlier times in relationship to their fellows in society. We rejoice in the fact that women have been released from the drudgery of the kitchen and the home, that they have been spared much of the horrible pain and possible death by childbirth. We rejoice that it is now possible to think of the woman's role in the home as one that at least does not involve being treated as some kind of willing slave.
In moving from that difficult time into an era of great technology, I suggest that we are now permitting, and indeed encouraging, a new kind of exploitation of woman. I think it has been referred to as "sexploitation", in which woman herself is being treated in many cases as a consumer product, as an item to be selected from the shelf, to be packaged, labelled and presented for easy consumption. We have been treated to a host of beauty contests and activities which primarily promote the biological aspects of woman. In its most extreme form, we have been treated to the concept of woman as a plaything, as a bunny for the playboys of the world.
The tragedy of this new form of discrimination is that in establishing standards for women in our society, the standards are such that they are measured not in terms of individual integrity or identity but in terms of proportions, measurements, bustlines, what have you. The tragedy is that while men to some slight degree might be forgiven for making these measurements and standards, certain women all too readily acquiesce and give credence to the thought that everything depends on how a woman can present herself. It is too bad that some women are willing to measure themselves by these standards of sexploitation.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that by allowing this to happen in society we have indeed subverted and destroyed not only the possible role and fulfilment of woman in society, but we have downgraded to an effective degree the possible relationship that might exist between man and woman. The perfect female citizen of this country, if we are to listen to the commercials, spends the morning at the mirror, the afternoon in a bubble bath, and the evening discussing breath mints or candy mints at some amusement park. The parallel to this is that, of course, man is always at the job or driving or flying to it. It is small wonder that the more extreme women's liberation groups seethe with a pathological hatred aimed at the various males who have concocted these two public images of male and female.
In discussing what I think is a basic problem in our society today, obviously I am dealing with a problem that cannot easily be changed through legislation. I think it would be a challenge far surpassing the abilities of the

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) or perhaps the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who has responsibility for culture, to prescribe new kinds of regulations by which we could move away from the kind of willy-nilly consumer approach that has been adopted toward women in our society. How one changes basic attitudes is certainly a question that cannot easily be answered in the course of this debate or by the legislative response in this chamber. There are situations that have been referred to today which indicate there is discrimination which could be resolved by law.
I was extremely disappointed to note that, according to the report on the status of women, my native province of Prince Edward Island was still making a real difference between men and women in the minimum wage laws. We know that in government service and private employment there is far too much sex typing, which in many cases prevents capable women from seeking positions. The situation pertaining to manpower retraining in Prince Edward Island causes me some concern. I think we must be more aware of the difficulties faced by women if these retraining schemes are to be of use to them.
In concluding these brief remarks, in what I hope is the opening debate in an ongoing series of considerations to be given to this question, I should like to come back to what I think is essential to our concern and that is, the role to be played by woman in our society. The problems in this area, while they may be met to a degree by legislative or bureaucratic decisions, are basic problems. I think they can only be dealt with in terms of the essence of the main problem. A moment ago I mentioned the basic problem of attitude, but I think that in terms of the status of woman there is the basic problem of identity. I was struck by a quotation from "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan, which reads:
The core of the problem for women today is not sexual but a problem of identity-a stunting or evasion of growth that is perpetuated by the feminine mystique. As the Victorian culture did not permit women to accept or gratify their basic sexual needs, our culture does not permit women to accept or gratify their basic needs to grow and fulfil their potentialities as human beings.
I think that is the problem, Mr. Speaker. Even if we were to implement at once all the recommendations contained in this report, I would be willing to argue that a large proportion of the women in our society would still be imprisoned within their own attitudes in so far as development of their potential was concerned. We would still be faced with the problem of finding the answer to a more effective and realistic family unit in modern day society. As the member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) said, we still would not have dealt with the question of finding a more productive and positive outline for a relationship between man and woman in our society. I believe that the new-found freedom and potential for woman in our time is not only important for woman herself but for the man she will marry and with whom society will be shared.


Mr, Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have been named as the seconder of the motion presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and I am happy to take part in what I am sure those of us who are here will agree is a very important debate. One could wish that such importance were recognized by more of our colleagues in all parts of the House. But all good causes have to be pushed.
May I say respectfully to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) responsible for housing, who spoke awhile ago, that despite the short reference of a partisan nature in which he indulged, we appreciate his acceptance of this motion and of this debate as an attempt on the part of the New Democratic Party to get the discussion rolling on this important subject. We welcome his being able to stand in his place and announce a number of things that the government is doing. I do not think they all began with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) speech of last Wednesday night. However, it has been our experience in this place that even though the government announces good intentions, it takes an awful lot of prodding to get action on those intentions. I think it is fair to say that hon. members on both sides of the House this afternoon and this evening will be doing that, prodding the government into acting on the proposals contained in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and into acting on the suggestions being made by members on the floor of the House.
Sir, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), my colleague, has already said, it is our desire, in this part of the House, to concentrate in each of our speeches on certain specific aspects of the over-all problem. Hon. members will not be surprised if I say that the areas I shall talk about will relate to such things as pensions and insurance programs and employment in the public service. I should like to indicate some of the things that we think ought to be dealt with in these two main areas.
The more I study the report of the royal commission, and the more I think about the problem, the more I am impressed with the magnanimity of the task. You can hardly turn a page of most of our statutes without finding some differentiation between men and women. This is particularly true of the areas about which I am especially concerned, pensions and insurance, employment and so on.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member not mean to say "magnitude'1 instead of "magnanimity" when he referred to the task?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I said that, I welcome the correction. I suppose my hon. friend feels that we are now even, since the other day I pointed out that although he meant George III, he said George IV.


Mr. Fairweather:: The kings and queens of England are being shuffled around this afternoon.

March 9, 1971


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept the correction, and thank my hon. friend for it.
I have said that I am impressed by the tremendous number of changes that we shall have to make; but that, I submit, is no reason for our not getting on with the job. Let me name some of the pieces of federal legislation, and allude to some provincial laws as well, which I think we shall have to act on soon. In the first place, I want to speak about a few federal statutes that have general application, in the sense that they apply to the entire population. The second group I shall speak about will be statutes that refer to employment in the public service.
It really is amazing that in statutes like the Canada Pension Plan and its partner in Quebec, the Quebec Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Fair Employment Practices Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and in the workmen's compensation legislation in the provinces and in similar, federal legislation covering the Northwest Territories, and so on, there runs this thread of differentiation between men and women. It turns up in two ways. On the one hand, there are frequent occasions where a benefit is provided to a widow, or the wife, or the survivor of a male, but the corresponding benefit is not provided to the widower, or the husband, or the survivor of a female. You know, we cannot go on talking about equal rights if we keep things that way. In the Canada Pension Plan, for example, I think it should be provided that the survivors of a female contributor are to be treated the same as the survivors of a male contributor.
In addition to those kinds of changes that ought to be made, we should consider this: the more one looks at these various pension and insurance programs, the more it becomes evident that, in the main, a woman's right to security in time of illness, or disability, or unemployment or old age comes to her because she is the wife of a husband or the survivor of a male. In the main, these rights do not come to her because she is a person, in the sense that a man is a person. I think that we must get down to brass tacks and correct this situation. Maybe it was nice in the time of Queen Victoria to keep women in what she thought was their place. Actually, the changes that have taken place in society that have been dealt with in the philosophical portions of speeches made thus far have changed the picture. I do not think that relations between men and women can continue to be satisfactory if this situation continues as it is, namely, that a woman will get pension or insurance benefits only because she has been married to a certain person, or because her husband had a certain number of years of employment or because that husband was hurt or took ill or died. To my way of thinking, that is now wrong. Perhaps it was always wrong; but it certainly is wrong today. I
I think that we must begin building into these various pension and insurance programs the kinds of provisions that will treat both sexes exactly the same way. Where this may become particularly difficult is in legislation like the Canada Pension Plan. That legislation, as we know, is a wage related plan. It is part of a two deck scheme,
23S56-48
Status of Women Study
under which people can have their basic old age security pension and another pension on top of that which is related to the income they have earned while working. When it is suggested that a married woman who stays at home and raises the family ought to be able to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, those who understand the workings of that plan say that that will upset its rationale, its philosophy and its whole basis as a wage related operation. I recognize that and I am inclined to agree. It may be that something other than just the right of women to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, although they are staying at home and raising the family, must be found. I believe, when a woman has spent 20 or 30 years or more in the home and contributed in that way to the raising of the family, to family life and to the part that the family plays in society, that when it is time for her to get a pension, it should come to her as of right, on the basis of the contribution that she has made, not just through her attachment to a husband.
Perhaps the answer to this is a guaranteed annual income. Maybe the answer, as some people suggest, is wages for homemaking so that there will be something to relate to the Canada Pension Plan. Whatever the method or device that is found, I strongly submit that we have to revise our thinking about the Canada Pension Plan so that when a woman is of pensionable age, she not only receives the old age security pension at age 65-indeed that age should be a lot lower-but she receives a pension because she is a person who has contributed to society. The pension should not just be based on the fact that she was the wife of Mr. "X". I could go on with these various facts of general application such as unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation. These various acts have different kinds of provisions for men as compared with women. There is no doubt about the magnitude of the task, if I may use the word I wanted to use the first time, but failure to grapple with it just because it is too large a task is not good enough for Parliament or for the government of Canada.
Legislation was introduced today by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to improve the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. This raises the question of matters such as minimum wages and hours of working. Reference has already been made to the fact that at least three provinces in this country provide for lower minimum wages for women than for men.
In the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and in the Fair Employment Practices Act there are differences between men and women. These pieces of legislation I have been talking about, most of them federal, but one or two provincial, have general application, but shot through and through them is the notion that there is a difference. It is a man's world. Women get into it if they can, but in the main a woman gets what is coming to her because she is related to a man. It is not good enough in a society that says we are all equal as people and entitled to our rights. It is not good enough just to indulge in these philosophical niceties about this whole problem.

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
Nor is it good enough just to boast, as the minister did earlier, that the government has already started to correct the situation. There are a tremendous number of pieces of legislation that must be overhauled if we are going to implement the idea that women are people and entitled in their own right to protections that we are able to provide under the heading of insurance, pensions and so on.
Having talked about acts of general application, I now wish to say a few words about employment in the public service. I think it is a truism that how the federal government treats its employees sets the pattern for Canada as a whole. The recent report on Sex and the Public Service and the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women have brought out a number of strange situations that apply in the federal public service. One of the most ridiculous is the fact that there is paternity leave, but not maternity leave in the public service. The father can get a day off because his wife is having a child, but there is no leave, certainly no leave with pay, for the mother because she is having one. There are a lot of little odds and ends. If a husband is moved by the federal government, there are moving expenses for the wife and family. The same does not apply in the case of the wife. This does not only apply to the public service, but it applies in general. The motion is that it is the man who is boss and whatever has to be done to suit his convenience or working arrangements, the necessary cost must be met. However, if the woman is moved or if her position is changed, that is different.
A good deal has been said about the level of employment of women in the public service. For the most part it is sex-typed. They occupy certain jobs and we accept '*his. As pointed out in the report of the commission, purely the time has come for this situation to be Improved. No time should be lost in establishing the women's program secretariat recommended by the commission so that active attention can be paid to increasing employment opportunities for women in the public service, not just at levels typed for them, but at types and levels which they are just as capable of fulfilling as men.
Then, there is the question of the federal government pension programs such as the Public Service Superannuation Act, the armed forces superannuation act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and others. The main difference there is that the rate of contribution varies. The rate of contribution is 6.5 per cent for a male and 5 per cent for a female. Some of the women who want us to proclaim equal rights might not be overly excited if we say that their rate should be increased to 6.5 per cent. However, I think something can be done. Perhaps a rate in between those two would fill the bill if we could change a certain premise. The reason for the difference of 5 per cent for females and 6.5 per cent for males is the assumption that most females in the public service are not married. That, of course, is changing. The other assumption is that most of the males in the public service are married, although many of them are not.
If a male public servant leaves a widow when he dies, she receives a pension. When a female public servant

dies, even if she is a married woman and leaves a widower, there is no pension for him. This does not jibe with our concepts of equality at the present time. If there is to be a distinction in rates of contribution to the federal government's pension plans, it should not be on the basis of whether a person is a man or a woman. It should be on some other basis. I would not mind it being on the basis of whether there are dependents; wife, husband or other relatives.
I am deliberately not trying to give the final answer or say what the actual terms of a revised plan should be. However, a plan that makes a distinction between people simply because they are men or women is not fair. If there is going to be a distinction, it should be on the basis of something far more significant than that, and I urge that something be done about our various pension plans.
I said my two main areas were the general legislation which applied to everyone and then the legislation and practices affecting the public service. By the way, I did want to mention the public service terms and conditions of employment regulations; there is a tremendous area here for doing away with discrimination. But I want to [DOT] go on and say a few words about one particular area of the public service, if we may call it that, namely the area of employment on this Hill, in the Senate and in the House of Commons, in the Library of Parliament, and so on. I think the report does well to point out that there is far too much typing of people in jobs on this Hill. One of the interesting things set out in the report is that men cleaners who work for us in this building are employed full-time but women cleaners are employed part-time. The distinction is as simple as that. If you are a man and you get a job as a cleaner in this building, you get it on a full-time year round basis, but not so if you are a woman. I hope that after another election we shall end another unfairness around this place, namely the fact that our 264 seats are held by 263 men and only one woman. This, of course, is not something we can do by legislation. But let us not make fine speeches about it being a good idea to have more women in Parliament when we continue to maintain a fair amount of sex typing among the employees of this institution on Parliament Hill.
I hope I have at least made the point which had impressed me in my study of this matter, namely that the problem is a tremendous one. Two or three amendments here and there will not do the job; amendments will have to be carried out all over the place to establish greater equality between men and women in the areas I have been talking about, pensions and social insurance on the one hand, and employment in the public service on the other, including work here on Parliament Hill.
I have heard others in this debate today say this subject brings up the whole question of social attitudes. Sometimes this is used as an excuse; it is suggested we cannot get these legislative changes until society changes
March 9, 1971

its attitude toward women, until it recognizes they have equal status with men. It is the old story of which comes first, the chicken or the egg, or, to put it in other terms, a new attitude on the part of society toward women or leadership in changing our laws and regulations. I think there is a very real possibility that social attitudes are ahead of us now, and that our job is not to sit back and wait until those attitudes are so far ahead of us that we are forced into action. Instead, we should be providing real leadership. I say again in the spirit of most of the speech made by the minister that we welcome his statement about the things the government is doing. We welcome the acceptance throughout the House of our having brought this subject forward today but I earnestly plead that it be not just one days' debate, which goes on the record and that is that, but that it be the beginning of serious consideration of specific changes which we can and must make without delay.


Mr. Cullen:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired, but if there is unanimous consent he could reply to a question. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I should like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whether, in all the years he has been in the House, he has ever known students other than male students to be hired as guides in Parliament during the summer recess?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member talks about all the years I have been here, but it is only in recent years that students have been hired as guides. I believe all of them have been male students but I do know that in recent years there have been two or three occasions when students were hired for various other purposes, and that women were included among them. I am happy to say that even though this has been done by the Canadian Political Science Association, which is outside our immediate jurisdiction, there are women among the student interns who are with us during this present session. But the point the hon. member made is well taken. This, too, is an area in which we must improve our own record.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Don Valley, may I deal with the proceedings on the adjournment motion? It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie)-Trade-Development of U.S. markets for At-
Status of Women Study
lantic Provinces products-transportation facilities; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Radio Canada-Action respecting alleged separatists and terrorists on staff; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-Pollution-Contamination of west coast of Vancouver Island by oil-responsibility for cleaning up beaches.



BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Brewin):
That in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately designate a minister of the Crown to co-ordinate the implementation of the proposals contained in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which come under federal jurisdiction, and that it should give special and urgent consideration to the implementation of those recommendations designed to establish a basic equality of rights between men and women, including the recommendation for the inclusion of housewives in the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, the provision of maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the adoption of a National Day Care Act, the initiation of a family planning program and certain amendments to the Criminal Code, and equal treatment in the federal public service; moreover that the government should convene a federal-provincial conference to consider the implementation of the recommendations of the commission which fall within provincial jurisdiction or which are the joint responsibility of the parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces.
Mr. Robert Kaplan (Don Valley):: Like other speakers, I welcome this opportunity to discuss a subject which was, I suppose, most recently brought to public attention by the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Toronto last week. I wonder why the opposition has failed to attach a vote to this particular resolution, because they could have counted on the support of many members on this side of the House for the motion which has been put forward. They would have obtained my support for almost everything that has been proposed.
I am afraid, though, I cannot agree with the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the Canada Pension Plan should cover women in respect of their role as mothers and housewives. The Plan is one which, as he knows, has an actuarial basis, and his proposal would result in the inclusion of, I suppose, double the number of people presently covered without the housewives and others having any responsibility to make contributions. This would greatly change the nature of the scheme. The hon. member seemed himself to recognize the weakness of his argument when he suggested that sooner or later a guaranteed annual income program might take care of the situation.
Mention has been made of the recommendation that a minister of the Crown should be designated to take particular responsibility for this subject. The Prime Minister
4104

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
referred at Toronto to some of the steps which have already been taken. He said:
In the short interval since the report was tabled, a number of steps have been taken to ensure informed and co-ordinated federal government action in response to it. Most important of those steps is the government's announced decision to give priority consideration to the recommendations.
We have already appointed within the Privy Council Office a highly qualified person whose responsibility it is to ensure informed and co-ordinated government action with respect to the report. An interdepartmental committee will examine those recommendations directed to the federal government. It is under instructions to complete its work as quickly as possible and to submit reports periodically to Cabinet.
The report calls for the appointment of a minister to deal with this issue. The Prime Minister, in his speech, said that a bureaucrat from the Privy Council Office had already been appointed to co-ordinate the program. Frankly, I prefer the approach suggested in the motion. I think that if we are going to focus attention on this priority and give it the kind of urgent action that is required, it is well for the public to have a minister looking after the matter rather than, as I say, some bureaucrat sitting in an office in Ottawa who is responsible for co-ordination. If we believe that politicians should assume the responsibility for policy decisions and policy implementation, it follows that there should be a minister at whom we can take shots if necessary when action is taken not in the way we think it should.
In this connection, the minister who spoke this afternoon hinted, in what perhaps was the major achievement of the debate, that there may well be a minister appointed one day soon to deal with this area of responsibility. I would very much welcome that development because it is one of the most worth-while features of the motion we are debating today.
I should like also to deal with the question of attitude. There has been a lot of discussion today about attitude toward equal rights for women as contrasted with the law and legal changes. We have been talking about changing attitudes and changing the law, and perhaps I could introduce this subject by taking a quotation from Doris Lessing, who said:
We have been given ample warning that the next ten or fifteen years will decide whether the human race can survive. Our survival is threatened by almost certain war, by famine, by contamination, by climatic change due to pollution. Perhaps the sex war could be postponed until more urgent issues are settled?
That kind of statement leads me to respond that I think there is a relationship between the priority we give to recognizing the contribution that women can make and the speed with which fundamental problems of our society will be solved. Discrimination of any kind is a luxury, a waste, something that Canadian society in particular cannot afford at this time. It is true that there are tremendous problems facing us. It is true that the world faces tremendous problems. But to relegate the problem of dealing with the inequality of women below other priorities denies to us the very important contribution that women can make to solving such problems. Attitude is a very important part of this question.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) was able to put before us a proud record of contributions made by his female ancestors to the establishment of women's rights in Canada, and I only wish I could respond with a list of contributions made by my own ancestors. However, I cannot do so. Perhaps they are more anonymous than his. But I can put forward in a personal vein, as he did, a story concerning one of my descendants which might make the point. I think that when you are a father and have, as I have, both a son and daughters, you can see in a very real way the way that social attitudes affect your own children.
Occasionally at weekends I work and do my reading and so on, in a very large office building in downtown Toronto. One day I took my daughter with me to help get her out of the house, and so I could spend some time with her. While I was on the telephone, and after I had been working for about two hours, she asked me whether there was a ladies washroom in the building. This is one of the largest office buildings in Toronto and I said: "Of course there is; there are many women working in this building". She replied: "Oh yes, the secretaries". She is a seven year old child who is just reaching the point where she is beginning to think about what kind of future there is for her. This is in marked contrast to my six year old son who sees the world opening up for him and offering opportunities that are virtually limitless. This story illustrates the tremendous disparity between aspirations and expectations which practically cripple many children from childhood.
The report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women deals with this point, and I should like to read this paragraph which indicates the price that we pay for the attitude of discrimination that we have. Paragraph 73 of the report on page 180 reads as follows:
While they are still in school, girls tend to have low occupational expectations, even when they express interest in more challenging fields. Responses to a recent survey based on a national sample showed, for example, that although only 18 per cent of fourth-year high school girls preferred sales and clerical careers, 32 per cent seemed to assume that they would eventually work in these fields.
In other words, given the attitudes of our society they would not achieve their aspirations.
According to the results of the survey, the careers boys want are closer to those they expect to have.
I do not think we can afford to perpetuate such a system, and for that reason if for no other, I think Canada has to change. We have to try to find ways of utilizing the goodwill, talent and enthusiasm that is just as much available from our girls and women as it is from our men.
A number of hon. members who have spoken today have contrasted changing the law with changing attitudes. The Prime Minister spoke about this and tended to regard the two as separate problems. The Prime Minister said:
Attitude has been the contributor of most of the obstacles which now confront women in Canada. But more than a change of attitude is required in order to overcome discrimination and

March 9, 1971

to provide opportunity. Some laws have to be changed to eliminate the anomalies-
Other members have spoken in similar vein. For example, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal said there is a difference between equality in the law-equality of rights, as he put it-and equality of opportunity. He talked about the extent to which we should deal with equality in the law, but he also indicated that dealing with equality of opportunity was an attitudinal problem, one which was much harder to reach. The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) went so far as to say that we cannot change attitudes in this House but that at least we can change the law, and he urged that we do. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made his plea in terms of the chicken and egg situation-which comes first, the law or the attitudes? He indicated that we ought to deal with the law because the law was amenable to this Parliament.
On this particular point I should like to observe that the two are not separate problems as might appear. Law and attitudes are closely related. I can testify to that since I am a member of a group which traditionally has been the victim of discrimination and of oppression for one reason or another. I could refer as well to the experience of the blacks in the United States. I think that the experience of my own group and the experience of the blacks in the United States is that if you can and do change the law, change of attitude will follow; that there is a close relationship between the two. We should not sit back waiting for attitudes to change to accommodate changes in law; we should take the initiative. At least we should catch up with prevailing attitudes, and then even move ahead to use the law to change attitudes.
Finally, I should like to deal with one other subject, the question of abortion law reform. This subject is touched on in the motion moved by the opposition and a number of hon. members have spoken about it. With considerable difficulty, I have come to the view that we should permit abortion on request. In coming to that view I must say that I recognize that there is, at least in my view, a certain immorality in abortion, whatever are our standards. I
I believe, as well, there is also a moral aspect on the other side of the question. There is a certain immorality in forcing a mother, who for a number of reasons does not want to have a child, to have that child and in forcing a child to be an unwanted child and raised as such. So there are moral questions on both sides. Through all this I have reached the view that abortion ought to be permitted on request. My other reservation about it is that I do not particularly want to see abortion used as a birth-control device, because there are birth-control methods and devices available which can easily be used and which should be accepted. But, as I say, although I have this reservation about abortion I am in favour of its being permitted on request.
I should like to close my participation in this debate by making a suggestion to the opposition in respect of a way
Status of Women Study
in which this issue could be brought forward. In the Speech from the Throne the government indicated there would be a one-day debate on abortion. That is not wholly satisfactory; I doubt if it would resolved any problems or result in any changes. I think the government indicated that because of the length of time such a debate would take it was unwilling to place this matter on the Order Paper; there are other matters which-I agree-deserve higher priority.
I believe, however, that the opposition could take advantage of Standing Order 75B. That Standing Order provides that if a majority of the representatives of the several parties of the House agree on a time allocation, there can be a time allocation in respect of a bill. I should like to challenge the two opposition parties which are not as encrusted by hidebound ideology and stubbornness as the Social Crediters to get together and challenge the Government House Leader to allocate time to settle this question. I have reviewed the rule, and in my judgment if a weekend should intervene, an abortion reform bill could be finally voted on and disposed of in six days of parliamentary time. That would by no means mean there would be a full debate every day; there could be as little as one hour's debate or less on any one of those six days.
Let the opposition not feel they have no recourse in this matter. I would urge them to make a proposal to the government that the question of abortion be brought forward in the form of a bill, that there be a time allocation for putting the bill through the House and that the matter be dealt with on that basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that Standing Order 75B can operate only if a minister of the Crown makes the appropriate request in the House, is the hon. member undertaking that a minister of the government would agree to such a proposition?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking for myself and not for the government. But if such a proposal were made by the opposition parties I would use whatever good offices I have in an effort to persuade the ministers to take the proposal seriously and allocate time for debate. Although I have not canvassed any of my colleagues, I am confident some that would agree to a similar disposition.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. We are touching on some very fundamental and important questions. I have no intention of being caught in the trap of appearing to be against motherhood. However, there are four subjects rolled into one, any one of which might well set a trap for politicians and for any well-meaning or wellthinking person in this country. Whether or not there should be a minister who would look after the affairs of such a ministry is a question which I will leave to the government.

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
Women's rights are extremely important, but I take exception to the equivocation of those people who try to make this a political football. Women's rights, among all well-meaning men, have had a very important and enshrined place since the beginning of our Judaeo-Christian history, if not since men came down out of the trees. My grandfather was a gentleman and my grandmother did not in any way feel she was a slave. She was one of the happiest women in the world because she thought that upon her fell the onerous job of keeping the family together, teaching us our basic morals and providing a safe and comfortable home.
Grandfather, like so many other pioneers in this country, was out busily buying furs from the Indians, paddling his canoe and hunting for the buffalo, moose and elk which would provide food for the table. In terms of present-day society it might appear that this was a simplified society-but I believe the basic rules still apply. Someone must bring home the bacon, someone must cook the bacon and raise the babies if the human race is to survive. I do not accept responsibility for some of the onerous tasks which have fallen to women thoughout the centuries because the Almighty ordained that the female of the species should have the babies.


An hon. Member:: They are different.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: They are different, and they are built for it. We are not.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: In the 20 minutes at my disposal I shall not go into biology other than to say that mothers are provided with an extra layer of fat under their epidermis. This kept them warm through the centuries in the caves while pregnant and while waiting for father to come home. They are not equipped with the type of biceps or other muscles men have which enable them to leap over stumps or hurl a spear. I do not think that leaping over stumps and hurling spears should be done in time of war, but it was very essential in primitive society not too many years ago when this ability was of prime importance.
Women have not changed, particularly in one very basic respect. They look for the good hunter, the good man to bring home the bacon. Before we rush into some sort of an omnibus bill which will guarantee women all the money in the world, all the bacon, I think we should see what we are doing in respect of the male who has full responsibility at present under our laws for supporting not only the child of the marriage, be it his or not, but the wife for so long as she is his legal spouse. It may be that in some of the states of the United States the law is different, but so far as I know, unless the spouse is crippled no such responsibility under our law evolves upon women.
I ask the women's liberation leaders: Do you want our laws changed so that from this time onward women will be responsible equally for the upkeep of the unemployed husband, the inadequate husband, the poorly dressed husband, the lazy husband or the sick husband? That is
what equality means. I do not believe you can legislate equality. Certainly it cannot be legislated in respect of marriage. There is only one kind of marriage. Perhaps I should pass this information on to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whose marriage is only a week old. If he or any other man is looking for a 50-50 marriage, that marriage is doomed to utter failure-because there is only one way a marriage between human beings will work, and that is if it is a 90-10 marriage working both ways. Unless the male spends 90 per cent of his time trying to please the little woman, and unless the woman spends 90 per cent of her time trying to please the ornery male, the marriage will fail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We cannot legislate equality. We can only have a series of pious hopes. Now I shall start with mine. I should like to see most of the laws in a democratic legislature such as ours passed equally, but I agree with the last speaker that housewives generally are not classified as labourers. Their rewards are not in the form of money. They do not receive pensions, in a great many cases. They are dedicated women. They are the backbone of the nation. If you look over our history you will find that women, often unpaid and unrewarded, have in fact given us leadership-at least by their influence-in the highest and most important fields of life.
I hope I will not bore hon. members if I remind them of people such as Nelson's mother kissing the young midshipman goodbye, he standing proudly in his uniform. I have no doubt that respect for his mother, honouring his father and mother, led to his victory in the great battle of Trafalgar. The result could have been predicted. With such men and women, the human race has little to fear. It was no statute of Westminster that made Nelson; but I venture to say that it was the statute handed down by Moses to "honour thy father and thy mother" that contributed to his greatness.
It may well be that if we got back to those basic principles, instead of whining about Women's Lib, we would be better off. I would say that if some women from Women's Lib did their duty and honoured then-fathers and their mothers they would receive a great deal more respect from their children. You cannot expect children to give up marijuana if the parents will not give up the afternoon cocktail. You cannot expect morality in school and hard work if your only reason for existence is to have bigger and better abortions so you can spend more time in the beauty parlour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I told you this is dangerous ground. The Unemployment Insurance Act is a piece of social legislation offering us social justice. Social justice is an attempt to equalize incomes of those who want to work. The Unemployment Insurance Act starts out the right way; it tries to give some security to people who work. What is wrong with the act is that we give insurance to people

March 9, 1971

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
greater good and decency of society, then I will vote for it. At one stage I was weakening in my stand. A lot of people were telling me that thousands of young women were risking their lives undergoing non-therapeutic abortions, and the removal of abortions from the Criminal Code was supposed to be the answer. But then, Mr. Speaker, on television I saw a man boasting that he had performed 13,000 abortions. In this age of the pill surely this is an abominable attack on human life and is completely inexcusable. The pill provides an alternative which is something short of cold-blooded murder.
When I see pictures of the human fetus sucking its thumb-psychiatrists tell me that sucking the thumb is the child's subconscious seeking of comfort; he is trying to get the human contact which he does not get in the mother's womb; he is looking for his mother's breast and for the human contact that he soon will have-don't tell me that he is not a human being and that subconsciously he is not going through mental torture and requires comfort. But we say, in our kindness, to avoid a little embarrassment for those concerned, that the mother should be aborted. Mr. Speaker, with every passing year there is less embarrassment over such a situation. The fact that one is answering the call of nature is no excuse for killing the unborn fetus. Pre-natal killing is only excusable if it will have the effect of benefiting society, of being for the greater good of humanity.
Now people say that because of the population explosion we cannot afford these unborn children and that we should terminate their lives as soon as possible. Well, we still have hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat that we are trying to get rid of and could be used for food. We still have immigration laws which welcome people into our country. We still have the baby bonus; it has not been outlawed yet. We still encourage people to raise families-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I thank the House, Mr. Speaker. This is an important subject and I hope I am not boring the House. The question of abortion is a very important one. I do not think that we who have religious scruples should try to force them on anybody else, but on the other hand those who do not have religious scruples should not expect to force their atheism upon us. If, in the wisdom of the Canadian people, 51 per cent decide to take abortion out of the Criminal Code, that will be our law and we will honour it. But, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly on this subject.
I believe that from the moment of conception there is a human soul which is every bit as important as mine. To clinch my argument I say that only when you become a grandfather can you look at this question in its proper
context. Time does alter attitudes. Last weekend six of my grandchildren came home. One of them is a little adopted girl. Legally she had no daddy. Her mother abandoned her and my daughter took her in. She is our eldest granddaughter. If you want to see a little cherub, a little walking argument against abortion, come home with me some weekend and we will make up a little party of seven.
Which of those grandchildren did I have a right to destroy? If my daughters did not want them, they would not have ordered them. This little six-year old, the eldest, the sweetest of them all, is the product of an unhappy adventure. But there is a much happier ending to the story. She came into contact with love-ordinary, motherly love, unpaid, unpromised, unrewarded with unemployment insurance, unrewarded by old age pension or other such benefits. She has fallen into a home filled with love. This is the complete answer to our problems whether they be unemployment, old age pensions-you name it. It is certainly a complete answer to the question of abortion.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may call it six o'clock if there is unanimous agreement to do so. Is there such agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have gained a lot of satisfaction from the fact that this subject has been chosen for debate in the House of Commons. Yesterday was International Women's Day, a day which has for many years been celebrated by women all over the world. It seems to me fitting that we should be marking International Womens' Day by having this debate.
I think a number of us, although we were very greatly surprised, were pleased with our unpredictable Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who at a Liberal gathering last week chose this as the subject of his speech. We were not quite prepared for the enthusiasm with which he entered into the subject and which he displayed a night or two later by becoming married. This was a great delight to people all across this country.
It is my hope that some hon. members who may be a little lukewarm about this subject will find that as they discuss the matter their enthusiasm will increase. I would not like to see that enthusiasm increased to the point where married members of the House will get into difficulty with their wives, but who knows what will happen if men's liberation takes hold? No one knows where it will end.

March 9, 1971

I should like to address myself particularly to the approach taken this afternoon to certain recommendations contained in the report on the status of women. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who is the chairman of our caucus, made a very fine survey earlier today on the recommendations of that report and the areas the recommendations covered. I should like to deal particularly with two of these areas. The first area has regard to day-care centres, and the second is the matter of family planning.
The recommendation urging day-care centres was received by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women from one coast to the other. More than any other recommendation it kept cropping up in the submissions of delegations which appeared before the commission. I think there are various basic reasons why this recommendation was so strongly urged. I would like to refer to the three most important reasons.
Day-care service is important, first because it fits in at this particular time when women, whether everyone appreciates it or not, have reached the point in our society where they have a capacity and a desire to become not merely women but fully rounded out individuals. They intend to spend part of their time in the home with their families and part of their time away from home working in the community, just as men have been able to do for a long time. This is the point women have reached, and we might just as well recognize that fact. Women will no longer be satisfied to be given the choice of home and family on the one hand or creative work in the community on the other.
They will say: We will not take one or the other. We will have some of both. That is one reason why day-care centres have been urged as a means of making it possible for women to do this without neglecting their family duties.	[DOT]
In the second place, child-care centres, or day-care centres are urged for the very obvious reason of protecting children and providing the proper place where they may grow and develop under proper supervision with children of their own age. The third reason is that in our society we are realizing that today the family foundations are not as solid as we should like them to be. We know that they will not be too solid on the old basis any more. Our choice today is either laying down family foundations on the new basis, which would be a solid basis, or allowing them to slip and disintegrate.
Today the cold, hard truth is that we have reached that stage in society where child care and the life of the home will no longer be the sole responsibility of the mother or woman: it will be shared with the father and husband and with society. Those are the patterns that are emerging, patterns to which we must pay attention. Therefore, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended that the Parliament of Canada pass a national day-care act which would provide funds for half of the operating costs of child-care centres, or day-care centred as they are now called, 70 per cent of
Status of Women Study
the building costs for the first seven years and that the provinces shall operate these day-care centres through child-care boards.
The royal commission was well aware of the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan under which if a province wishes to embark on a program of day-care centres it can apply to the federal Department of National Health and Welfare and obtain 50 per cent of the operating costs. The commissioners knew that perfectly well. They also knew that this provision did not go far enough. Therefore, the whole business of capital costs for childcare centres and for renovating older buildings to be used as child-care centres, to say nothing of the provision of new ones, had to be considered in the context of a much broader framework of child care. So they had in mind a federal child-care act under which funds would be provided to the provinces for the measures that I have mentioned. The provincial authorities and, under their aegis, the local authorities, would operate the child-care centres. I use the term "child-care centres" from preference. The commission talked about day-care centres because day-care centres are usually the first step: they provide care for the children of mothers who must work by day. The commission recommends that as a beginning, because the need there is the greatest and because we must begin with day-care centres. Later we can build up the whole framework of child-care centres.
Canada is industrializing quickly. We are told that by the end of the century a large percentage-I have heard the figure of around 80 per cent mentioned-of our people will be living in the three cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. So we are beginning to wonder what is to happen to children of mothers who are out working and earning their living. Of the total Canadian labour force, according to figures released about the middle of January this year, 32.6 per cent are women. Of these, 33.1 per cent are single, 57.6 per cent are married and 9.2 per cent are widowed, separated or divorced. According to a Department of Labour estimate, of the women who have been married and who are now in the labour force, 19.1 per cent have children under six years old. Practically 20 per cent, or one-fifth of those women, have children under six years old. That means that there are nearly half a million children-489,000 to be exact- under six years old in this country.
What happens to so many of these children who in many, many cases are the children of working mothers in low-income groups? Not long ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) estimated that in Canada more than 900,000 children of working mothers might need day care, but only 9,000 are getting it in day-care centres. This means that we have excluded most children and have exposed them to all the physical dangers that children can be exposed to when they run around without proper supervision. We have exposed them to the dangers of delinquency, maladjustment, alienation, the danger that they will adopt the habits of the drug culture and all the other dangers that children without supervision and proper care encounter. It means, in addition, not only neglected children but overwrought mothers, mothers who have to divide their energies

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
between work and home. Many of them have spent a whole day at work, then they must come home and in the evenings try to take care of the family and do their housekeeping.
Why do these women work? According to the 1967 figures, the latest ones I could get, about a quarter of the women out working who have children of under school age were married to men with incomes of $3,000 a year or less. Therefore, a quarter of these women were out working for the sole reason that they had either to support their families-they were the sole support-or because their husband's income was so low that the woman's pay cheque was necessary if there was to be enough for the family.
Dr. Reuben Baetz, of the Canadian Council of Social Development, said a little while ago:
We suffer from a kind of double vision In Canada: people appear to approve the enrolment of children of the affluent in nursery schools and to disapprove the enrolment of the children of the poor in day nurseries.
Why is this so? Why are there objections to day-care centres for the children of people on low income? I believe our choice today is between caring for the child or neglecting the child. That is our only choice. No, there is another. I think we ought to be prepared to do what I have suggested in this House. Where there is a woman with small children, I think she ought to ge given the choice of staying home and looking after them, as opposed to being forced out to work because the family income is too low.
I have proposed twice in this House that we do as they do in France, pay a salary to that mother. This would enable her to stay home and care for those children. However, in Canada we are apparently deciding not to follow that way. Therefore, we shall have to take the day-care way, which has proved to be a very good way indeed where it has been tried. We have lots of precedents for this. For example, England now has a variety of programs for pre-school care and a three-year training program for pre-school teachers. Sweden's pre-school centres are very well equipped. France has pre-school institutions directly under government control. Creches, boarding nurseries, day nurseries, baby-sitting centres and counselling centres are under the ministry of social affairs. Nursery schools and kindergartens are under the ministry of education. In Denmark, day-care facilities are available to children from birth, in Britain from the age of one month, in Sweden from six months and in France from early infancy.
It is evident that Canada is far behind in the provision of services for pre-school children. I think that behind every objection is the expense. It would cost the taxpayers money to have child-care centres. But I quote Jerome Kagan, Harvard child psychologist, writing a few days ago:
-if the family is to survive as the central unit in western society many billions must be spent for a system of day-care centres for children of working mothers.
Otherwise, the family is headed for disintegration and deterioration. I picked up the latest copy of Chatelaine magazine which is well known to Canadian women. I wish to quote as follows from an editorial entitled, "Yes, dear governments, we can afford day care":
We are the second most affluent country in the world but away behind other western countries in day care. Yet we can afford to spend $17 million refitting an aircraft carrier we didn't need.
Almost 40 years ago we found the money to set up a national broadcasting system. After the war we got around to subsidizing ballet, opera and the arts. We spent $50 million on the Seaway, and $375 million on a pipeline. We've also managed to set aside $10 million to help develop Canadian films. Isn't it about time we found money to spend on our children?
I believe that it is. That is the reason we are pushing this recommendation. I wish to deal briefly with the need for family planning and its various aspects of birth-control, abortion and sterilization. I am not going to be drawn into debate on abortion, not that I am not tempted to go down that particular garden path, but we have been promised time to discuss that subject in the House on another occasion.
We in Canada are deplorably slow in acting on family planning, birth-control information and contraceptives. We need to consider this from many angles. As I have stated previously, birth-control and the widespread knowledge of contraceptives are the proper and sensible first line of defence against unwanted pregnancies. To those people who are always speaking about the awfulness of abortion and its dreadfulness, I say that if they are serious about wanting to cut down on the number of abortion cases in this country, legal and illegal, they should get busy and push a great deal harder for the dissemination of birth-control information and contraceptives. That is the only way to keep down abortions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: As far as I can learn, and I believe this is in the report of the status of women, out of the 900 large general hospitals in Canada only three have birth-control clinics attached to them. I would be glad to learn that I am wrong. I am not happy at the speed with which the Department of Health and Welfare is proceeding on this matter. There is too much everlasting planning and not enough everlasting action. In an editorial in this morning's Vancouver Province, the minister responsible for housing was complimented on saying:
We can't research forever. We have to move, even if still somewhat crudely, in some direction.
One area in which we have to move is birth control and family planning. We have to move to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. I am glad that the minister has appointed a task force. Esther Greenglass, a member of the task force, stated:
First we must have changes in the law and then the changes in attitude will follow.
I think the changes in attitude are coming. However, there is nothing like changing the law to help those who

March 9, 1971

are laggard. A lot of people in Canada need to be helped in their thinking. Thinking in the old-fashioned manner is just too dangerous. If we are to make good progress in this country, and if women are to take their position as full partners alongside men, this government must take immediate action to implement the report on the status on women. Sufficient research has been done on this report and in other places. The time for action is now.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate today with great interest. I am rather surprised at the level of debate and the diffidence with which members of the House seem to have approached the subject of the rights of women in society. Hon. members should have much stronger views on many of these subjects than have been expressed today. One member indicated that he was opposed to any changes with regard to the status of women. He then went on to say what great people women were. I thought he was going to end up by saying that some of his best friends were women. That was about the extent of the contribution he made to the importance of the rights of women.
I do not see how any politician can be under any illusion about the value of women in our society. In my political work I have found that women are involved in politics and men talk about it. When you want to get something done in politics, you get women to help you. After all is done, the men sit in the back room and discuss politics. It is the women who do and the men who discuss.
I do not think any member of this House should be backward about assisting women to achieve the rights in society which they deserve. Roughly 50 per cent of our population is composed of women. We do not see a representation of that extent in the House of Commons. A number of minority groups are represented here. We have one Indian, one black and one woman. It is a disgrace that a group in our society which represents half of our population is represented in such a meagre way.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What do you suggest?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not mean that in reference to the very excellent representation we have from the hon. member who spoke before me. She makes up for many members in this House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You almost got out of it, but not quite.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Over the centuries we seem to have developed a kind of mystique in dealings between the two sexes in our society. A couple of days ago I met a member of this House in a gift shop on the Mall. He was shopping. When I asked him why he was shopping, he said that his wife had not spoken to him for three days.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Lucky fellow.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: He said he wanted to pick up some little thing just to show his appreciation.
Status of Women Study
This is the kind of impasse we have reached in our society as between men and women. It is time we approached the subject seriously and paid attention to the obvious wrongs that exist in our society and in our dealings as between the two sexes.
Without question there is unfavourable discrimination in respect of half of our population and it is time we did something to clear it up. A number of hon. members have dealt with specific examples of discrimination in our society and I, too, wish to refer to specific examples. Discrimination under the law is surely one of the most tried and true methods of eroding society. Wherever the concept of one law for the rich and one law for the poor has been carried out to any great extent, major revolutions have erupted with the oppressed class shaking off the shackles with the frightening violence of the Russian revolution, the French revolution, or the restrained violence of the racist upheavals in the United States.
Usually such discrimination has been directed against a minority in society, whether based on race, religion or social class. Women, however, are not a minority group. My guess is that they make up about 50 per cent of our population and yet in one area we see discrimination under the law against this non-minority group based solely on the difference of sex. While it is doubtful that the women of Canada are on the verge of sharpening their guillotines, laying in a supply of gunshot or studying the tactics of urban guerrilla warfare, an examination of the laws against discrimination in the labour forces as they affect women can only lead us to the conclusion that they are more honoured in the breach than they are in the observance. Nobody in Canada seriously denies the validity of the conception of equal pay for equal work. Many of those who dispute the claims of women regarding discrimination in the labour force point to provincial and federal legislation as proof that such discrimination does not exist. This is not proof.
As the Royal Commission on the Status of Women has stated, "International, federal and provincial acceptance of the principle of equal pay has largely settled the former issue"; that is, the issue whether or not there should be different rates of pay for men and women. But what these jurisdictions have failed to do is ensure that the principle is universally observed. Those words are to be found on page 66 of the report. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a failing in the judicial system which is, unfortunately, not uncommon-that while the law exists on the statute books, it is not enforced and thereby loses any significance in terms of its impact on the social questions with which it is supposed to deal.
The studies undertaken by the royal commission indicate that while every province, with the exception of the Yukon Territory, has legislation specifically prohibiting different rates of pay on the basis of sex, and while the federal government also has regulations governing equal pay for female employees which apply as well to Crown corporations, there is nevertheless real evasion of the intent of the law not only on the part of employers but

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
on the part of labour unions. The report cites the example of the experienced female fish worker who receives $2.15 an hour, while an experienced male fish worker receives $2.83 an hour. The report adds, at page 72:
We were even more mystified when we were told that an inexperienced male fish worker was receiving $2.37 an hour.
Female nursing assistants who must have received in addition to grade 10 education a training course of about ten months duration as well as special provincial licensing, are often paid less than male nursing orderlies who have no qualification requirements to meet and get their training on the job. As a matter of fact, the commissioners had to look no further than the publication of Canada's own Department of Labour, economics and research branch, whose 1967 table of wage rates for male and female knitters in the hosiery and knitted goods industry showed glaring differences in pay scales.
In some cases it appears employers go out of their way to differentiate duties as between women and men so they may be within the letter of the law but outside its intent. But employers are not the only villains on the scene. Labour unions have been markedly slow to fight on behalf of women employees, not only in the matter of pay but with respect to all other fringe benefits. However, since we are dealing with the principle of equal pay and not with other matters pertaining to the welfare of worker I will confine myself to quoting only that portion of the union brief received by the commission which deals with pay. The brief in question states bluntly:
It has unfortunately been impossible, we must admit, to secure real implementation of the principle of equal pay for equal work in certain sectors.
This type of discrimination does not exist only at the social level of the labourer, blue-collar and white-collar worker. For once the discrimination is not discriminatory along class lines. Professional women are not excluded from the misery of their less educated sisters. The average salary of women in the academic professions was $2,262 less than men in 1965-66, and only about half of the difference could be explained away by age, degrees held, field of specialization, university, region or academic rank. Difference in women's salaries ranged from $433 for associate professor to $2,790 for dean. In other professional fields similar tendencies were tabulated, the greatest differences being in the field of medicine.
We are therefore looking at the most classic and reprehensible form of injustice, the injustice which makes mockery of the law and civil and criminal codes. We are looking at the type of injustice which has been well documented in the case of the southern American negro who, when accused of a crime, finds that the ordinary processes of law are subverted by the prejudices of the white juries who sit in judgment. We are looking at the type of injustice experienced by the Russian peasant whose recourse against excessive taxation in the courts is non-existent, although it is given usual lip service in the statute books.
When a law to prohibit discrimination exists in our legal codes but does not exist in fact, then we are eroding our own legal system and the eventual victims of such a
[Mr. Howard (Okanagan Boundary) .1
course can only be each one of us. The reason for the continuation of this type of discrimination is not any concerted effort on the part of masculine oppressors to keep women in economic subservience, in spite of what the women's liberation movement might think. On the contrary, it is male legislators by and large who have drafted the laws outlawing discrimination on the basis of sex. The main reason for the breakdown of these laws is that the onus of proof is on the aggrieved person.
As the commission points out, many employers go to considerable lengths to make identical jobs slightly different. Another example which they cite is worth repetition. A large manufacturing firm with union representation has two wage scales for the virtually identical job of janitor and janitress. The male janitor's wage is 5 per cent higher than that of the janitress. The only small difference in the two jobs is that the janitor is required to wheel the garbage from his work area to the disposal area, while the janitress places the garbage from her work area outside the washroom. Despite this deliberate circumvention of the intended law, one further factor makes it almost impossible for the female worker to seek redress under present legislation.
Under the existing legislation, with the exception of the provinces of Ontario and Nova Scotia any complaint has to be lodged by the person aggrieved. In what position does this put a female worker if she has to lay a complaint that will get her fired in the long run, even if she succeeds in getting her complaint heard and acted upon? To compound this unfairness, where a woman has been willing to risk the wrath of her employer the penalties for breaking the law have been so low that the employer has often felt it more financially beneficial to continue to break the law and pay a small penalty than to worry about being charged with discrimination. Obviously, a law that demands unreasonable proof on the part of the complainant, which threatens the complainant with the loss of her livelihood if she seeks redress under it and which has so few teeth that any convictions are not a deterrent in the future, is a poorly drafted and unjust form of legislation.
As members of the federal Parliament, it behooves us to give serious consideration to the recommendations on pages 76 and 77 of the commission's report concerning the federal Female Employees Equal Pay Act and the federal fair wages and hours of work legislation, just as it is to be hoped that provincial legislatures will also incorporate the intent of these recommendations in their legislation.
In detail, the commission recommends, first of all, that the concepts of skill, effort and responsibility be used as objective factors in the determination of what is equal work. This first recommendation is obviously designed to stop the dishonest practice of making some slight change in the female and male work categories in order to justify salary differences. It seems to me that the interpretation of this provision could well be handled by unions wherever there is union representation, in cooperation with governmental agencies, so that the union
March 9, 1971

could, with the knowledge that comes from close association with this day to day work situation, determine when two jobs fall roughly within the same category of work.
The recommendation makes the second point that an employee who feels aggrieved should be able to refer the grievance to the agency designated for that purpose by the government administering the legislation. Obviously, all governments need to establish such an agency. The report further recommends that the onus of investigating violations of the legislation be placed in the hands of the agency administering the equal pay legislation. Further, and most importantly, it is recommended that the agency be free to investigate whether or not complaints have been laid. It is this which is the crux of the whole matter.
Ineffectual laws are laws that are not enforced. Antidiscrimination laws have not been enforced because no one has been empowered to find out when they are being broken. Clearly, the breaking of such laws is not within the jurisdiction of a police force. For one thing, most of the legislation requires the aggrieved party to lay a complaint. Even where such provisions do not apply, how could we expect charges of that kind to be investigated by a policeman? Therefore, clearly the laws have been lacking in their failure to establish a policing authority, and this particular recommendation that each governmental jurisdiction which has passed such laws also be required to set up an agency which will have a policing authority is the only way justice can be done. As I have said before, it is the aggrieved party who is in the peculiar position that she may suffer, in fact probably will suffer, the punishment of losing her job if she wins her case. It is similar to saying that although the operation was a success, the patient died.
The commission's recommendations go on to suggest that the anonymity of the complainant be maintained wherever possible, and that provision be made for an authority to render a decision whether or not the terms of the legislation have been violated. It advocates appeal procedures, guarantees that the employee's status be in no way adversely affected by application of the law in her case and also that she be compensated for losses in pay and fringe benefits, loss of vacation pay, and so on, in cases where the law has been violated. It is also advocated that the laws be applicable to part-time workers as well as full-time workers, and above all that the penalties be sufficiently heavy to be an effective deterrent.
In conclusion, it seems clear that in the interests of justice no government body with equal pay for equal work legislation already on its statute books should lose any time in establishing agencies to see that the laws are not merely hollow expressions and idealistic theory but, instead, are vital, workable and enlightened statutes that will free about 50 per cent of our society from a legitimate discriminatory grievance.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the subject that has been chosen by our friends of the New Democratic Party is one that, so far as the male of the species is concerned, leads one to the conclusion that
Status of Women Study
angels move in where devils fear to tread. As the previous speaker has mentioned, the contributions of the male members of this House have been somewhat reserved and circumspect because they are moving into an area of discussion which is loaded with guilt feelings and complexes for most members of the House. The most vigorous presentation that has been made in the debate was that of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who represented the so-called weaker sex very forcibly in the discussion of this important subject.
The reason it has been chosen as a topic for debate today arises, I suppose, from the fact that we have had in our midst during the past few years a protest movement, among many other protest movements in this rapidly changing society in which we live, which has become somewhat strident. I refer to the Women's Liberation movement. Some very famous exponents of the tenets and philosophy behind the movement have appeared on the horizon, perhaps none more knowledgeable on the subject and better known than Mrs. Betty Friedan, who with her book "The Feminine Mystique", written in 1963, leapt into fame and, I would presume, a considerable fortune because of the vigorous manner in which she presented the viewpoint of feminine libertarians, if I may use that phrase.
I must confess I have not read the book "The Feminine Mystique" in any great detail, but I have been intrigued by the word "mystique" because it seems to me to have some interesting connotations which require further investigation. I did look in the dictionary in preparation for the remarks I shall make tonight and I found this most intriguing definition:
Mystique: concern with the direct communion of the soul with God; seeking absorption into God or the infinite; believing in the spiritual apprehension of truths; intellectually incomprehensible; spiritually symbolic; esoteric; mysterious; awe inspiring.
Now, Mr. Speaker, faced with a formidable definition of that kind I think you will understand why I am moving in this debate, as I have already indicated, where angels fear to tread. That definition brings the phrase "feminine mystique" within the category once referred to by the great parliamentarian, Winston Churchill, when he used the phrase "a riddle wrapped up in an enigma".
There is no doubt that the current feminist movement is the most vigorous, if not strident, we have seen in the long history of the gradual evolution and development in respect of a position of equality for the female of the species with the male of the species, homo sapiens. I immediately ask a very practical question. Perhaps this is why over the years the term "the weaker sex" has been applied to the ladies. As I leave my house every morning, I contemplate the great piles of snow resulting from the unusually heavy snowfall and I ask myself who is going to shovel the snow. Obviously, this is definitely a male role in society because of the male's superior physical capacity and strength. This no doubt is the reason for the

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
well known cliche in reference to the ladies being the weaker sex.
That weaker sex, I submit, has made gigantic strides considering the great handicap with which they started. If we go back a millennium, certainly in the period A.D., we have seen women make enormous progress. Men once debated whether or not a woman had a soul. Some have said women were the first domestic animals of the male. This is a situation which actually existed in one society. They were excluded from education and from the professions. They were regarded as chattels. Then came that period of the romantic glow when knighthood was in flower, and suddenly the feminine mystique blossomed in the romantic aura of courtly love.
But I suppose the greatest step forward was in the industrial revolution when the militant feminists first appeared in our culture. This period extended from the end of the nineteenth century to about 1930, the period marked by the militancy of the suffragettes and the ladies who led the campaign against demon rum. Actually, I suppose we must give them credit for introducing prohibition through the political process. In Manitoba we had a most interesting representative of the suffragette movement in Mrs. Nellie McClung, who brought down a government by her forceful feminine militancy. I am sure Mrs. McClung, who is being commemorated for her part in the feminist movement by having her home declared a national historic shrine, deserves all the credit she is now receiving even if posthumously as is so often the case in respect of those who play an important role in advancing specific social issues.
It was the vigour of the feminist movement of that period which led Emmeline Pankhurst to elevate the role of women almost to the level of a deity since she is supposed to have used the famous words, "trust in God; she will provide". Certainly there was some of the power and influence we usually attribute to the Godhead in the movement that was a very important part of the social change and involvement during the first 30 years of this century.
There is a new dimension to the current feminist movement which should be noted. It is the most strident feminist activity that has appeared during the period of history to which I have been referring briefly tonight. It is part of the radical left which repudiates all values. It is represented mostly by the extremely young, sometimes the very beautiful and quite often the permissive element of the youth culture which often has been represented in the protests which have been made on our university campuses. If we attempted to analyse the situation in detail, we would find it results from the period of prolonged adolescence which is a part of our current social situation when young people remain in university for as long as ten years in the search for an identity in a rapidly changing society.
These people sometimes become quite violent in their expressions concerning issues about which they are particularly concerned. We had a demonstration of that in this chamber not too many months ago, and in the 20 years I have been a member of this House it is the only time I have seen a protest group bring the deliberations
of Parliament to a temporary cessation. I am sure Your Honour will recollect the vigour, vociferousness and strident nature of that event. This, as I see it, is one of the aspects of the current feminist movement which doesn't help create a positive image on behalf of the women of our society who after all have a legitimate claim.
Actually, without prejudice, I think I can say the women have done quite well for themselves in the western culture. They have achieved the heights in the professions, the arts, the sciences. There is one area where the role of women, of course, is unique and indispensable. I do not think we will ever get around the very basic and elementary fact that women of the world are the mothers of the race. Even though there have been such flights of philosophical fancy as those of Aldous Huxley in his "Brave New Yorld", where he anticipated the elimination of the basic role of the other sex through the use of test tubes, and so forth, I believe that era is still far off in the fantastic future.
As someone said when they were debating in the chamber of deputies in France during the suffragette movement following World War I, "After all, there is very little difference between men and women in our society", whereupon an enthusiastic voice was heard to exclaim, "Vive la difference". I am sure that that basic difference is one that will be perpetuated and is not likely to be subject to change, no matter how many Parliaments deliberate on the matter or how many voices are raised in protest.
The basic role of women in every nation is that of being the cornerstone of the family. You can put into better words the fundamental role of women in our society than those of the wedding ceremony in which most of us have taken part at some time or another in our life, namely, "to have and to hold, to love and to cherish until death do us part". There is no doubt that the role of women is changing in our industrial, urbanized society. I think it is changing for the better. In the family relationship there is now a partnership, a companionship, a sense of equality between husband and wife. There is now a deeper appreciation of the other half of the partnership on the part of the husband, the helpmate role that has even been recognized by the man who has the highest position in the nation and the greatest responsibility, our own Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This is a fundamental role and, as I say, it is the cornerstone of society.
I believe that the role of the housewife, even though women are more and more entering into various aspects of the work world, is the basic and most important challenge that any woman can assume and accept in this confused day and age. Some say that there is a great revolution going on in mores, moral codes and the other disturbing changes that are taking place in society. But if you get down to the essence of the problem you will find that there is no real revolution in mores, and the majority of women as well as men believe that the basic function of sex in perpetuating the species should go only
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
March 9, 1971

hand in hand with the serious, permanent emotional involvement that comes with marriage.
All this has been brought into focus for the purposes of this debate by the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. There are 167 recommendations that have been put forward, and many of them, as has been pointed out by earlier speakers in this debate, will undoubtedly improve the status of women in our society. A good many of them, some 68, deal with the new responsibilities and the increasing role of working wives and working mothers.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway made an eloquent plea for child-care centres and there is nothing further that can be added in this regard. I believe that women with their mystique-if I can use that word in the broad definition that is given in the dictionary-have a great contribution to make in the workaday world as well as in the increasing area of activity and responsibility, namely that of voluntary service. It is obvious that this is an adjustment that must be made if we are to make it possible for women to make the contribution that only they can make.
I am interested in seeing among the 167 recommendations the emphasis on the necessity of research and broader programs of self-help for our Indian and Eskimo peoples. The Indian, Eskimo and Metis associations have had among some of their most creative and vigorous leaders these voluntary lady workers. I agree most enthusiastically that this is a role that they can play with increasing effectiveness.
To bring these brief remarks to a close I should say, however, that I am on the side of John Humphrey who was the dissenter in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Maybe he is a prejudiced male, but there are some areas that have been covered in the 167 recommendations which I agree call for some reservation. As an example, he mentions the quota system. The suggestion that was put forward by the ladies on the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was that the way to get equality of representation and of opportunity is to establish a specified quota of women designated for various appointments.
I do not think women themselves want to be placed in this specialized category, because I know from experience that if given the opportunity and if the legal restrictions and prohibitions are removed, as they are gradually being removed, women will find their niche without any condescending attitudes on the part of the dominating male to make sure that they get their equitable share of appointments by an arbitrary quota system. They want no special treatment in this regard.
Perhaps, finally, I can use the male cliche that is usually resorted to in discussions of this kind, that suggests that most men envy the special role and status occupied by women. One of the popular comic strips which depicts the typical middle-class family relationship in our society is Dagwood. These comic strips are a very penetrating commentary on our social phobias and hangups. The message that comes out loud and clear from Dagwood is that men are also on a treadmill. Perhaps
Status of Women Study
they should launch a liberation movement of their own, because in the final analysis, as the old cliche says, the hand that rocks the cradle inevitably rules the world. George Meredith, another male commentator, put it in slightly different terms and I will close my remarks with a quotation from him as follows:
I expect that women will be the last thing civilized by men.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, it has been said by many people that Eve was born from the rib of Adam, but there is also a general feeling that it was not from the rib she was born but from man's funnybone.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: How about his backbone?


John Gilbert: We find that a cruel joke has been played on women from the beginning, because the struggle for women's rights and their dignity has been hard and long and it is probably because of men's attitudes that the struggle has been so difficult. To bolster my contention I quote Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, as follows:
Woman may be said to be an inferior man.
And the German philosopher Nietzsche, who said:
Woman was God's second mistake.
Then there is the general feeling amongst many today that behind every great man stands a devoted and talented woman, his mother-in-law. I think it was Freud who said, "Despite my 30 years of research into the feminine soul I have not yet been able to answer the great question that has never been answered: What does woman want?" If Freud had been present in this chamber today he would have heard some of the rightful demands of women.
I am rather proud of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. I am very happy to see the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Stanbury), in charge of Information Canada, present this evening because as you know, Mr. Speaker, just recently a small pamphlet was issued by the government telling Canadians how their tax dollar is spent. I would like to think that the minister in charge of Information Canada would summarize the report on the status of women and have it circulated throughout the country.


Mr. Stanbury:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that has already been done. There is probably now in his hands a very fine summary of the report, which was financed by the government and distributed by the National Council of Women.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Financed by the people.


Richard J. Stanbury: By the government, on behalf of the people.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the information just given by the minister, but I thought he would have given it such wide circulation that it would be in the homes of all Canadians where every woman, child and

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
man could read and act upon it, because really it is the bible for Canadian women: it outlines some of the rights to which they are entitled.
As I was saying, if Freud had been here today he would have heard the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) say that it had been enunciated in the Declaration of Human Rights that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It is really our attitudes as Canadians which determine whether we are civilized in making women equal in dignity and in rights with men. The hon. member for Greenwood dealt in a broad sweep with the recommendations contained in the report on the status of women. The speech by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) centred upon day-care centres and touched lightly on abortion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) dealt with pensions and employment of public servants. I would like to deal with chapter 9 of the report which sets forth recommendations regarding criminal law and women offenders. These number 13, running from Nos. 150 to 163, and most of them concern federal jurisdiction. In this chapter it is set forth as follows:
The criminal law of Canada is built upon a nineteenth century philosophy of the role of punishment in the control of antisocial behaviour ... Canadian criminal law also reflects a nineteenth century view of the status of women.
It points out that women as criminal offenders have a very low ratio with regard to the number who are apprehended and convicted. It points out that only 12.5 per cent of all persons convicted of indictable offences constitute women, a ratio of one to eight. It says that women are rarely convicted of violent offences and that convictions for possession of drugs, vagrancy and attempted suicide involve a higher proportion of women than other offences committed by women. It says that offences by female juveniles usually involve behaviour associated with disorderly conduct and not the violent behaviour often found among male juvenile offenders. This chapter also points out some of the grave injustices which women have suffered under the Criminal Code. With regard to criminal sexual behaviour of women, it says that women involved in criminal sexual behaviour have been either victims of men's assaults, or sexually exploited by men for material gain. This has been clearly shown in the Criminal Code. The best example is prostitution. Prostitution appears to apply only to the female. Prostitution itself is not a crime. Prostitutes are controlled by the vagrancy provisions of the Criminal Code. Section 164(1 He) provides:
Every one commits vagrancy who being a common prostitute or night walker is found in a public place and does not, when required, give a good account of herself.
Thus, the law prohibits not prostitution but being unable, it found in a public place, to give a good account of oneself. Prostitutes are ordinarily charged with vagrancy, not prostitution. The man who accepts the solicitation of a prostitute is not prosecuted. A man commits an offence only if he is found in or keeps a bawdy house. Convictions for prostitution open the door to arbitrary application of the law by the police and the setting
up of traps to arrest the so-called prostitutes. Under the Canadian Criminal Code, prostitutes are charged, not for what they do but for what they are considered to be: "Once a prostitute, always a prostitute" appears to be the rationale of the law.
Prostitution is fundamentally a social not a criminal problem, and a criminal conviction makes a prostitute's rehabilitation more difficult. Therefore, it is recommended that the section dealing with prostitution under the vagrancy section of the Criminal Code should be repealed. The report also states that if there is evidence that prostitutes are disturbing the peace as defined by the code, they should be charged under that section and not the vagrancy section. Any modification of the law should be followed up with facilities and programs designed to rehabilitate adult female prostitutes. The establishment of halfway homes and training for work which will enhance their dignity are methods of rehabilitation. Section 164 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code also adversely affects women. It provides as follows:
Everyone commits vagrancy who not having any apparent means of support is found wandering abroad or trespassing and does not, when required, justify his presence in the place where he is found.
This provision is directed to the homeless and transient male and female in need of shelter. Most charges of vagrancy are not contested, and once convicted these people have criminal records it makes their rehabilitation and reformation much more difficult. Therefore, they recommend that section 164 (1) (a) be repealed. This deals with vagrancy.
Another section in the report concerning the Criminal Code is that which differentiates sharply between male and female in many sexual offences. It is very discriminatory. In four sections of the code the presumption of "chaste character" of a girl-up to 21 years of age- forms one of the basic elements of the offence. The onus of proving that the girl was not previously chaste rests upon the accused. This does not mean that the girl has to be virgo Intacta but, rather, points to "those acts and disposition of mind which constitute an unmarried woman's virtue or morals".
It is unjust to define a crime on the basis of the moral character of the victim. A girl's reputation, her physical purity, her conduct in the past, her conduct on the occasion, do not determine, although they may influence, the matter. It encourages the accused to manufacture evidence and force her to defend her virtue. Whether she is chaste or not, she should be entitled to the protection of the law. Therefore, they recommend that the words "of previously chaste character" be deleted from all sections of the Criminal Code.
Age raises problems because the criminal responsibility of the offender often depends upon whether or not the victim was under age. For example, a child under 14 cannot give valid consent to sexual intercourse or indecent assault. Age is important in seduction cases. The law states that only men or boys can seduce women or girls,

March 9, 1971

and there is no offence if the boy is under 18 or the girl over 18. The law should clearly emphasize protection for everyone, particularly young people. Therefore, they recommend that the Criminal Code be amended to extend protection from sexual abuse to all young people, male and female, and protection to everyone from sexual exploitation either by false representation, use of force, threat or the abuse of authority. Section 23 (3) of the code states:
No married woman whose husband has been a party to an offence is an accessory after the fact to that offence by receiving, comforting or assisting in his presence and by his authority any other person who has been a party to that offence for the purpose of enabling her husband or that other person to escape.
This provision recognizes the special relationship created by marriage and rejects the idea that any married woman should be liable as an accessory after the fact if she helps her husband to escape. However, this section makes it an offence for a married man to help his spouse's accomplice to escape. Therefore, in support of equity before the law they recommend that subsection 3 of section 23 of the code be amended to apply to the husband and the wife.
Many women have received ill-treatment within the administration of criminal law. Pre-trial detention of offenders both male and female is closely related to the ability of the person to obtain bail. Lack of money should not determine the obtaining of bail, and pre-trial detention should not be required unless it is for the protection of the public. There is a serious shortage of adequate pre-trial facilities and remand homes to which the court can refer a woman awaiting trial. It is only right that credit should be given to the government with regard to the recent bail bill before the House. It will be returning very shortly at the report stage and for third reading. Some of the difficulties in respect of obtaining bail will then be eased: it will be easier for women and for men to obtain bail. We should also emphasize the point that there should be pre-trial facilities and remand homes to which the court can refer women awaiting trial. Therefore, they recommend that the provincial and territorial government either provide or contract with suitable voluntary associations to provide homes for women on remand.
One of the main approaches in respect of correctional treatment of women is lacking in our present system of correction. The correctional process should respect the dignity of every person. This involves the personal appearance of offenders and the provision of proper clothing and usual accessories. Policewomen should be used to search arrested women. There are very few female police officers now employed in Canada. Therefore, they recommend that the federal government, provinces, territories and municipalities whenever possible assign female instead of male police officers to deal with women taken into custody.
The nature of offences committed by women has a strong bearing on the kind of sentence they receive. Statistics indicate that judges take a more lenient attitude to women than men. The sentence should be directed at rehabilitating the offender. Dangerous offenders
Status of Women Study
should be segregated. The casual offender should be imprisoned only when other dispositions are not appropriate. Time should be allowed for the payment of fines. Probation services should be increased.
One can see the lack of a total correctional service which should be provided not only for men but for women. Therefore, the recommendation is that the provinces and territories ensure that when the administrative policy of their corrections program is being determined, the differences in the counselling and supervisory needs of women and men probationers should be considered, staff requirements should be based on these needs and case loads adjusted accordingly.
Women present few custodial problems in prison. Therefore, it should be possible to reduce security requirements in prison. For crimes without a direct victim-vagrancy, public intoxication, drug addiction, attempted suicide-imprisonment of the offender is inappropriate. These problems should be dealt with by health and welfare authorities. No conduct should be defined as criminal unless it represents a serious threat to society and cannot be dealt with by other social or legal means. Most crimes without a victim should not be considered crimes. Vagrants should not be considered criminals. Attempted suicide is a manifestation of emotional and mental disturbances and should be referred to mental health authorities. Alcoholics are not criminals but are people who need medical help. A similar approach should be used toward drug addiction. The next recommendation is:
Therefore, we recommend that the provinces and territories (a) develop a health and social welfare policy that would remove from the penal setting the handling of persons found apparently intoxicated and assign the responsibility for diagnosis and treatment to health and welfare administration; (b) ensure that there are treatment facilities for female alcoholics; and (c) in cooperation with health and welfare authorities establish treatment programs, where they do not now exist, for female alcoholics being now detained in a penal setting for criminal offences.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for permitting me to continue. I will make my remarks short. I have almost finished. I point out that the Penitentiaries Act makes no distinction between the treatment of male and female offenders. The word "refuge" to designate a correctional institution for girls, and "industrial school" for boys, indicates the use of outdated terms. Some provinces discriminate on the basis of sex in determining the minimum age for sentence. Some provinces determine the type of institution by a woman's religion. The commissioners indicate that these outdated words and procedures should be eliminated. Adequate treatment pro-

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
grams, Mr. Speaker, and services should be organized lor women offenders. Women should not be incarcerated in the maximum security prison at Kingston at a time when the trend of penal reform is toward small, open institutions. As a result, quite rightly, the commissioners recommend that the federal women's prison at Kingston be closed.
Speaking on the question of release and after-care, the commissioners indicate that parole services for Indians and Eskimos call for special attention and that these people require parole services to fit their general needs. The commissioners ask that these be recognized and implemented with regard to parole. On release, most offenders find it difficult to become reintegrated in the community. Halfway houses for people newly released on parole or discharged from correctional institutions, where they can stay until they have become adjusted to life outside, are extremely important. If we are to provide follow-up and after-care services for young women we shall need halfway houses in which they can be reintegrated in society and in which they can find friendship, employment and fulfilment.
Of all chapters in the report on the status of women, chapter 9, dealing with women and the criminal law, is perhaps the most important. I underline the necessity of the government's moving rapidly in bringing about changes in the criminal law so that women may obtain equality and fulfilment.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to participate in the debate on the status of women. I will take note of the fact that in the report significant mention was made of the subject of abortion. I will use the time at my disposal to discuss in the House the very difficult, emotional, brutal, tragic and complex question of abortion.
You will remember, Sir, that on Friday last Bill C-32 was debated in this House. That bill had one main purpose, to remove the subject of abortion from the Criminal Code and treat the question as one of individual choice to be made as the individual judges best, without reference to society in general, to the values that society exalts and to the powers to give life or determine death which that society champions and which society says belongs to society as a whole. That decision must be made by society. However, if abortion were completely removed from the Criminal Code, that power would be abandoned. Since my time is limited this evening I will go directly to my main points and state categorically that abortion is death. The decision to abort is a decision to terminate life. Allow me to explain why I think so.
As a free agent, I am free to cut off my own hand or to drop a giant cleaver on my leg. The limb, which was part of my body, which is flesh and blood, tissue and bone, was alive. But once severed from the larger body of the host, the tissue soon dies. It is not able to sustain itself once it is separated from the host body.
If abortion were simply the removal of a small bundle of tissue from somebody's body and were similar to the removal of the bundle of tissue that is my hand, which
would not sustain itself apart from the host body and which would therefore die, that would be one thing. That, if it were to happen, would be arrestingly tragic. Anyone who has worked in the healing arts must know this, as must anyone who has read Arthur Hailey's novel "Hospital". We feel a sense of awe when tissue is severed. We must ask, what do you do with an arm or a leg once it has been severed or cut free? Hopefully, we will never have a society with so little sensitivity for the physical presence of the human personality that we will ever treat casually portions of a human body.
A person might cut off a portion of his body from choice. Certainly we have thought that traditional wrist slashing in suicidal attempts, or wilful severing of a limb, was an offence that ought to be condemned by a society in which the value of people is beyond measure and in which the physical life of an individual is something that no one individual has the right to terminate. Now we are moving toward taking suicide out of the Criminal Code. I say that this would be a wise move. But it is precisely because society treats self-destruction as arising from a mental illness, as something done by an ill person who is no longer able to take responsibility for himself, that suicide attempts are being removed from the Criminal Code. That is not being done because society in any way takes lightly the mutilation of one's body or the death of oneself, but because the person is deemed to be deranged and incapable of sound judgment.
A fetus of 12 hours, three weeks or two months is, in one respect, like a limb or portion of a human body. It is human tissue which cannot survive apart from the host body. It is like the victim of polio who dies without his iron lung or the injured hockey player in a coma who exists so long as another person wills that he shall exist and who, unless someone fills the role of host every hour of every day, will simply die. The human embryo is more than a hand or a leg or an eye. When a sperm enters the egg and the chromosomes line up, the genetic characteristics of the third person, now growing, now developing, are determined. Those characteristics are different from the characteristics of either parent. The new combination of characteristics and physical traits are all established and are unique to the individual who is now in the embryonic stage.
This human embryo in its early stages is just like some people who line the wards of hospitals for the aged throughout our land. If you take away the tubes, the oxygen masks and the intravenous feedings-in short, if you remove all the supports to life that must be provided for the individual by others-the individual will die just as the embryo will die if separated from the host body, because neither the individual nor the embryo are capable of sustaining life on their own. Why do these old people die? They die for the identical reason that an aborted child dies: they cannot survive without being surrounded and supported by a human life other than their own.
There may well be a valid argument in favour of mercy killing-euthanasia, to use the fancy word-of one person deciding that it is better for another to die than to

March 9, 1971

live. Every doctor, in the case of critically ill patients, must at one point or another make a decision along these lines. But we have hitherto believed in our society that life is better than death and that so long as life can be sustained we ought to sustain it. Who among us can assume the role of God and decree from on high that this or that life ought now to end?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Murray Arndell McBride: If we want to appoint such temporary gods or committees of the "final solution", what should their terms of reference be? When should grandfathers or grandmothers lives' end, and how many years should that boy in the coma be kept around when neither can exist without another human being supporting and keeping them alive? Abortion is much the same.
The decision to be born is never made by any of us. No person has ever decided or had a share in the impregnation of his or her mother which resulted in one's own birth. Out of the union of two people a wholly other third person came into being. That third person was just like the boy in the coma, except he was not injured. He was just like the old man on intravenous and oxygen, only he is not aged or decrepit.
The only argument for euthanasia or ending the life of the month-old embryo is that it cannot make it in the big, bold world on its own. It, too, needs a host person. The mother, father or both, or society, want off the hook. They do not want the pregnancy to continue. It was not the child's choice to be created. That was the choice of the parents. Once the child is created, ought it also to be the choice of the parents to destroy the child? I think not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Murray Arndell McBride: Until society is willing to leave to the next of kin the decision as to whether those who cannot survive by themselves ought to live or die, we can scrape up mighty little logic for free abortion on demand that delivers an unborn child into the panicky and often murderous hands of its reluctant mother. Only a very primitive society of the most backward sort would need abortion in this day and age.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Murray Arndell McBride: To use abortion as a means of birth-control demonstrates a lack of concern for human life, the dimensions of which words are not adequate to describe. There are hundreds and perhaps thousands of abortions each year in our nation. Some are performed by competent doctors, most by amateurs. This is an intolerable situation. Those pregnancies need never have occurred if our homes and institutions in society were providing complete, thorough and adequate training, knowledge and materials for preventing conception, especially to the youth to prevent the tragedy of pregnancies among teenagers.
Status of Women Study
In the final analysis, the sexual life of an individual is one's own decision, a highly personal concern. If a female and a male person decide to have intimacies of any sort, that must obviously be their own decision. Except where individuals are mentally retarded or where rape occurs, an individual's action and the results therefrom are theirs and theirs alone; that is, a couple's actions concern no one else directly up to and until a pregnancy occurs. Then a very different situation arises. It becomes one where an innocent third party is directly involved. While a person may do what he wishes with his own life and body, hopefully short of destroying both, no such freedom can be given any person over the life and body of another individual.
All members of this House and all members of society who support any kind of permissive abortion legislation, certainly free abortion on demand, must do everything in their power to encourage the free availability of birth-control information and material. In this area we are surely a retarded nation. Only a nation in sad circumstances would be forced to consider abortion to make up for its lack of family planning. If we could do that, Mr. Speaker, it would seem wise that we make it a severe social stigma to hurl into the world a child for whom the parent has made no preparation and whose life the parent is not prepared to support with love, affection and respect.
I think I could make a very profound case for having to do a great deal about family planning and education in our culture so we do not fall into the pattern of some countries where abortion becomes a form of family planning and regular abortions are a habit. Rather, we must use some of the means available to us, and there are many. Perhaps the scientists need to work harder to make them better. We must do that.
I want to raise the question, what do we do now? Abortion tends to be considered in at least four differing circumstances. First, in the situation of a single, unmarried girl; second, the married woman who does not want or cannot have more children; third, rape or incest; fourth, where the child is known to be malformed. In every one of these situations there are instances where abortion may be the best alternative. Given the present sad circumstances of family planning, training and knowledge in Canada, abortion may be the best alternative-but it is never a happy or good alternative. It must always be done with extreme reluctance, just as any other form of capital punishment is meted out with reluctance.
Abortion is death. Once a pregnancy occurs that is unwanted, there are no good alternatives open. One has to weight the degree or amount of dying that will occur in the mother's life if the pregnancy is allowed to continue against the death of the child. One must decide where there is the lesser degree of death or where the lesser degree of dying will occur. It is a tough, brutal decision, one which anyone who has not worked with young, pregnant, teenage girls will find it difficult to fully comprehend.

March 9, 1971
Status of Women Study
There are no good alternatives. Abortion is not a good alternative. It may be the lesser of two very bad ones. It is simply a question of death on both sides. Will the child die, or will the degree of dying that will take place in the mother's life outweigh that of the child? This very brutal decision must be made. It is perhaps the toughest decision our culture affords in any set of circumstances anywhere, always an unhappy and often a deadly decision. But it is a decision with which no individual should be faced.
The very consideration of abortion is an admission of failure-failure in family planning. It represents a failure of society to make fully available to our citizens, both the youthful and the more mature, the knowledge, the will and the means of preventing conception; and it represents-more serious yet-a failure to establish in our culture a social tone and a public attitude of respect and reverence for life which would bring an intense social pressure to bear on all, both youthful and more mature, to take advantage of the knowledge and the means now available to us to prevent most unwanted pregnancies.
If all else should fail I, for one, would prefer that we introduce a substance into the diets of our citizens which would render them sterile-I might point out to the House that the word is "sterile", not "impotent"; these are two very different concepts and they should not be confused-so that an antidote would have to be taken before a pregnancy could be initiated. Then even the most illiterate, the poorest, the most victimized or the most mentally retarded would have no need for abortions. Failure to take such basic action is accepting, it seems to me, a far more repulsive and primitive alternative. It is accepting a continuation of what I would describe as a modern-day "slaughter of the innocents". All the removal of the abortion provision from the Criminal Code would do would be to make this slaughter of the innocents legal.
I would therefore use all the influence a member of this House may have to appeal to hon. members, to the government and to the nation in general to reject this barbaric destruction of unwanted children and accept in its place some humane measures which would clean up this literally bloody mess and bring our social sexual tone into line with this century and the greater emphasis on human values which we all, surely, seek to enlarge within it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to say a few words on the motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party. Such a motion corroborates the fact that women have rights and prerogatives that should be considered.
Mr. Speaker, a woman wants her rights, her prerogatives and her needs as well as those of her family to be satisfied. It is a proposal of that kind that we must
support, although we have to go a little further, as regards abortion.
I shall limit my remarks to the rights and prerogatives that are necessary to a woman to enable her, as well as her family, to live decently in a country that can provide all citizens with everything they need.
It concerns love and interest. Love and interest are the most powerful motives that drive men in their individual and social activities. Every individual lives by himself in his family and in society. Everywhere someone is doing something because he likes to do it, because it is profitable. Love stands on one side and interest on the other. Let us stop believing that they cannot go together.
It must be possible to reconcile love and interest. The government must assume responsibility in that respect. The 264 ministers and members elected by the Canadian citizens according to the Canada Elections Act, must see to it that justice prevails among the 21,000,600 Canadians in 1971, taking into account the production of goods and services.
Perhaps it is normal that, while wielding the ultimate power, the governments should, all things being equal, be inclined to favour their friends, their electors and the party members, to the prejudice of the love they owe to other citizens as part of Canada's population. Interest should not make us forget love.
Since we are talking about women, it is only fair to display a little love. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) feels any love for his relatives, his wife and the 21 million Canadians under his ultimate authority, in conjunction with the 23 ministers and other hon. members, he should cause all monetary, financial and political bodies to proceed to a fair distribution of goods and services between all Canadian citizens, according to their essential needs, before someone hoards too much of our tremendous production, after having spent what was necessary to live in plenty and even luxury.
This is what we want. We have to love and help each other-
We certainly do not want to be members of Parliament, or ministers, or to establish a new political party, or to set up a new government tonight. We just want this government to instill some social consciousness into the economical and political bodies of Canada. This is clear and simple and would permit all citizens to live. Women would be less demanding since most of them could stay home and take care of their children.
The economy should take into consideration the family, the individual. If there are revenues, expenditures and profits, each family and each institution should have its share. Buying power should be in proportion to population. Each individual has a right to live and therefore is entitled to buying power which enables him to live decently.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock, the debate is deemed to have been concluded in accordance with Standing Order 58 (11).

March 9, 1971


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on December 10, two days after the Prime Minister's speech in Saint John, New Brunswick, I asked him to indicate what plans he and his government had made to facilitate the movement of goods from the Maritimes into what he described as the "great consumer market of the United States seaboard". In his Saint John speech, not so lurid as some of his recent utterances but nevertheless an interesting one, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to, in his words, "an unprecedented opportunity to take advantage of shifting trade patterns". In the same connection he referred to an opportunity for a much improved economic future in the Maritimes.
Increased trade with the eastern United States is not a recent aspiration of the people of the Maritime provinces. In the days before confederation a good deal of our prosperity was based upon commerce between our region, the New England states and adjoining parts of that great republic. Much of our economic depression and recession developed from the dislocation of our trade with this region, resultant from confederation. This is an old story but one which still means a great deal to Maritime people. Thus, when the Prime Minister painted his glowing picture of new trade movements to the south, he doubtless struck a responsive chord in his audience and rekindled the interest of our people.
My question to him then, and I repeat it now, concerns the efforts of the government of Canada to make possible an improvement in trade between the Maritimes and the eastern United States. In the first place, consideration would have to be given to easing tariff restraints. This is a matter which has been discussed for some time. When my hon. friend from Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming) was Premier of New Brunswick he made constant allusions to the need for taking note of our special trade problems in the Atlantic region. But apart from the tariff we must look at transportation opportunities. We can certainly produce choice products of sea and soil. We have, as the Prime Minister mentioned, a skilled labour force; we have the traditions of competent production. But we must have the facilities to move our goods quickly from production areas to markets.
I therefore asked the Prime Minister, and I ask again, what his government will do to allow Maritime goods to move quickly from the Maritimes to the new markets which he so glowingly described last December. Will he reverse his repudiation of the government's promise to build the Northumberland Causeway so that Island farmers and fishermen may get their produce quickly south? Will he make a big new effort to give major assistance to the corridor road? Will he and his government give the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion necessary impetus and the necessary wherewithal to get the Fundy tidal power project under way? This important undertaking would work wonders for the economy of the region-and certainly no one needs to prove that there is a market for power: in the northeast United States indeed there is a crying need for it, and the capacity to fill this need is existing in the Fundy.
Again, in the realm of transportation I ask what is being done to upgrade the airports, to assist in shipping subsidies, to move quickly on the provision of boats which could carry produce quickly and easily from our ports to ports in the south. These, I believe, are the kind of practical things which the government of Canada should do to bring into reality the very enchanting vision which the Prime Minister presented to the people of Saint John last December.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was moved by the eloquent words of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) on behalf of the region of the country from which he comes. Before proceeding further I should like, on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to apologize for a reference by my colleague, as reported at page 2795 of Hansard for January 26, to the hon. member for Hillsborough not turning up for a debate which was scheduled. This was quite in error. There was a misunderstanding over the arrangement made that the debate would not take place at that time; the parliamentary secretary was not aware of that. While we may not agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough's politics, certainly he can never be faulted for being an eloquent and diligent member of the House, always in attendance not only when he is required but when he is not required. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs particularly asked me to express his apology at this time.
Regrettably, the only province or territory in this country that I have not visited is the province partially represented, though I think totally represented in heart, by the hon. member for Hillsborough. The question, as I understood it, was directed to the Northumberland Causeway, though he covered many more areas of particular interest in his discourse this evening. The question is a difficult one that has faced virtually every government since they "built" Prince Edward Island. I refer to putting something between it and the mainland. It has become a bit of a sad joke on the part of politicians, particularly at election time, to discuss the great prospect of such a causeway. This government, I submit, has never made any such promise. On the contrary, our promise was to look at things carefully and to see what is practical and economic.
I would not think for a moment that the hon. member for Hillsborough was suggesting that a project that all reasonable studies have considered uneconomic should be proceeded with. There might, of course, be some dispute

March 9, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion about the findings of such studies. Nevertheless, in the judgment of this government, even though a great deal of money has been spent on the causeway engineering studies and on some preliminary work the economics of the project did not stand up to the reality of the situation.
This, of course, does not detract from the need for the adequate transportation that is required to make certain that the markets of the northeastern United States are properly reopened for trade with the Atlantic provinces. It always seems rather sad that there was a great trade at one stage of our national development, which has dwindled. I do not quite understand how this could be better handled with tariffs which would have to be of a selective or even discriminatory nature, but I look forward to exploring that question further.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the parliamentary secretary that his time has expired.


RADIO-CANADA-ACTION RESPECTING ALLEGED SEPARATISTS AND TERRORISTS ON STAFF
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, on March 2 I inquired of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) concerning certain remarks he is reported to have made before a meeting of the federal wing of the Liberal Party in Quebec which were strongly critical of the separatist element within the French network of the CBC, Radio-Canada. The minister did not have an opportunity to reply in the House, but outside the House he did comment on the issues I had raised at that time. I did not have an opportunity to comment, so I must carry it further in Parliament at this time. Outside the House the minister, in a Canadian Press report, is quoted as having said that the separatist sympathies of many Radio-Canada employees represent a democratic freedom of which he is proud. By contrast we have the following report of the meeting to which I have referred, at which the minister spoke:
A group of angry Liberals charged last night that Radio-Canada, the French-language network of the CBC, is contributing more to unrest in Quebec than the terrorist FLQ.
The minister is reported as having said:
Perhaps we'll have to put the axe into Radio-Canada some day when we feel the country's very existence is threatened.
The article continues:
Mr. Chretien urged delegates to draft a resolution calling on the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to look into Radio-Canada operations.
The report states, further:
People who watch Radio-Canada are likely to know more about terrorism in Algeria and other places than about constructive happenings in their own country.
Then the minister is reported to have said:
In my 25 years in Ottawa I have been given only five minutes on the French-language network, to explain the wonderful things Canada is doing in the north for its native peoples.
Then we find this passage:

Mr. Chretien said he had been invited by Radio-Canada to "spend five minutes on TV to plug a hole between two halfhour separatist programs."
About 100 strong, the group accused Mr. Pelletier of shirking his duties by allowing Radio-Canada "to systematically destroy the country."
Those are indeed strong statements coming from a minister of the Crown. It was because of this I thought it should be read in the high court of Parliament. I think this should be dealt with in a specific fashion because it represents a dangerous schizophrenia on the part of the government which is running in two directions at once. It is the schizophrenic attitude toward subversion in the mass media which has partly resulted in the situation which made necessary the suspension of civil liberties during the crisis in Quebec last October.
Over the past two years protests have been heard before the Committee on Broadcasting from many Quebec Members of Parliament who have raised the same problem. We had the difficulty in respect of the Company of Young Canadians which had become infiltrated by violent terrorist elements which destroyed the usefulness of that creative idea until today it is just a shadow of what it might have become. We have the Canada Council giving a grant to Stanley Gray who spoke not only in violent terms but-this is the important point, because it is not a matter of freedom of speech- led demonstrations in the streets of Montreal.
To all those protests the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) replied that it was not his intention to curtail these terrorist and violent activities with reference to the CYC and Dr. Stanley Gray's activities. Those matters, incidentally, have since sorted themselves out. But the Secretary of State also replied to the charges made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I quote as follows:
Mr. Pelletier replied that direct government control of the CBC would be more dangerous than any separatist influence within the network and said the CRTC does adequate job of policing broadcasting.
That, I submit, is begging the question. Nobody wants direct government control of the CBC. What we do want is a consistent policy on the part of members on the treasury benches of this government that will prevent the schizophrenic tragedy which for a few weeks last October placed the existence of this nation in jeopardy.
The point I was trying to bring out in my question was that I trust that the resolution has gone forward to the CRTC which has assumed rather unusual powers of regulation and control on Canadian content, foreign influence and other marginal problems of that kind. Surely it can deal with the situation in such a way that the most powerful media of communication developed by man is used for positive purposes in helping to create national unity rather than for the destructive purposes of which it is capable, as has been demonstrated by the "Chicago Seven" and other terrorist elements in the United States.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the
March 9, 1971

remarks of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). I noted that in his question on March 2 he referred to the minister's reference to terrorists and separatists. I should like to correct that. I presume he now realizes that the information was inaccurate; that reference was made to separatists but never to terrorists. I do not think it has ever been denied that there are separatists-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I quoted the word "terrorists" from the article.


Barnett Jerome Danson: The article was incorrect. I am sure the hon. member realizes that newspaper reports are not always completely accurate, and certainly the minister is not necessarily called upon to defend remarks made outside the House. Nevertheless, I am assured that the reference to terrorists was inaccurate.
The question of separatists is different, of course. Being a separatist is not illegal in this country today, nor is it illegal to be a Tory-and some people think it is quite bad. Some people think that being a Liberal is bad, also. So we have this freedom of political choice. Some espouse the separatist doctrine, which is that of a legal party in our system. I think it is generally acknowledged that a certain percentage of people are of this persuasion.
The important thing is whether the people involved in the mass media are using their position unduly-which is suggested by the hon. member-or whether they are doing their job capably and not using it as personal propaganda media. Perhaps that is really the nub of the question. Certainly it is a matter of balance; and the balance we always seek is to maintain the freedom of dissent and not to abuse it. It is a very difficult and sensitive balance and we have to make certain that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Like the War Measures Act!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I need not apologize for the War Measures Act, and I do not think the people of Canada want an apology, because of the circumstances which brought it about.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A stitch in time saves nine.


Barnett Jerome Danson: A stitch in time may save nine, but I am not quite sure how it relates here. Nevertheless, I think the hon. member has pointed out a problem-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).


POLLUTION-CONTAMINATION OF WEST COAST OF VANCOUVER ISLAND BY OIL-RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLEANING UP BEACHES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the things I would like to say tonight would be much easier said if I had 40 minutes rather than seven. The question I want to deal with was first raised by myself on March 1 in these terms:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question on a matter of emergency which is causing widespread concern on the Pacific coast. Normally I would address it to the Minister of Transport but in his
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
absence perhaps I might direct it to the Prime Minister. I may say I was in touch with the office of the Minister of Transport on Friday after news of this event reached Ottawa. Can the Prime Minister report to the House on the nature and extent of the mass of heavy oil moving on to the shore of Vancouver Island's west coast in the vicinity of our new national park, and can he advise what steps are being taken by the Department of Transport or any other agency to effect a clean-up?
The Prime Minister said he would draw the matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport because he had no information on it. On the following day, when the Minister of Transport was in the House, I referred to the question I had asked the Prime Minister and indicated that in a communication from the minister's office I had been advised, in addition to certain other information, that the cleaning of beaches was not within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. This information was also transmitted to the MLA for Alberni who had wired the Minister of Transport from Victoria on the same subject. This led me to ask the Minister of Transport:
Under what jurisdiction was the clean-up at Chedabucto Bay undertaken?
Mr. Speaker, who was in the chair at that time, felt that was not a proper question for the oral question period and suggested I might raise it at ten o'clock, which I am doing. I would like to refer the House of Commons Debates of February 20, 1970, page 3893, where the Minister of Transport, dealing with the matter at Chedabucto Bay, is reported as having said:
On the question of what we are doing about it, I might advise the House that this morning I appointed Dr. P. D. McTaggart-Cowan to be the Department of Transport project manager with regard to the whole problem in the Chedabucto Bay area.
Elaborating on that statement on February 24, as recorded at page 4012 of Hansard, the minister said:
-I have asked Dr. McTaggart-Cowan and his associates to have the pollution cleaned up by the start of the major fishing season in the area about May 1st. They have undertaken to do so to the very best of their ability. In their effort they will have the full support of all government and many private Canadian and international agencies.
He went on to explain that Dr. McTaggart-Cowan was meeting that day with the Premier of Nova Scotia. I submit that by that statement the minister clearly indicated that the Department of Transport was accepting responsibility and recognized jurisdiction in respect of the situation at Chedabucto Bay. More recently, in the debate on the report stage of Bill C-2 the Minister of Transport on March 1, as recorded at page 3835 of Hansard, said:
It is perfectly clear that in terms of the sections with regard to pollution matters and the like, the expertise and the capability repose in the Department of Transport. It is also evident, I think, from events of the past year or so-
I might interject that this was an obvious reference to the situation at Chedabucto Bay.
-that we have quite the best capability that exists at the present time for dealing with pollution incidents of this kind. I would not want to argue that our capability is by any means 100 per cent ... there is a great deal more to be learned about this subject.

March 9, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Further on he said:
One or two other illustrations may help to reinforce my contention. For example, it is clear that the coastguard will have to play a major role in terms of carrying out these responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, in the immediate area of this onslaught of oil onto the glorious beaches of Vancouver Island there exist two installations of the Canadian Coastguard, in the form of a lifeboat station at Tofino and one farther down the coast at Bamfield. I submit that in light of action previously taken by the department, the minister's recent emphasis on facilities and expertise within his ministry and the role of the coastguard in the circumstances I have been describing, the minister must recognize responsibility in this area.
Some rather graphic pictures reached me in the mail today. I suggest that this kind of thing should not be left completely, as appears to have been the situation in this case, to high school children in the area. I give them full credit. These pictures show how hard they worked in cleaning up this heavy mass of gobs of oil from the beach.
This fact should be underlined by the recommendation contained in the report of the task force, volume I, at page 9, which states among other things:
We recommend that the Minister of Transport have the responsibility for dealing with pollution arising from oil spilled in water when the extent and nature of the spill makes it a federal responsibility.
This is what my question is all about. I wanted to know the nature and extent of this pollution, what coordinating role the government has been playing and the element of expertise the Department of Transport has brought to bear on this problem.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the subject matter raised by the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). I know of his keen interest in pollution problems, whether they be of a specific nature-as in the case of the small slick that came ashore near Tofino-or in a general way, and I recall his amendments to the recent government bill relating to the Canada Shipping Act. The hon. member has made his views known many times in this House and before the standing committee on transport. I hope I can clarify some of the questions tonight in the limited time that is available.
Only in recent years has the Canadian public become fully aware of the disastrous effect on the coastal environment when oil in considerable quantities comes ashore. The unfortunate Arrow accident has dramatized this fact. It also dramatized the tremendous expense in funds and manpower to effect a proper clean-up of properties and land. In the specific case of the oil traces which came ashore in the area known as Chesterman Beach, near Tofino, the amount involved was very small. The origin of the oil is unknown. It could have come from any number of ships using the Pacific waters or, indeed, even from a shore installation or other sources. The clean-up was undertaken by a group of school students who completed the job in a very short time.
As a straight matter of responsibility to act in such circumstances, there is no hard and fast rule. Canada has thousands of miles of coastline and it would be impossible, even if it were deemed desirable, to assume responsibility for every trace of oil that came ashore. As in the case at Tofino, where the incident cannot be said to be beyond the resources of local authorities or private interests, it is customary and it has been the practice for clean-up to be undertaken at the local level. In the case of Chedabucto Bay, which was referred to, the federal government assumed responsibility to deal with this incident, and it would no doubt do so again in a case of such catastrophic proportions.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25
p.m.

Wednesday, March 10, 1971