1975-05-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The importance and urgency of my motion should be obvious to all members of parliament. This issue relates to guidelines D-l on local government operations as directed by the Department of Indian Affairs to local band councils. Let me make it absolutely clear that native leaders across Canada have no argument with, and in fact welcome, the general principle of accountability of funds that is included in the said guidelines. However, inasmuch as phases included in the guidelines contravene the Indian Act and alter the role of the Chief-in-Council; removing them from their legitimate right to manage the affairs of their respective bands; and since there are statements in the regulation that threaten the power of the chief and his council and other statements that are ambiguous and lead to misinterpretation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development do not implement the guidelines on the scheduled date, but rather extend an ample period of grace wherein native people may make representation against the cruel and unusually harsh regulations that are about to be imposed upon them.
We urge the adoption of this motion in light of the fact that native people very much want to co-operate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is presented pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to move a
motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the renewed representations made to all members of the House, urging the House to examine the overall abortion laws and in view of the fact that this is a matter dealing with life itself, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
That the government be instructed to form forthwith a committee comprised of members of this House to thoroughly investigate this entire area affording such organizations as the Alliance for Life and others, in fact all segments of our society, the opportunity to express their views on a matter involving the very lives of thousands of unborn children.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As popular as the motion may seem to be, I have recently ruled in respect of a similar motion concerning the situation of old age pensioners in this country that the matter of their pensions is of continuing concern to this House. The suggestion that legislation be amended is not really a proper subject matter for a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. This motion touches on an extremely important matter. It has been and will be the subject of continuing representation concerning amendments to the law. However, it would be improper to put upon this matter, by virtue of renewed representations only, the element of urgency that would qualify it for a Standing Order 43 motion.


FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the conflict between the apparent authority afforded by Sections 4 and 22 of the Food and Drugs Act and statements by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) concerning what he feels is his authority, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That the minister make a statement to the House clarifying his authority under the Food and Drugs Act as pertaining to sections 4 and 22 of the said act.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43. As such, unanimous consent is required before it can be moved. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 29, 1975
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice arising out of his suggestion in the House the other day that the whole subject of the operation of the abortion law might be inquired into and some announcement made shortly, and his indication outside the House that an inquiry in depth into this issue would be conducted by the government. I should like to ask the minister about the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry. Is it intended to include in the terms of reference the grounds upon which a legal abortion may be carried out or is it his intention to confine the inquiry to questions related to the administration of the legislation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Obviously my answer in the House the other day indicated that a decision had not yet been taken and in these circumstances no announcement as to the details can possibly be made. Any statement which seemed to go beyond that outside the House represented, really, a rather distorted view on the part of the newsmen rather than anything I said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of what I know to be the minister's longstanding concern over various aspects of this legislation and my assumption that he has been giving this matter a good deal of thought for some time, is he in a position, now, to tell us in approximate terms when he can announce the decision of the government in regard to such an inquiry? Can we expect such an announcement within a week, or within a month, or is it to be made in the distant future?


Otto Emil Lang: It is always difficult to indicate when a decision will be taken because the process of making a decision can itself be a complicated one depending upon the nature of the issue under consideration. The Leader of the Opposition is correct, however, in assuming we are conscious of the importance of this issue and we shall be examining it with great thoroughness in order to find the right kind of solution, one which will develop approaches to or changes in the law and practice and which will meet the problem rather than simply appearing to meet it.


CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN FROM ABORTION STATISTICS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. On December 12, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, the minister said he was giving particular attention to a study of the reasons the abortion rate is highest by far in the three wealthiest provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. Can he now state his findings and do they confirm that these provinces are loosely interpreting a badly worded federal law, forcing us

to the conclusion that the law must specify that abortions will only be permitted in medically indisputable cases?


Otto Emil Lang: I think the conclusion to be drawn from the figures can be drawn by anyone. It seems to me fairly obvious that interpretations and applications do vary significantly from place to place. This, of course, is the very kind of question we must look at in examining the way in which the law is operating and how it can be made more effective in terms of the spirit intended by parliament in 1969.


SUGGESTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY BE EMPOWERED TO SUBPOENA RECORDS OF HOSPITAL COMMITTEES-MINISTER'S INSTRUCTIONS TO PROVINCIAL ATTORNEYS GENERAL
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: My supplementary arises from the fact that the largest petition ever brought into parliament was presented today, signed by one million Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and asking for much faster action than the Minister of Justice seems to imply will be forthcoming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: I should like to ask the minister, as he considers what kind of examination this question will be given and when, whether he would specifically consider the empowering of a committee to be set up to subpoena the records of hospital abortion committees to see whether cases are found in which abortions were permitted when the life or health of the mother was not in danger and, if so, whether charges will be laid and by whom?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the power to examine how hospital committees operate was in fact put into the Criminal Code and entrusted to the hands of the provincial ministers of health in the various provinces. I am impressed that many of the persons who appear to applaud the last question, and might applaud any other question if they thought it appropriate to do so on a given day, apparently have not been pressing their provincial colleagues to take some action in this regard.


Douglas Roche: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister, with reference to provincial actions, what instructions or advice he is giving the attorney general of Quebec in light of the reported ignoring of the abortion law by 103 doctors who have admitted performing or helping women to obtain illegal abortions?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this issue is very much a matter for the provincial attorneys general; and of all the provincial attorneys general, the one who seems least to need advice from me is the one for the province of Quebec.
May 29, 1975


HOUSING
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in charge of housing. In view of the fact that the capable regional director of Central Mortgage and Housing in Halifax has informed me in a letter dated May 15 that "housing conditions in Cape Breton industrial area are among the worst in Canada and in the province of Nova Scotia", would the minister use his authority to insist that designation of target areas in Nova Scotia under the federal-provincial agreement give top priority to the county of Cape Breton?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I accept the representation of the hon. member. I will be in Halifax on Wednesday and I will discuss this matter with my provincial colleagues and certainly give it the high priority that it deserves.


Andrew Hogan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister explain why Mr. Teron the president of CMHC said in Halifax yesterday that "there is only so much money to go around and housing will have to compete with other priorities?" Will the minister tell us if Mr. Teron was stating government policy on housing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, he was stating commonsense, as he always does.


Andrew Hogan: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My interpretation of commonsense is a little different. Would the minister inform the Minister of Finance before he introduces his June mini-budget that the present 1975 CMHC building program in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia is but a fulfilment of a project that was to have been started in, and was allotted for, the year 1972, three years ago?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the situation that the hon. member describes. I know our direct programs are moving extremely quickly but if there are some difficulties here I will be pleased to look into them.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Can he tell us what he intends to do about the threat of the president of the Union of Postal Workers, who is calling a general postal strike in support of the Montreal postal workers?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the press release that was just issued a few moments ago by the national executive of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers deserves a short answer which
Oral Questions
would be unparliamentary. To suggest that there are 400 policemen inside the Montreal post office is a pure fabrication of the worst possible type designed to inflame the members across Canada and bring on a wildcat strike. The matter has no foundation; it is malicious and it is unreasonable and, in so far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is unworthy of anybody who is the head of a trade union in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think history will prove that I am a better friend of the postal workers than their national executive, and I will not be intimidated by such statements into rescinding the suspensions and dismissals as a result of unlawful actions. I am glad they are now rediscovering the terms of their own collective agreement.


ALLEGED DELAYS IN GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, could the Postmaster General inform the House whether he is dealing with the complaints in view of the suggestion that the person in the province of Quebec who has the responsibility of hearing fourth level grievances has resigned and has not been replaced, which has resulted in preventing representative hearings of grievances?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is significant that finally, after two months, the union is now finding some fault with the grievance procedure which for two months they have refused to recognize as a lawful method of solving legitimate differences of opinion. The constant references to Quebec, French Canada and French, and the fact that the Postmaster General is English, by this union is nothing but a deliberate attempt to create the impression that in some way, shape or form the postal workers in the province of Quebec get less justice than the postal workers across Canada, which is in fact untrue and unworthy of that particular union.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have asked to see if there are delays in the processing of grievances. If there are, then this matter could have been brought to my attention two months ago when I invited the union to use this as the method of solving legitimate complaints. If there are delays, we will do everything in our power to expedite the grievance procedure, which at times does bog down not only for French-speaking Quebecers, but for English-speaking Quebecers and other Canadians as well. If that operation in the public service needs improving, then it should be improved. One of the handicaps I have to work with as the Postmaster General can be related to interference of other departments. Nonetheless, this grievance could have been brought to my attention two months ago had the union taken advantage of certain provisions in their own collective agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 29, 1975
Oral Questions


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the formal grievance procedure, is it possible, in order to meet reasonable or unreasonable demands, to foreshorten the four level procedure?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I made an offer to the union, that local, and to anybody who has been suspended indefinitely, or up to nine months, I believe, and in the case of dismissals, to accelerate this procedure, move immediately to the fourth level, and do everything in my power to see that justice is rendered. They have yet to take advantage of that. There has yet to be a single suspension or dismissal in Montreal arising out of our recent difference of opinion over casuals submitted to that procedure. I have said before, and I say again, I will do everything in my power to speed up the procedure in the case of the 38 people. It is unfortunate that the union leaders in Montreal, for their own selfish reasons, are denying justice in these 38 cases. Possibly in many instances the suspensions may have been modified; for example, a dismissal could be modified to a six months' suspension, or a six months suspension modified to a two months' suspension, depending on the findings of an independent arbitrator named by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and is in relation to the Garrison Diversion Project in North Dakota. This subject has been raised in the House and standing committees on countless occasions by myself and other hon. members requesting that the Canadian government call for a moratorium. All that is being done is that a joint U.S.-Canadian letter is being sent to the International Joint Commission asking for a study. I have new evidence which now fully confirms that Canada should ask President Ford for an immediate moratorium. In a letter from W. S. Moorehead, Chairman of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question would he put it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this letter recommends to Secretary of State Kissinger of the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question would he put it to the minister?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is in relation to the contents of this and other letters. Will the Acting Prime Minister now call upon President Ford for a moratorium on the Garrison Diversion project.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very grateful if the hon. member would let me see this correspondence. The Canadian government has been very active in defence of Canadian interests. The United States has made certain undertak-

ings and if he has evidence that they are not going to carry them out I would like to have it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will table the two letters, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary question. In a letter from the United States Commissioner on Reclamation to the Deputy Under Secretary of State he stated-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes. In this letter he said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As industrial research and development is extremely important in making our products competitive both in Canada and on the export market, and as Canada spends a considerably smaller proportion of its gross national product on industrial research and development than our five principal industrial competitors, I should like to ask the minister when he intends to bring our efforts in this regard at least up to the efforts of those against whom we must compete for sales in the world market and if possible surpass those efforts.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is a joint effort involving both the federal government and the private sector. The government, through incentive programs, through the National Research Council and through programs of my department is trying to do its part. We are also trying to encourage the private sector to do its part. In the last analysis increased research and development will only come about if they make the investment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has simply outlined the reason the program in which the government has engaged has been so unsuccessful, I should like to ask him when he intends to give some leadership in getting our research and development at least up to the level of those countries which are beating the pants off of us every day in respect of sales in Canada and the world market.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister indicate to the Minister of Finance his support for the suggestion just made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings which is similar to that which I made recently?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 29, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to convey those representations to the Minister of Finance.


POSSIBLE STUDIES OF WORKERS EXPOSED TO CANCER-CAUSING CONTAMINANTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the galloping increase in lung cancer and the jungle of confusion in certain grey areas which points out the very urgent need for a thoro-epidemiological study of Canadian uranium miners as well as other workers who are exposed to cancer-causing contaminants, I should like to ask the minister whether studies on this frightful problem are underway in his department.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have been following this issue very closely. We have been supporting over the years through medical research various research projects. This is an area of serious concern, but as the hon. member indicated, unfortunately at the present time there would still appear to be conflicting views among scientists with regard to the exact situation. I can only hope that further study and reserach in the future will clarify the situation.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if there are any statistical studies to date indicating more than one contaminant that might cause lung cancer, such as how many of those people were cigarette smokers and for how long.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall study the question and find out from the department whether we have made recent statistical studies which answer the question of the hon. member. I shall be happy to send him the information requested if my department has made those studies.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the minister promoted Richard Rohmer to the rank of brigadier general in the reserves and named him air reserve adviser, does the minister have plans to rectify his complaint made last night in Guelph, Ontario, that Ottawa has little interest in the military?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to look at
Oral Questions
what General Rohmer had to say because he is a very competent officer.


George Harris Hees: And he knows what he is talking about.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Rohmer claims that the U.S.A. is building a fleet of giant tankers to take oil from its reserves in Alaska through the Northwest Passage to the east coast without consulting Canada. If this is true, how does the minister plan to regulate the passage of these ships when Canada presently does not have any Arctic icebreakers?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we have complete surveillance of that area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-INQUIRY AS TO SAFEGUARDS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announcement made yesterday by the minister confirming the sale to South Korea of a CANDU reactor and the arrangement of a $300 million loan with EDC, will the minister advise the House whether any reassessment was made of the risks inherent in this sale of adding South Korea to the nuclear club in view of what many in South Korea now view as a new strategic situation following the withdrawal of the United States from South Viet Nam?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I explained, in announcing the signing of the Export Development Corporation loan, that it was conditional upon appropriate safeguards being worked out and signed bilaterally between Canada and the Republic of Korea.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Would the minister please advise the House first of all whether he will table the proposed bilateral agreement together with the terms of the loan interest, etc, and also would he advise whether that agreement contains any sanctions or penalties in the event of the default in the future to comply with Canadian safeguards, and if, in the event of an emergency, South Korea diverted plutonium from the CANDU reactor to manufacture nuclear explosives, what sanctions does Canada have to enforce that bilateral contract?


Alastair William Gillespie: I indicated in my first answer that this matter is under consideration at present. It is under negotiation at present and those negotiations are not yet completed.

May 29, 1975
Oral Questions


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF LOAN
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: I should like to address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that a $300 million loan is being provided to South Korea by the Export Development Corporation, will the minister tell the House, either orally or by tabling appropriate documents, what are the terms of this loan with regard to the interest on the loan and the payout period?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the press release indicated the terms of repayment and the part that Canadian private banking partners in the loan are playing as well as the part played by the U.K. banking group. In this sense, it is the first type of banking consortium arrangement worked out by the Export Development Corporation, a very important one, I think.
As to the question of the interest rate, that information will not be made public. That kind of information is always confidential.


Harvie Andre: In view of the subsidized interest rate-we do not know whether or not it is subsidized but there is reason to suspect that in fact it will be a subsidized interest rate that is not available to Canadian businessmen or indeed Canadian house buyers-and in view of the fact that a subsidy is tantamount to a reduction in price and to giving a lower than stated price on this reactor, will the minister at least tell the House what the real price of the reactor is?


Alastair William Gillespie: I want to reassure the hon. member that these loans are not subsidized. The Export Development Corporation has made money each year. Its rate of interest is negotiated at comparable rates to those that are internationally prevailing and in situations where Canadian sellers have to compete.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question the Minister of Justice.
Since the amendments to the Criminal Code have been applied with regard to the interpretation of what constitutes danger to the mother's health, the number of abortions in Canada has grown steadily, for various reasons, and the will of the legislator has not been respected: does he intend to reintroduce this act to Parliament and redefine the word "health" and thus encourage life in Canada instead of "slaughter"?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of appropriate action is the very subject which will be examined. Of course, the law is being applied, perhaps with some differences from province to

province, and the actual application of the criminal law is ordinarily the responsibility of the provincial attorney general. It is his responsibility to see that the law is made effective.


SOCIAL SECURITY
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Has his department made any studies on the lowering birth rate in Canada and considered any measures, fiscal or other, to at least encourage women who wish to bear children and thus accomplish a great goal?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, for numerous years the government has endorsed a policy favouring family formation. If one considers the record of the Liberal government over the past 20 years, I think the country has nothing to be ashamed of, much to the contrary.
To answer the hon. member's question in a more specific way, I shall remind him that it is the present government which in the past two years has tripled the amount of family allowances, and the same government which last year issued new instructions concerning cost-sharing by the federal government in day-care nurseries, which now makes it possible for us to share a greater part of nursery costs with the provinces than for any other social services. These are simply measures. But in the Unemployment Insurance Act, you also have measures that were taken to favour maternity leave thus enabling pregnant mothers to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Finally, today, in this House, we are going to debate an omnibus bill on the status of women that will make maternity leave even more readily available to Canadian women.


CRIMINAL CODE
André-Gilles Fortin: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the answer which has just been given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I would like to put again to the Minister of Justice whether he shares the view of his colleague instead of shifting to the provinces the responsibility for the administration of the Criminal Code as in 1968, so that the minister will assume his responsibility and introduce legislation in Parliament advocating respect for and protection of life rather than abortion.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that many observers can see that
May 29, 1975

the Criminal Code, as it was written in 1969, very definitely respects life and the life of the unborn child. If there is any doubt about it, that should be seen by the provisions that we left in the Criminal Code, the very significant penalties for interference with the unborn child, with the fetus. Those are significant indeed, and that is the general pattern and trend of the law, to protect the unborn child in that fashion. It is only by way of attempting to deal with some specific problems that medical committees were given the responsibility of determining when the health or life of the mother was in danger.
In the circumstances where it is otherwise an offence punishable by life imprisonment, that should obviously be a very serious question for medical committees and one which they should, if they wish to take on the responsibility, be able to put into effect. It will be our problem, if medical committees do not appear to be able to come to that kind of judgment, to have to review the law.


SUGGESTED INSTRUCTIONS BY MINISTER TO PROVINCIAL ATTORNEYS GENERAL TO ENSURE UNIFORMITY IN APPLICATION OF ABORTION PROVISION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. I agree with him that the implementation of the law, when it comes to charges under the code, is the responsibility of the attorneys general of the various provinces. In putting this question I would like to remind the minister that it was his government which changed the law and left it ambiguous. In light of the fact that the law is interpreted one way in the province of Quebec and another way in the other nine provinces, and in light of the fact that the minister has made some statements on the interpretation, would he now instruct the attorneys general of the various provinces to see that the law is carried out uniformly across the country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what the hon. member refers when he says the law is being interpreted differently in different provinces because so far as I know it is clear in all provinces that without a medical certificate from an abortion committee in a hospital it is a criminal offence, and a serious one, to perform an abortion or assist in the performance of an abortion, and that is clear law all across the country. The question of the application of section 251 has been a subject of discussion between me and provincial attorneys general. Under the constitution or under any powers I know of I cannot instruct the provincial attorneys general how they are to operate, but I did bring to their attention the varying statistics from province to province and the very forceful fact that it is their obligation under the law to enforce the law as it is written in this parliament and not to apply their personal or political interpretations to that law, and they ought to carry out the law accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
PROPOSED REFERENCE OF ABORTION PROVISION TO [DOT]	SUPREME COURT


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In reference to the interpretation of the law I could not agree more with the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But in light of the fact that he knows, and we all know, that it has not been interpreted properly in some provinces, will he now take my suggestion and have the matter referred to the Supreme Court of Canada so that the attorneys general will carry out what he has just said? What he has just said is merely words and not action.


Otto Emil Lang: I am happy that the hon. member has said a couple of times that he shares my view with regard to the law and its application. I say to him that I am in no way convinced that further elaboration in a general way of the meaning of the law would help, and that in fact there is not so much difficulty with the words concerning danger to the health and life of the mother. I suggest to him that in context those are words clearly involving only a very serious consideration regarding the life and health of the mother, and that any court would hold it so.
The problem is really not to interpret them that way but to see that medical committees recognize that it is their responsibility, only when they have formed a serious opinion in that regard, to give a certificate, and that it is the responsibility of provincial attorneys general to try to bring before the courts cases where medical committees are not operating in that fashion.


TYPE AND DURATION OF PROPOSED INQUIRY INTO ABORTION PROVISION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to follow the circumlocutions of the minister, but have had difficulty. If matters are as clear as he says they are, the responsibility is that of the provincial attorneys general and the section of the Criminal Code in question is so clear, then what did he have in mind when he stated the day before yesterday that it was the intention of the government to conduct a full and complete inquiry and, to quote the minister, "that we definitely are going to have a very fair and formal public examination of the whole question"? Is it going to be a Royal Commission? What is the purpose of setting up this commission if not simply to postpone taking a stand and to continue to answer questions with the indefiniteness he has shown here today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me as somewhat strange that I can be attacked in this fashion when most people consider that I have probably been abused more than anyone else by people-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 29, 1975
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Do you want a towel?


An hon. Member:: Poor Otto.


Otto Emil Lang: The right hon. gentleman must not have been here at the beginning of the question period when I said to the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, when he was quoting from that particular newspaper report to which the right hon. gentleman has also referred, that it was not a statement of my view, but that I stand by the words I used in this House with regard to what deserves to be investigated; what needs to be investigated is the way in which medical committees can and will be willing to perform their obligations throughout the country, and therefore, whether the law as written in 1969 can in fact be sustained, having regard to their willingness or the willingness indeed of provincial attorneys general in that it is a very serious question. That is straightforward. I hope the right hon. gentleman sees no circumlocution in that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, by the degree of applause I think it will be generally noted that the Liberal Party is opposed to this whole situation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You can't have it both ways, Otto.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of other hon. members who are anxious to use the remaining minutes for questions. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman might be permitted to finish his question.


John George Diefenbaker: I was interpreting the applause which was given by the Liberal Party and by the government. I was here from the beginning. I was here in 1969.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: If hon. members opposite think that this clack will keep me down, they are mistaken.
What is the nature of this investigation to be? Who will be involved? When will it start? How long will the inquiry sit, or is it just a simple means by the minister to get around to deciding the question, thereby postponing indefinitely the consideration of this great social problem?


Otto Emil Lang: I will say again that if the right hon. gentleman was here, he must not have been listening to the responses because I did indicate that. If he will refer to my answer yesterday, he will see that the decision of whether, and the nature of, the inquiry is not yet taken, so I am obviously unable to answer the questions which are the very ones I said would be announced in the House after that decision is taken.


An hon. Member:: When?


Otto Emil Lang: It is an important question. To my mind it will indeed deserve very careful consideration, and not the kind of politicizing of both sides of the question which we are apt to get from hon. members opposite right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE HERITAGE OF CANADA EFFICIENCY OF SOCIETY'S PROGRAM FOR SENIOR CITIZENS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I will address my question to his parliamentary secretary. Both through the medium of the question period and in a verbal report from consumer affairs in a tabled report of the Secretary of State dealing with the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada, the inference has been that the society's program for senior citizens was a costly and inefficient venture. Yet in the adjournment debate of May 26 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stated that it was financially efficient. Would the parliamentary secretary inform the House which statement is accurate, that of the minister or that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this question as notice.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Solicitor General, but in his absence I will ask the Minister of Justice who is, I believe, the Acting Solicitor General. In view of the fact that some of the alleged activities of the CIA in Canada may not, in a strict sense, be illegal although nonetheless pose a serious threat to Canadian sovereignty, and in view of the fact that the information the CIA passes on to similar Canadian agencies does not appear to include information on former agents of the CIA, as the Quang case makes clear, does the minister consider an investigation by the RCMP-in essence, an in-house inquiry-to be adequate? Will the minister outline the terms of reference of the investigation as presently constituted?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the Solicitor General's statement, as has the hon. member, that he will investigate any allegations in regard to the improper activities of the CIA in Canada. I would hope that he would conclude that an investigation by the police would be the appropriate starting point.


USE OF UNITED STATES EMBASSY BY FORCE IN CHECKING BACKGROUND OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It has recently come to my attention that one of the procedures used to check the reliability of Canadian citizens who have applied for employment with
May 29, 1975

the federal government and who have worked in the third world is to check their background with the American embassy in the country in which they were previously employed. Can the minister tell the House whether such a procedure is extensively used by the RCMP or other government agencies involved in checking the reliability of these Canadians?


Otto Emil Lang: I will see that the inquiry is made.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House of the names of the provincial ministers who requested the royal commission into the costing aspects of grain movement-which is really a royal commission into the Crowsnest Pass rates-in light of the declaration by all western ministers of transport that these statutory rates should not be changed in any way whatsoever?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I think they are the four transport ministers from the west.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister either did not hear my question or did not want to answer it so I will ask basically the same question again. In view of the fact that what I believe the government has called the Snavely Commission inquiring into the costing aspects of grain transportation in western Canada, which in reality is a royal commission looking into the Crowsnest Pass rates, can the minister inform the House which provincial ministers requested this, in view of the fact that the ministers stated publicly they did not want any change whatsoever in the statutory rates?


Jean Marchand: 
REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It refers to a question asked earlier this week by my colleague the hon. member for Malpeque with respect to the total suspension of funds at the end of June for the Rural Development Council. In view of the recommendations of the consultant's report a year and a half ago that a five year extension should be granted for the work of the
Oral Questions
RDC on the second phase of the plan, and the fact that the second phase is now before the minister and his colleagues, can the minister assure this House and the people of Prince Edward Island that there will be adequate provision for public participation in the second phase of the development plan?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of public participation, there undoubtedly will be. It is our intention to support and encourage the government of Prince Edward Island in this regard. As to the specific organization in question about which I was also questioned by the hon. member for Malpeque, I have checked it out and it is entirely within the responsibility of the province to decide whether it supports that particular organization or not.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that 75 per cent of the funds for the Rural Development Council have come from the federal government and the fact that all major questions have been determined by both parties consenting on the importance of various elements, has the federal government agreed to the suspension of the Rural Development Council and its activities?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I also answered that question but I will be glad to elaborate slightly. We did not agree, in the sense that we were not consulted. The action was taken by the province of Prince Edward Island which has a complete right. We only heard about it subsequent to the action having been taken.


REPLY OF MINISTER TO COMMUNICATIONS FROM RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: A supplementary question to the same minister. May I ask the minister if he would indicate the tenor of his reply to the communications from the Rural Development Council of Prince Edward Island on this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I replied in about the only possible way I could, given the situation I have outlined. I am indicating to all those who make representations to me that I am transmitting their concerns and interests to the government of Prince Edward Island which seems to me about the only route I can follow at the present time.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the answer given to question No. 2125 which revealed that the Department of the Environment has 163 economists at a total salary of $3.8 million per year and that $3.8 million is more than is paid all the economists in the Department of Finance, could the minister indicate why these econo-

May 29, 1975
Oral Questions
mists are required in her department at these salary levels?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that information could be obtained in another manner. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour of which I tried to give his office notice this morning but they never called me back. In view of the fact that the minister has arranged for a public relations promotion for Mr. Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers at the front door of the House of Commons next Tuesday, can the minister advise the House whether he has also invited Mr. Fitzsimmons, president of the Teamsters' Union who represents 85 per cent of farm workers in California?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Fitzsimmons writes and requests to be met I will be pleased to meet him.


CRIMINAL CODE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like clarification from the Minister of Justice on a very important point. When I asked him earlier whether the inquiry would include the grounds on which an abortion might be legally performed or would be confined to the administrative aspects of the law, he indicated that the question had not been decided. I should like him to reassure me of that in view of his apparent response to the right hon. member for Prince Albert indicating that it was the manner in which the abortion committees, doctors, had been observing it that required looking into. Is the minister and the government considering an inquiry into the grounds on which a legal abortion may be performed as well as the manner in which the law is being administered or not? I think it is important.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will confirm that the decision has not been taken. The further discussion about the kinds of questions that may arise is obviously a discussion of the sorts of issues that have to be looked at in determining the nature of any possible inquiry.


INTERPRETATION OF WORD &quot;HEALTH&quot; IN ABORTION PROVISIONS
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact the use of the word "health" in the Criminal Code is what seems to be the basis of the problem of interprets-

tion of what the intention was in this legislation, I wonder if the minister could indicate why he has consistently refused to draft some specific rule as to what the government interprets this to mean?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to give my opinion as to what I think it means and have received criticism for even venturing that far. I would remind the hon. member that further discussion on the subject of the definition did take place in this House at the time of the passing of the bill. I can refer hon. members back to that discussion where I think the spirit was clear that the words "health" and "life in danger", in the context of a law otherwise requiring serious punishments for interfering with the fetus and destroying it, was that it would clearly be only a very serious matter that would be involved. I personally have the view that an attempt simply to introduce some qualification like that would not accomplish the end that is sought in creating consistent administration around the country and therefore some further examination of the issue is needed. What I do not want to do is simply, as some hon. members would have it, appear to do something which in fact accomplishes nothing. I want to accomplish something.


Paul Yewchuk: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. Minister would agree to tell the House whether "health" means physical health or also emotional health?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Despite the minister's special capacity surely this is not the proper forum in which to discuss the hon. member's opinion on matters of that sort.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of this week and next week.


Mitchell William Sharp: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I designate Monday, June 2, and Thursday, June 5, as allotted days? Today the House will consider second reading of Bill C-16 on the status of women. I hope it will be possible to dispose of this legislation today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: At the second reading stage.


Mitchell William Sharp: The second reading stage, yes. In order to do this, perhaps the House might be disposed at some stage after the first round of speeches to limit the length of speeches in order that as many members as possible might participate. Tomorrow we will proceed with a number of report stages and third readings in this order: Bills C-37,
May 29, 1975

C-3, C-13, C-47, C-33 and C-50. On Tuesday and Wednesday we would like to complete anything that has not been completed in that list, and also add these items which might also be disposed of: Bill C-57, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, and Bill S-20, the Territorial Lands Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the event that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Labour can reconcile their differences so that the Minister of Finance can be delivered of a budget on June 23, will it be the intention of the government to proceed thereafter with the completion of the budget debate and any budget bills that might arise out of that? I know this is in the contemplation of the government, but it might be of some help if this information were available now.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be very definite about this, but certainly the government will want to complete the budget debate itself? I should warn the House that it is quite possible the government will wish to dispose of some of the bills which may result from the budget proposals.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It's going to be a cold summer anyway.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, can the government House leader tell us the present status of the proposed legislation to amend the Old Age Security Act? It has been a long time coming.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the bill was finally approved in cabinet today. It is my intention to place notice of the bill on the order paper over the weekend.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a fresh attempt to have the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) tell the House when the amendments to the present Unemployment Insurance Act promised in the last throne speech will be brought forward?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect that it will be brought in before the summer recess.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, may I ask the government House leader whether he has given any consideration to the striking of the joint committee dealing with the national capital. I understand there might be some expedition of the work of that committee, in the sense that it could deal with briefs over the summer period.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of other items on the order paper that are not legislative items. There is a motion in my name on the travelling of one of the committees. I have also given notice of the establishment of a committee on the National Capital Commission. I would like to have conversation on this motion through the usual channels. I hope we can expedite these items through the House. In particular, with regard to that committee when it is struck I believe it would be desirable that it hold one meeting before the summer recess so that various documents can be distributed and studied during the summer.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much.
Business of the House


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, can the government House leader indicate when the government will be bringing forward the legislation they have been promising with regard to regulation of the federal data banks? It was promised earlier this session. I wonder whether this legislation is going to be delayed until after the summer recess.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been considering this bill in cabinet. It has now been drafted and I am awaiting an opportunity to introduce it. There is no reason to delay its introduction; I expect it will be very soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. A couple of days ago I believe there was agreement to have appended to Hansard the full answer to some questions of mine regarding Canadian National pensions. If the Minister of Transport has that information today, I wonder if it could be appended to today's Hansard.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I am prepared to table the promised document.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister shall have leave to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And that it be made an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested, as well, that the document be appended to Hansard as if it had been read. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For document referred to above, see Appendix.]


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Poulin.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Special Joint Committee on Public Service Employer-Employee Relations, in both official languages-Mr. Blais.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
May 29, 1975
Criminal Code

Hon. E. F. Whelan (Miniter of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, under Section 41(2) of the Standing Orders a report on federal meat inspection.


CONCURRENCE IN SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING .-COMMITTEE
Mr. Walter Smith (Saint-Jean) moved: that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, presented to the House on Monday, May 26, 1975, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride, history and honour that I rise today to present a petition containing 1,027,425 signatures of Canadian citizens who plead that it is parliament's most basic duty to protect innocent human life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: Scientific evidence now puts in beyond reasonable doubt that a human life begins at conception, yet our laws permit the widespread practice of abortion in Canada. On this occasion, I also rise on behalf of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who is represented by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall), the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac), the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), who also represents the Territories, and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco).
Mr. Speaker, over one million Canadians call upon parliament to enact legislation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has adequately described the nature of the petition and the circumstances surrounding it. I think it ought to stop there.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on this particular day I would appreciate it very much if you would give the hon. member a chance to carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am sure we can get the
unanimous consent of the House to allow her to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member may know, we have made extensive arrangements for the acceptance of this important petition. The hon. member has described the petition and she has referred to the member from each province who was involved in the presentation of the petition. We have extended all these courtesies to make sure that the presentation of this important petition is as dramatic and emphatic as I am sure all hon. members wish it to be. It remains only for the petition to be presented. We are fully aware that it constitutes some 35 packing cases of signatures which I am sure the hon. member does not have with her at the moment. If there is anything else I can do to accommodate the hon. members who are interested, I am certainly prepared to do it.


Douglas Roche: I cannot add to what Your Honour has said about the nature of the petition. I would only plead that you allow the words of the petition, which constitute only about one more paragraph, to be read into record at this point so that thousands of Canadians who read Hansard can see them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises an interesting point. Other hon. members will be aware that it has been held in the past-I have cited one of these decisions in connection with a petition presented by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts)-that the reading of representations attached to petitions is not the proper way to bring petitions before the House; that it is to be done through hon. members, in debate, and through their efforts to persuade the cabinet that the law should be changed. However, in this situation, if there is unanimous consent that the balance of the petition be read, I am prepared to be guided by hon. members. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ursula Appolloni: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over one million Canadians call upon parliament to enact legislation providing for the child conceived but not yet born the same protection as is provided for any other person, and also urge parliament to show leadership in fostering a life-sustaining society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member presenting the petition on behalf of the signatories from New Brunswick and future generations of that province was the member for N orthumberland-Miramichi.
May 29, 1975


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,581, 1,825, 2,326, 2,372 and 2,385.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. [Text]


Mr. Jones: 1.	What specific preferences are given to immigrants from Frenchspeaking countries?
2.	How many immigrants have been admitted (a) from Frenchspeaking countries (b) from other countries for each year 1972, 1973 and 1974?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. None. Each applicant for permanent residence to Canada is assessed in accordance with the applicable section of the admissable classes contained in the Immigration Regulations.
2. The following table lists the ten countries of last permanent residence from which the greatest number of immigrants arrived who had a capacity in the French language during the years 1972, 1973 and 1974.
Immigrants with a language
Country of last	Capacity	TotalPermanent Residence	In French	Immigrants
Year
France	2,420	2,742U.S.A.	1,271	22,618Haiti	844	936Switzerland	428	778Belgium	351	447Egypt.	267	006Lebanon	253	990England	247	12,520Morocco	220	236Italy	193	4,608Others	2,160	75,519Total	8,600	122,000
Year
1973	France
Haiti U.S.A. Switzerland Morocco Egypt Lebanon England Belgium
The Netherlands Others
12,989	184,200.
3,115	3,586
2,116	2,178
1,081	25,242
514	953
460	499
410	905
386	1,325
378	19,979
399	589
301	1,898
3,289	127,040
Order Paper Questions
Country of last	Immigrants with a language Capacity	TotalPermanent Residence	In French	Immigrant;Year	1974	Haiti	4,827	4,857France	3,859	4,232U.S.A.	1,739	26,541Switzerland	737	1,336Morocco	736	786Zaire	609	1,273Belgium	439	613England	421	28,828Lebanon	329	1,762Egypt	317	928Others	3,601	147,309Total	17,614	218,465


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	In the years 1973 and 1974, how many applicants for positions as stewards and stewardesses, whose stated home address was (a) Manitoba (b) Saskatchewan (c) Alberta (d) British Columbia (e) Yukon (f) Northwest Territories were (i) interviewed (ii) hired by Air Canada?
2.	In each of the years 1973 and 1974, by province and territory, how many of those hired as stewards and stewardesses stated their mother tongue was (a) English (b) French (c) other and in each case how many were (i) proficient in both official languages (ii) entered in either English or French language training programmes?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: The data provided below pertain to the number of new flight attendants who actually entered Air Canada service during the years 1973 and 1974. The figures cannot, however, be related to the number of people interviewed during the same period, as someone interviewed during one year is often called for employment in a subsequent year, according to employment demands. Also, those who are interviewed possess only basic requirements. Following the first interview, a second interview is given to those identified as being most competitive. At the time of recall for this second interview, in the past two years, the airline has experienced a "no show" factor of between 14 and 38 per cent in the western Canadian provinces alone. At this second stage, the most qualified persons are selected and sent for a medical examination. If successful, they then wait for placement in a training course as openings occur. Competition among applicants steadily increases every year and while in 1973 there was one successful person out of every 13 applicants, in 1974 the ratio was one out of every 21. As well, the airline's requirement for new cabin personnel has decreased since 1973 and this has also tended to make competition more intense. 1. (a) 1973 (i) 197, (ii) 24; 1974 (i) 303, (ii) 37; (b) 1973 (i) 72, (ii) 4; 1974 (i) 159, (ii) 7; (c) 1973 (i) 265, (ii) 22; 1974 (i) 249, (ii) 10; (d) 1973 (i) 838, (ii) 66; 1974 (i) 869, (ii) 17; (e) (i) (ii) 0;
(f) (i) (ii) 0.
2. Manitoba, (a) 1973, 21; 1974, 33; (b) 1973, 3; 1974, 7; Saskatchewan (a) 1973, 4; 1974, 5; (b) 1973, 0; 1974, 2; Alberta (a) 1973, 38; 1974, 14; (b) 1973, 3; 1974, 3; British
Total

May 29, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Columbia (a) 1973, 65; 1974, 21; (b) 1973, 15; 1974, 2; Yukon and Northwest Territory (a) 0; (b) 0. (c) Recruiting for flight attendants was done exclusively within Canada during 1973 and 1974 and only English and French mother tongues were recorded, (c) (i) In 1973, 58.5 per cent; In 1974, 51.1 per cent; (c) (ii) 53.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For what period of time does the Immigration Division of the Department of Manpower and Immigration retain language information for new immigrants?
2.	Is such information retained on file (a) after the new immigrant finds employment (b) if the new immigrant changes his or her province of residence?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Information on the language capability of immigrants is recorded from information contained on their landing records and forms a part of the permanent statistical inventory maintained by the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
2. This information is a measure of the immigrant's language capability assessed at the time of application or interview and is not altered or updated at any time.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,039 to the effect that a memorandum from the office of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, dated January 30, 1973, addressed to Mr. D. C. Trehearne, then Director of Programmes for the Local Initiatives Programme, did not "in effect order approval of LIP projects in a number of named constituencies...", what then exactly did this memo do and what was the exact purpose and meaning of the following statement appearing at the top of the list of LIP projects in various constituencies: "It is requested by the Minister's office that the attached list of LIP applications be approved"?


Robert Knight Andras: See answer to question 1,039, part 1, April 22, 1975.	*


Mr. Schellenberger: Will the Minister reconsider the five year requirement that restricts the obtaining of a $500 grant, in most cases, for mobile home owners who do not stay in any location for five years and can only obtain a two year lease from most mobile home parks?


Barnett Jerome Danson: It is not intended to reduce the period from five years to two years, for mobile home owners wishing to obtain the $500 grant.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-25, an act to

amend the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-16, to amend certain statutes to provide equality of status thereunder for male and female persons, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is most appropriate in this International Women's Year that we should concern ourselves with legislative action to remove a number of prejudicial or discriminatory provisions from federal statutes. While today I will be presenting an omnibus bill containing amendments to several acts, I would also like at this time to place in context the movement toward women's equal status in Canada.
The status of women is certainly not a new issue in our country. Back in the early 1900s dedicated Canadian women like Nellie McClung fought to give women the vote. In 1913 the premier of Manitoba advised Nellie McClung that he "didn't want a hyena in petticoats talking politics" to him. Nonetheless, by 1916 the women of Manitoba had won the right to vote provincially. The other provinces, with the exception of Quebec, granted the vote to women shortly thereafter.
It was not until 1929, however, that women won the right to appointment to the Senate. It was in that year that the Privy Council in London declared women to be indeed "persons" for purposes of Senate appointment. Today there are nine elected women members in the House of Commons-and I am pleased to note that eight of them sit on this side of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: -and seven women senators. While this representation is high in comparison with the representation a decade ago, it is curious to consider how proportionately small this representation is, for women constitute 51 per cent of our population.
The battle to gain the vote and the right to Senate appointment was in many ways comparable to the work being done in the present decade to bring women equality. However, it is necessary to change not only legislation but attitudes. Women's rights can be recognized in law, but laws are empty unless society accepts and supports those rights. Here in Canada during International Women's Year a major effort is being made to challenge some of the old and timeworn attitudes toward women. It is the year in which we are making every effort to inform all Canadi-
May 29, 1975

ans of the present status of women in this country. It is also a time for every person to consider his or her own attitudes. It is evident that legislative change alone would be a hollow victory for women, for if laws change and attitudes do not, women's position in our society will remain unchanged.
The discrepancy between law and practice is illustrated by the wage gap between women and men which continues to exist despite the fact that in all provinces but one, discrimination in employment is now prohibited by law. Back in 1962, a man working a full year in Canada was earning an average of $5,014, and a woman working a full year was earning $2,634. What progress has been made? Well, in 1971 the average woman's salary for a full year's work was $4,755; for a man the figure was $8,513. In 1971, women were still earning 44 per cent less than men. Recent data on salaries indicate this disproportionate gap is not narrowing.
In this connection, it is interesting to note that figures for Sweden indicate that in 1965 women were earning 75 per cent as much as men, and that by 1970 this had risen to 80 per cent. There may be several factors involved, particularly the fact that in Sweden, for instance, well over 50 per cent of women are in the labour force and many more are found in the higher paying professions than they are in Canada. But the facts still are there for everybody to see. Women have not yet achieved equality in Canada, and it is for this reason that International Women's Year can and must provide the impetus for change.
In 1967, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women began its hearings across the country, providing a forum for public opinion and an opportunity fully to investigate women's status. When the commission's report was tabled in the House in 1970, it included 123 recommendations which fell within federal jurisdiction. I am happy to report that a large proportion of these recommendations has either been implemented or is in the process of implementation. However, there are still some areas where the changing role of women has not been recognized. It was for this reason that my predecessor, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), introduced the omnibus bill on the status of women approximately one year ago. The election prevented the passage of the bill and it is for this reason that we are dealing with it today on second reading.
Before proceeding to a detailed examination of this bill, I should like to set it in the context of the government's program for International Women's Year, since, once again, legislative change is only one facet of the government's initiatives in this area. As I have mentioned, it is apparent that one of the major needs of this country is to inform Canadians on the status of women. The media campaign launched for International Women's Year Secretariat in January of this year was designed to that end.
While "Why Not!" may have been criticized by some, it generated a great deal of interest and support both in Canada and abroad. In fact, today more than 75,000 individual requests for information, posters and buttons have been received. This figure does not include the many
Status of Women
hundreds of bulk orders handled by my office. About 150,000 buttons have been distributed. Lately, I have been wearing with great pride the one that I am wearing today. It is hand-made by Indian women in British Columbia. These women are very active with regard to women's rights, and the revenue from the sale of these buttons helps them in fighting for equality. In fact, we have started a small cottage industry at the same time as a public education campaign.
A second major part of the national program for 1975 is now launched in all the provinces and the territories. Each province and territory chose from a number of options the program which it was felt will best meet the needs of the people in that area. Eight provinces have decided to have mobile information centres. These will be travelling throughout each of the provinces and the Yukon during the summer months, distributing information on federal and provincial programs of interest to women as well as information on services and laws relating to women. Some of the provinces opted for conferences either on a provincewide or a regional basis. These would provide a forum for discussion of different issues concerning women and also a basis for determining future action.
The main thrust of the government's program is designed to bring the changing role of women clearly before all Canadians, for the equality of men and women will only come about when each person in this country sheds those attitudes that encourage inequality in fact if not in law.
To this end, amendments have already been made to the pension plan to provide equal treatment of men and women under the Canada Pension Plan and those changes became law on January 1. My colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), has also brought before this House amendments to the Citizenship Act to ensure equal treatment under the act regardless of sex. Another measure related to equality before the law which the government announced in the Speech from the Throne is the human rights legislation. All these bills involve legislation eliminating those instances of bias in favour of women as well as those favouring men.

Furthermore, this bill is another step towards the achievement of the government's objective, that is the implementation of most of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, which had already advised the government to enact some of the changes provided by the bill. As to the other changes which are put forward, they have been incorporated in the bill following the very useful and constructive recommendations made by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, many agencies and individuals.
Before coming to the details of the changes provided under Bill C-16, I would like to mention that it is my predecessor as minister responsible for the status of women, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), who took upon himself the responsibility of drafting the bill presented to the House today on second reading, and that he advised the government to prepare this omnibus legislation. I would be remiss if I did not emphasize the support we, my predecessor and myself, have received from our

May 29, 1975
Status of Women
colleagues responsible for the implementation of the various laws modified by this bill.
Bill C-16 modifies the following acts: the Canada Elections Act, the Criminal Code; the Immigration Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the National Defence Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Furthermore, the last elections showed us the appropriateness of the government's decision to introduce amendments to the Canada Elections Act within this omnibus legislation. Even if the Royal Commission on the Status of Women had not taken into account the problems raised by the implementation of this act, the government has received many representations from citizens interested in this question, and has decided to amend it and shape it according to the idea of the condition of women in our society today. For example, some women have pointed out to us that the Canadian woman still appears on the electoral list according to her marital status, even if women have enjoyed the right to vote for half a century. Unfortunately, those changes could not be implemented before the last election.
Under Bill C-16, voter registration rules are the same for both men and women. The enumerators would therefore register the name, address, occupation and sex only of each voter. This would automatically eliminate the need for mentioning the marital status of women, by prefixing their names with the abbreviation Mrs. or Miss, as is now done.
The voter, whether male or female, will be registered under the given name and surname by which he is known and the polling division, without the need to prefix them with an abbreviation. Therefore, a married woman known locally by her maiden name shall be registered under that name. The special rules now applying to women, whether married, divorced, single or widows, would be repealed, thereby eliminating a source of problems sometimes stemming from a false interpretation of the act.
Where the name of a husband or wife is entered below the name of his or her spouse, no occupation is required to be placed after the name of the second spouse if the latter does not request so. The changes also include, concerning residential quarters of husbands of wives filling a temporary job, a provision similar to that concerning wives of temporary workers. Secondly, the omnibus bill amends the Criminal Code. For example, section 23(3), under which it is now presumed that the wife was forced by her husband to assist a party to an offense, is now repealed.
The Royal Commission on the Status of Women included a recommendation to the government that the section be amended, so it would apply equally to both spouses. Participants to the conference of commissioners on standardizing Canadian law, held in 1971, were submitted that recommendation. The royal commission recommended the elimination of that section in order that wives be on an equal footing with husbands, because the presumption of constraint on which it was based was no longer acceptable.
The Royal Commission had pointed out that section 18 of the Criminal Code also states that there cannot be any presumption that a married woman who commits an offence does so under compulsion by reason only that she

commits it in the presence of her husband. It follows that the wife must prove that she acted under the compulsion of her husband, as she would do if she pleaded compulsion in any other case under criminal law. However, subsection 2 of section 23 of the Code recognizes the special relationship between spouses since it rejects the idea of accessory after the fact in the case of a married person assisting the spouse for the purpose of enabling the spouse to escape.
On the other hand, the amendments to section 197 of the Criminal Code underline the wish of women to have equal responsibilities and equal rights. As you know, people related by marriage, adoption or blood have in general maintenance responsibilities. Indeed, the law forces some members of the family, spouses parents, children, to contribute financially to the support of other members who cannot support themselves.
Thus, parents whose children cannot support themselves because of their age or physical incapacity must provide for them. In the same way, children of old and destitute people must provide for their essential needs. People who think that most women are still unable to take on this responsibility will recall that the pension is generally established on the basis of need and financial means.
Therefore, the law does not aim at taking action against the spouse whose resources are limited if he or she does not support his or her unemployed spouse. For practical purposes, cases of refusal to support a spouse are most often submitted to the civil courts.
At the present time, all Canadian parents are held responsible under the Criminal Code for the support of their children and all husbands are held responsible for the support of their wives.
Such a provision enshrines or perpetuates the belief that all wives are dependent upon their husbands, and ignores the contribution, direct or indirect, they make to the economy. While many Canadian women are actually financially dependent, an increasing number are self-sustaining and the existing legislation does not reflect this situation. The Divorce Act, however, provides for mandatory reciprocal maintenance after marriage has been dissolved.
Under provincial laws, spouses must provide for the needs of each other during marriage. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women has noticed that the project on the family law put forward by the Ontario Law Reform Commission recommends that the obligation to support the spouse during marriage be made reciprocal.
The proposal to extend to the wives as well as to the husbands the obligation to support her or his spouse is consistent with one of the basic principles stated by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and it reads as follows:
... there should be equality of opportunity to share the responsibilities to society as well as its privileges and prerogatives.
The Royal Commission on the Status of Women has already recommended that either spouse be responsible for the financial support of the other and of their children. The amendment which is introduced today will make the act consistent with the principle of association in marriage. It also reflects the concern of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and of most people who share the
May 29, 1975

view that the rights of the married woman must be the same as those provided for in any economic and social partnership involving mutual responsibilities. The Immigration Act, the third act being amended by the omnibus bill, does not actually provide for any distinction between men and women.
However, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women called the attention of the government to the fact that the wife's right to enter Canada as an independent immigrant can be limited by the use in the act of the term "head of family" which traditionally describes the husband. Indeed, at present, it is implicitly provided in the act that a wife may ask to be admitted in Canada on an independent basis, since "head of family" means, and I quote:
that spouse who is financially responsible for providing for the needs of the family on a permanent basis.
In order to implement the recommendation of the commission and, more recently, that of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the government took advantage of the drafting of the omnibus bill to amend the terms of that act and thus clarify its meaning while avoiding any reference to the sex of claimants.
The Royal Commission on the Status of Women had also noted, but, without making any recommendation in that regard, that family dependents can be included in the deportation order issued against a head of family. Bill C-16 prohibits this practice from now on when the dependents are Canadian citizens, have been lawfully admitted to Canada and have attained the full age of 18 years, or have acquired Canadian domicile.
The fourth act amended by this bill-The Public Service Employment Act-now provides that the Public Service Commission, in prescribing selection standards, cannot discriminate against any person by reason of sex, race, national origin, color or religion. Since that provision dates back to 1967, that is before the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada was set up, the commission did not make any recommendation in that regard. However, other people found that, even when discrimination by reason of sex is prohibited, discrimination by reason of age and family situation can take place against men, but especially women. That is why the omnibus bill adds those elements to the list of forbidden grounds for discrimination in setting out the implementation of those selection standards.
Age is also removed from the list of selection standards which can be prescribed to determine the basis of assessment of merit in relation to any position or class of positions. Furthermore, through amendments to the Pension Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, which deal with the disability pensions paid to members of the Canadian armed forces, Bill C-16 provides for an equal status for men and women.
Although neither the royal commission nor the advisory council have really concerned themselves with those amendments, the government has included them in the legislation so as to put men and women on an equal footing under those acts. From now on, the husband and children of women who receive disability pensions will be
Status of Women
entitled to the same benefits as those paid to the dependents of a male member of the Canadian forces. At the same time, pensions will be paid both to widowers and widows in order to ensure full equality.
Another amendment flowing from the above contains the rules for the payment of pensions to spouses who are both members of the Armed Forces. Further, the children of both sexes will receive pensions until they are 17 years old, while at the present time, these pensions are not paid beyond age 16. On the other hand, children attending school will be entitled to a pension until age 25, and not until age 21, as it is the case now.
The National Defence Act, although the Commission did not dwell on it, is another act being hereby amended. As a matter of fact, every summer, there is a section of the Act which prevents young girls from joining cadet organizations, and they have complained to the government. Therefore, the legislative text, using the word "boys" instead of the word "persons" would allow girls to become members of the cadets corps. There is no longer any reason to exclude them from this organization.
The last Act being amended by Bill C-16 is the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971. Indeed, according to the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Status of Women, if Canada wants to respect the agreement made to avoid discrimination against women who bear children, those of them who have chosen to work must not risk losing their jobs, income, security or promotion opportunities when they give birth to a child. In 1971, pursuant to the Commission's recommendation, the government had amended the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide benefits to be paid during 15 weeks at the time of maternity leave. Three years after the implementation of the legislation, however, it appeared necessary to grant greater freedom in the distribution of the 15 weeks of maternity leave. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women, as well as other groups, advocated that measure.
In fact, because it is difficult to know in advance the exact week of the termination of pregnancy, women are denied part of the benefits to which they are entitled under the plan; administrative problems also arise. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to relax the provisions on the opening of the 15-week period during which maternity benefits are paid, depending on the week in which her confinement occurs and within the initial benefit period for the recipient, which will permit women who prefer it this way, either for health or any other reason, to reserve most of their maternity leave for after the child is born. These amendments will apply effective six months after Bill C-16 receives royal assent. I should like to remind hon. members that this legislation will provide women who chose to contribute to the welfare of their families and society, while assuming their function as mothers, with benefits similar to those previously granted to veterans and which permitted them to take up a career following their return from military service.

These amendments will serve to bring equality one step closer. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, we must be concerned that such legislation does not become merely a palliative to the problems surrounding women's status-legislation must be considered in the broader context of providing

May 29, 1975
Status of Women
part of a viable base for true equality within our society. Earlier I mentioned the International Women's Year media campaign on the status of women. Sometimes I think it is possible for us to lose touch with the very real concerns of women in Canada, and yet one of the most gratifying results of this media campaign was the hundreds of letters received from women and men across the country. I would like to just quickly read from several of them. One of them was addressed to "The People of this Organization". It read:
I really agree with you. Women are people too and are to be recognized among their community and country as basketball players, politicians, lawyers, doctors, store managers, construction workers and matadors. Not only as secretaries, playboy bunnies, typists and sex objects.
I am only 12 years old but I am not dumb and I realize the work and responsibility nearly every woman has.
From British Columbia we received a long letter from a woman in her mid-fifties, who ended with this story:
My husband being between jobs, I took work as housekeeper-nurse to an old, aristocratic man. During the interview he was shocked to hear that besides feeding the three of us, he was expected to pay me the fee of $100 per month. "I never paid my wife", he said. "I used to take her to tea once a month. Which I am willing to do with you." This man was the epitome of male supremacy. He thought all females should deem it an honour to wait on him hand and foot. Hooray for Why Not! Too late for me. But I have daughters.
Another, again from a young girl:
Please tell me why a girl can't go into training to become a bank manager. I've approached two different banks in Lethbridge, Alberta. They laugh at me for even thinking of such a ridiculous career for girls. Why can't we be managers as well as men? Isn't this discrimination?
These letters are samples of hundreds received. It is only fair to add that not all have been positive, but the vast majority have been warm and positive.
Women's equality is not an esoteric issue. The prejudice that continues to exist has very real consequences for women in this country. While individual choice is considered a basic democratic freedom, it is evident that "choices" are still often arbitrarily limited for women. It must be the personal commitment of each woman and man in our society to work for the creation of equal choices, equal rights, equal opportunities and equal responsibilities. Ingrained prejudice and fear will only disappear when all people in our society are convinced that anything less than equality is an affront to human dignity.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, along with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) I had expected at one point this week to be on my feet in this House speaking on the budget debate, but the Minister of Finance has seen fit to defer that particular pleasure for me. My keen disappointment in respect of the delay of the budget is somewhat tempered by the fact that today we are dealing with' this omnibus bill concerning equality of status for men and women. This bill has been around for over seven months in this new parliament. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to it and to respond to the minister this afternoon. I regret that the powers that be have seen fit to schedule some five House committees to meet while the debate on this important subject is going on. I think that further thought might be given to that sort of thing in the future.

Both my male colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), and my female colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), have special responsibilities and interests in this bill and its subject matter and it is only because of their necessary absence from the House on other business which took them out of the city that I am afforded the opportunity this afternoon of replying to the minister. In some respects, I cannot help but feel a little bit like Edward Heath might feel doing Margaret Thatcher's laundry. I am sure he would feel he could not do it nearly as well. But that, after all, is an essential feeling to be experienced on the road toward equality of the sexes and I approach this job this afternoon with both pride and relish.

It is but rarely I have the opportunity to take part in a debate with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). We do meet casually from time to time to have a hamburger or a milkshake together, but it is so infrequent. It's a manner of speaking, nothing more. But, apart from those food issues, some might say that a steady diet from the minister will make you sick. I am not prepared to support automatically the ideas of his friends from the right wing of the Cabinet.

The minister has presented an omnibus bill today which proposes a number of changes in various statutes designed "to provide equality of status thereunder for male and female persons." With regard to many of these items, this omnibus bill represents what you might call a tidying-up operation. The bill changes the form of the language in other bills. I am not suggesting for a moment that these are not important changes, but in three areas the bill makes very significant changes: in respect of pensions, in respect of cadet services, and in respect of unemployment insurance maternity benefits. The minister covered the various aspects of the bill in some detail and I will not use the time of the House to repeat the sort of analysis that he has made.
So far as the bill goes, it is welcome. I am sure the minister will not be offended; he will probably agree with me when I say it is long overdue. In the context of the problems with which it is associated, while it is certainly necessary it is far from sufficient. So far as the general subject of the status of women is concerned, the minister, as one might have expected, endeavoured to create an impression of considerable encouragement. I want to be fair to him. He certainly indicated that there was a great deal to be done, but that progress had been rather limited. He indicated that perhaps some other countries had done rather better than we had. However, I do not find this quite as encouraging as he did.
When I look at the realities that present themselves, particularly when I think of what the government, as a government, is proposing to do and this parliament will be asked to do, without in any way wishing to suggest that the minister is indulging in any misrepresentation I simply ask the House to consider the possibility that in this instance his well known enthusiasm for what this
May 29, 1975

government is doing has surpassed his respect for the facts. The facts as they exist are certainly no basis for self-congratulation or complacency, and I do not think the minister would say they were or indeed said that they were. On the contrary, the facts give cause for concern and a greater sense of urgency than the minister conveyed this afternoon-a sense of urgency which I believe the government does not possess.
Among women in Canada there is a very wide range of concerns relating to equality of status. I propose to limit myself pretty substantially to women in the world of work in this country. The minister cited some figures to show that not much progress has been made in Canada. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women has published figures to illustrate that the actual number and participation rate of women in the labour force is steadily increasing. Canada's rate remains significantly lower than that of Australia, West Germany, the United States, Britain, Japan and Sweden.
Furthermore, in Canada working women are concentrated-not entirely but there is a heavier concentration-in central Canada, with Ontario having the highest rate, and a high percentage of women work in service industries with occupations in clerical, service and sales positions. I do not want to suggest for a moment, by inference, that there is anything wrong with a woman staying at home and looking after her family if that is her choice, freely made. There is no more honourable occupation and career for a woman to pursue, and she should have the free choice to do that or to go to work.
In Canada, working women are younger and more often single than are working men. For women who must care for pre-school age children, the obstacles to steady and progressively more rewarding employment are enormous. As I understand it, child-care centres meet only 1 per cent of the need. Therefore, many women are limited in the hours that are available to them for work outside the home. Conditions are difficult for expectant mothers as well as for existing mothers. Maternity leave provisions are for the most part, as I understand it, quite unsatisfactory. Maternity benefits paid through unemployment insurance have been inequitable and we are pleased to see some improvement proposed in the bill before us.
There is no question that the definition as it existed, of 15 weeks for benefit eligibility, has been poor legislation. In the proposed flexibility the 15-week period will make a good deal more sense to all mothers, including mother nature. How in the world, under the existing section of the act, was a woman supposed to know her date of delivery eight weeks in advance? How she was supposed to know has certainly been a source of mystery to me as a father of four children.
It may very well be that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appointed the Postmaster General (Mr. Mack-asey)-who was the minister responsible for the department in question at the time the unemployment insurance provision was made-out of respect for the hon. gentleman's ability to forecast delivery eight weeks later. The sad part is that if the lady in question did not guess right in the game of what you might call reproduction roulette, she would suffer an economic penalty in her unemployment insurance benefits. That has been bad law and we
Status of Women
will be delighted to see it expunged from the Canadian statutes. The improvement proposed in this bill does not, however, in any way remove the need for a comprehensive review of this country's unemployment insurance program-something which has been long promised by this government-a program which it is now forecast will cost between $3 billion and $3.5 billion this year. The maternity benefits paid out will constitute only a small fraction of that amount.
I referred a few moments ago to the facts and to the realities which are with us, but they do not seem to impress the minister quite as much as they impress me. There is no shortage of either data or conclusions on the subject of the status of women in Canadian society. I do not intend to be exhaustive this afternoon, and I pray I will not be exhausting, but in my remarks I do hope to cover enough ground with enough emphasis to make a dent in any self-satisfaction anyone in this House might happen to have with regard to the progress we have made toward equality of the status of women in the world of work in Canada.
In looking at the situation as it exists today I will be making use of research material from four sources. One source is the February 1, 1974, report of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. There is detailed study of women in business by Jones E. Bennett and Pierre M. Loewe which is being featured in a current series in the Financial Post. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation conducted an internal task force study in 1974 on the status of women in that organization. Fourth there was information provided to the miscellaneous estimates committee by Mrs. Irene Johnson, one of three capable women holding the rank of deputy minister in the service of this government.
Quite a disturbingly consistent picture emerges when all these four sources are examined. One gets an impression of how things are going in the strictly private and strictly public sectors as well as in the mixed context of organizations such as large federal Crown corporations. Across the board the picture is not encouraging. This is what we find in very recent canvasses: the "typical" Canadian private firm has major inadequacies of equal opportunity, particularly in terms of job access and of compensation. The Financial Post study cites these inadequacies in this way: due to historical labour patterns of today's "unwritten law," some jobs remain "men's" and others are "women's." Since "men's" jobs are generally of a higher status than "women's," women make less money, are less likely to be trained, have fewer advancement opportunities and hold a small proportion of decisionmaking power.
Contrary to popular belief, "ghettoization" of Canadian working women has become worse. This is a hard thing to have to say, but I think it has to be said. It has become worse, not better, over the last decade. For example, the proportion of clerks who are women rose 3 percentage points in that decade. In Canadian business, the average woman earns 45 per cent less than the average man, and I believe the gap actually worsened between 1972 and 1973. A female Canadian worker is 2 Vi to three times less likely to be trained than a male. Advancement opportunities for
6244

May 29, 1975
Status of Women
women are largely limited to those labelled "women's" jobs and have improved little since 1962, and only 4 per cent of women are managers as opposed to nearly 13 per cent of men.
Pension plans, group life insurance, disability and medical plans may contain sex-based differences in coverage and employee contributions. Most Canadian firms still have one or more such differences in their benefit package. Reimbursements apply to a "wife" rather than to a "spouse," so that a female employee cannot recover her husband's expenses. A sizeable minority of organizations still have these or similar provisions in their arrangements.
Though equal pay for men and women in identical positions is apparently not much of a problem in Canadian private business, facts on equal pay for work of equal value are unclear because of a sort of "chicken and egg" dilemma. It is just impossible to know if women's jobs have been improperly downgraded because women are in them or, alternatively, if women have been relegated to them because they are less valuable jobs. Much discrimination hides behind this curtain of confusion.
An inaccurate stereotype of women seems to influence every step in the employment and advancement processes, perpetuating occupational segregation and unequal distribution of corporate wealth. Most Canadian firms use sex-stereotyped recruitment materials and processes. Women are typically excluded from serious consideration for most jobs labelled "men", and vice-versa. Women who make it to the interviewing process are often discouraged from "men's" jobs by male decision-makers. Job evaluation and salary programs may not rate "men's" jobs and "women's" properly, relative to each other.
The Financial Post study also calls particular attention to the dilemma of secretaries in business. Secretaries-99 per cent of whom are women-frequently feel that they and their work are not valued and that they are mistreated by male bosses, particularly with regard to personal services expected of them such as getting coffee and doing personal errands for the boss. Another major source of irritation and resentment among secretaries is that a secretary's salary is determined by the organizational level of her boss rather than an evaluation of her specific job duties. Secretaries in almost every large Canadian organization are rug-ranked in this way. This practice causes considerable resentment among women due to dependency on men and the inequities among secretaries it creates.
We are all aware just how large an issue this is among secretaries in the federal public service. I understand that it is no different in the private sphere. Secretaries find it especially difficult to pursue other opportunities within their companies because in many companies advancement is restricted to the secretarial career path for women. In addition, there is a natural tendency for bosses to hang on to good secretaries.
Based on labour force statistics, two general conclusions can be drawn about the job status of women in the typical Canadian company. First, the "ghettoization" of women into low-skill, low paying jobs has increased in the past ten years. That is a sad thing to have to say and I would be pleased indeed if someone would disprove it in this House.

Second, there is a universal gap between the representation of women in companies and their share of influence. While the participation of women in managerial jobs is improving, at current rates it will be literally a century before they reach a proportion consistent with their level of participation in the labour force.
But this is far from sufficient. Those who are concerned by the issue, particularly the governments, the unions and other responsible persons, should stop mouthing platitudes and do everything within their power to speed up the process. As far as the government is concerned, much remains to be done, both within departments and Crown corporations.

Turning to government service itself, I am sure that hon. members take absolutely no satisfaction from the fact that Mrs. Irene Johnson, a member of the Public Service Commission, told the miscellaneous estimates committee recently that, despite efforts to recruit bright young women for careers in government, more than 98 per cent of the top jobs are still held by men. Mrs. Johnson said that at present 20 of 1,200 executive level bureaucrats are women, compared with nine of 868 in 1973. She told the committee, "Statistically there has been no progress". [Translation]
Mrs. Johnson stated that the commission had very badly failed to bring able women over to the public service. The commission is now focusing its efforts on women who are already working within the public service, but that initiative yielded only 25 women who would have the required potential to occupy a post in an executive capacity. [English]
The commission has managed to increase the proportion of women in the career assignment program, a training school for potential executives, to about 30 per cent. However, only about 50 of the 500 program graduates to date are women. Mrs. Johnson said the pool of available female talent remains too small to make appreciable progress. "It's hard to make perceptible gains when you have such a small base to work on," she said. Little trace remains of anti-female bias in government departments and greater progress should be made in the future, she said.
So I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the evidence from all quarters is clear and cries out for attention. The pace of progress is too slow and the government has to accept some responsibility for some of the foot-dragging. The minister may talk about other actions yet to come. When? Surely he does not feel that the campaign he conducted earlier this year, for example, is anything like an adequate response to the type of challenge I have been describing this afternoon? When are further actions to come?
The minister and his colleagues may go on making references to human rights, but he and others cannot escape the import of the bulletin issued by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women following a Vancouver meeting in mid-January of this year, which stated:
The major recommendations proposed by ACSW members at the meeting in Vancouver concerned the establishment of a federal human rights and interests commission. A wire sent by ACSW to Marc Lalonde, minister responsible for the status of women, read:
"The ACSW strongly condemns the federal government for its inaction on human rights legislation. As early as July, 1973, this legislation was clearly identified as the ACSW priority and in December, 1973, cabinet approval in principle was announced. The action of the federal government to date has consisted of nothing but ineffectual promises. ACSW demands immediate introduction of the human rights legislation."
I may say in all modesty, Mr. Speaker, that as early as the winter of 1972 and again in May, 1973, I proposed the establishment of a human rights commission as a very substantial measure of working toward equality for the status of women besides making certain that other sorts of equality exist in the country. I do not mean to suggest that it is easy to produce effective human rights legislation, but I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) that expectations were raised by the government-commit-
Status of Women
ments were made over two years ago-and the tone of the message from the Advisory Council on the Status of Women must surely indicate that there is no acceptability for complacency and indefinite delay.
The United Nations has proclaimed 1975 to be International Women's Year. Canada is participating in the promotion of the year but I fear we have a way to go before we can be said to be really participating in the spirit of the year. As individuals, we must all share some responsibility for that. As members of parliament, our burden is larger. The burden is heaviest of all for those who occupy the treasury benches. It is a burden that cannot be shrugged off by any of us. It certainly cannot be shrugged off by members of the government. The cause of equality would be far better served if the government stopped pretending that things are going well and it is doing as much as it ought to be doing in this field.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, today we are dealing with Bill C-16, the omnibus bill on the status of women which will provide needed changes to existing legislation ranging from unemployment insurance to the Canada Elections Act, the Immigration Act and the National Defence Act respecting female cadets.
Every day I am in the House of Commons I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) wearing his International Women's Year button which states "Why Not!". When I look at this government's record of legislation in implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women to end discrimination against women in this country, I think it would be more appropriate, instead of wearing a button saying "Why not!" if the minister wore one saying "Why Bother?"
The record of this government in trying to eliminate discrimination based on sex is very sad. The cold, hard facts are that despite the throne speech promises and the pious platitudes from the minister, women in Canada are still discriminated against in the areas of job opportunities, job positions and rank, pay and legislation presently in existence at both the federal and the provincial level. They are also discriminated against in the government's own civil service and its operations.
The sad fact is that legislators have been too slow to react to the demands of women for equality in our society. Legislation to end discrimination against women has never been a high priority item for this government. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women began its hearings in 1967. Of the 122 recommendations it made which apply to the federal government, to date only 42 have been implemented. This bill will raise the number to 50.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member would not like wilfully to mislead the House. I tabled in this House some time ago a full and complete answer on the question of how many recommendations of the royal commission have been implemented and the figures contained therein do not coincide with those being put forward by the hon. member. The correct answer is in the records of this House. If the hon. member
29561 -5lV2

May 29, 1975
Status of Women
will check the evidence, he will find that he is not correct. I hope that he is not wilfully misleading this House.


Reginald Cyril Symes: It would be interesting to see the list, because some of them have only been partially implemented. I am talking about those which have been fully implemented. If I am in error, I stand corrected. I wish the minister would give the exact figure. The basic point is there were 122 recommendations and this government is far short of implementing them.
The roles for women in our society today are narrow, restricted and often onerous. There is still too much stereotyping, stating that the woman's place is in the home. Certainly, many women-perhaps the majority- feel that being a homemaker is a very rewarding and fulfilling experience. I have no quarrel with that whatsoever. However, if this is to be a just society with equal opportunity, an option should be open to women who do not want to conform to the role of homemaker. That option should be open to them without discrimination or impediment.
We find that many women in the home have the problem of being isolated from each other and from society at large. They often have to experience life through the achievements of their husbands and children. Many women I have talked to feel trapped in the home situation. Although it is rewarding for them to raise their children and prepare them for adulthood, many find it frustrating and inhibiting. They feel their creativity can only be channelled in a family direction rather than being free to pursue interests outside the family such as employment or further education.
Women in the home who would like to take courses or work part time are frustrated by the lack of child-care facilities in this country. What we have in child day-care centres today meets only 1 per cent of the need in this country. Because of inflation, many women who would like to stay at home and be with their children are forced to find work to supplement the family income so that their children may have a decent standard of living. For them, the lack as well as the expense of day-care facilities defeats the whole purpose of supplementing the family income.
Another situation of which we must remind ourselves is the degree of poverty that women face. Most women work in the home with no pay and no pension. The frightening fact is that in this country 60 per cent of those on welfare are women. Female heads of families are five times more likely to be living below the poverty line than male heads of families. Indeed, 40 per cent of women who head families in this country live in poverty.
This sad fact rests with this government's lack of initiative to bring in a guaranteed annual income and to provide adequate public housing at a cost these people can afford. It is not the fault of many single-parent families, especially those headed by women, that they are in this situation today. This government, through its inability to work out a guaranteed income scheme with the provinces, puts women and their families in an intolerable position. I see this whenever I am in my constituency and have appointments with my constituents. I can relate case after case of women who are experiencing abject poverty and extreme

social and psychological stress because of the discrimination of legislation at the federal and provincial levels and because of the lack of policy in the social welfare field to alleviate these conditions.
What do you say to a separated wife who has a two-year old child to support, who is living in an upstairs apartment with no water facilities and has to carry water up in a bucket from downstairs. According to the regulations and laws governing payment of social benefits, she cannot move out of her apartment because she cannot afford any other situation. What do you say to her when she says, "I want to do something for my child. I want to raise him in an adequate home environment so that he will not become a delinquent or fall into the kind of poverty I see around me"? Or when she asks, "What am I supposed to do-go out and walk the streets to supplement my income?" We do not have answers because of the government's failure to implement programs along the lines I have described.
I could go on and on mentioning case after case of unmarried women who have decided to support their children, and the kind of difficulties they face. One woman desperately wants to work but cannot find day-care facilities for her child. These are the problems of poverty which face hundreds of thousands of women.
In addition, women face severe job discrimination. One-third of Canada's labour force is female and one-third of all married women work away from home. If we look at women's wages, we find they are significantly less than men's. When we examine people in managerial occupations, we find that the wages of men exceed the average wages of women by 107 per cent. If we examine clerical occupations, we find that on an average men's wages exceed those paid to women by 56 per cent. In the service industries the male wage exceeds that of the female by 112 per cent, in sales occupations by 167 per cent, and in professional and technical occupations by 66 per cent.
This discrimination exists in Canada today despite all the promised legislation and existing legislation. The inevitable conclusion is that the laws are not working to end discrimination in pay rates. Nor does it help if women get a higher degree of education. Studies have shown that men with no education receive wages which are 84.5 per cent higher than wages paid to women with no education. But suppose a man and a woman hold equivalent university degrees: the man receives 84.4 per cent more than the woman who is similarly qualified. From a survey of 74 occupations from 1969 to 1972, we find that the gap between men's wages and women's wages widened in 37 of those occupations; that is, in half of them.
It must be conceded that the government has failed to end discrimination in this field and that the situation is getting no better. Women have become a reserve pool of cheap labour and they are the least secure of all those in the labour force since they are most affected by lay-offs. Many employers use the existence of cheap female labour to blackmail male employees into accepting lower wages. Wage discrimination cannot help but promote hostility between men and women in the work force. Can you imagine the attitude of a man and a woman working side by side as senior accounting clerks when the woman,
May 29, 1975

doing the same job as the man, earns only $117 a week and the man earns $151? Or a male X-ray technican earning $618 a month and doing the same job as a female who is earning only $576 a month? Or a professor in a university-if she is a woman she earns $19,750, while a male professor in the same faculty earns $20,635?
Example after example can be given to show that women are heavily represented in the worst paid occupations and in occupations subject to the poorest working conditions. If we look at women in the labour force, we find that one-third are in clerical occupations, one-third are in service occupations, less than one-fifth are in professional and technical occupations, one-tenth are production workers and only 4.2 per cent hold managerial or executive positions. This pattern is hardly an improvement over that of a decade ago.
If we look close to home at the situation in the government's own public service, the situation is equally bad. Since 1971, the gap between salaries paid to male and female public servants has actually increased. The median increase for men in the public service since 1971 has been $1,500, but for women it has been only $1,000. In the annual report on the public service tabled a few days ago we find that 77 per cent of the women in the public service earn less than $10,000 a year, but that only 46 per cent of the men earn less than that figure. Women make up 32 per cent of the total number employed in the public service, but hold only 2 per cent of the senior executive positions, 33 out of 1,614, and only 1 per cent of those in the senior management category, 17 out of 1,300 posts. We read in the women's bureau report issued by the Department of Labour the following conclusion:
Although women workers still represent one-third of the labour force, they do not occupy a place in the labour force remotely proportionate to their numbers either in terms of occupational distribution or in terms of compensation.
There has been little improvement when it comes to ending discrimination against women in our society. We have polarized women into low paying and dead-end occupations.
I should also point out that the equal pay laws now on the books have no effect in areas where only women are employed. They apply only where both men and women are engaged in the same or similar work; where women only are employed, the laws are totally ineffectual. We need strong and enforceable laws to end discrimination against women on the grounds of sex, in terms of promotion, training and hiring as well as pay. To achieve this end, the law must first of all be written in clear language; it must be enforceable. Second, penalties should be provided to encourage full adherence. In Ontario, the maximum penalty for violating the human rights legislation applying to women is only $5,000, and not one case has been judged in this area to date.
We also need to make sure that the administrators of the law-that is, the government civil servants administering the law-are sympathetic to the intent of the law, and that the enforcers of the law, the courts, also have the proper attitude. We also need a campaign to promote the educa-
Status of Women
tion of employers and employees as to what is the law and what are the rights of women under the law.
In this regard I ask the minister, why is there the delay in establishing the federal commission on human rights as recommended by the royal commission in 1971? The government has indicated that it is sympathetic to the idea, but we have not yet had this legislation. What we need is an independent commission with some power of investigation and prosecution so that the laws we design can be enforced. We should also have legislation to provide class action for women in the work force who as a group would be able to sue an employer for across the board discrimination in pay or working conditions. One individual female worker going up against General Motors is certainly not going to have much chance of success.
In regard to bringing in legislation and policies to end discrimination, I am proud to say that the New Democratic Party has had, as a matter of policy for many years, ideas and recommendations promoting equality of the sexes in the work force. For many years in this House we have espoused these ideas. The former member for Vancouver-Kingsway, Mrs. Grace Maclnnis, was a pioneer in raising women's issues and in trying to get the government moving in this direction.
If we are to do something significant to end discrimination against women in our society, I suggest we implement some recommendations along the following lines. We should have vigorous and tough laws, enforceable laws that prohibit discrimination because of sex or marital status in the recuitment, classification, promotion, dismissal and advertising of jobs. We should make provision for child-care centres for children of all ages, which are free, community controlled and available 24 hours a day. We need tough laws, strictly enforced, to provide equal pay for work of equal value and to provide incentives to achieve this goal.
We need the provision of maternity leave with pay, of whatever duration the woman and her doctor deem necessary, and at the end of that time the right to return to her position without penalty as to seniority or salary. In the bill before us is, finally, an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act that would end some of the discrimination in the granting of maternity leave. However, even the amendment that the minister is proposing is very weak. The amendment allows about 15 weeks' maternity benefit, paid partly before the pregnancy and partly after the baby is delivered. Why not take the 15 weeks' benefit at any time during the claim year and leave it up to the mother to decide when she wants to take that kind of leave?
We should also provide that benefits for sickness not related to pregnancy, as well as maternity benefits, may be paid in the same claim year instead of persisting with the kind of discrimination that now exists. However, there is no provision in the bill to permit an adoptive working mother to take any maternity leave. Surely a mother who is adopting a child needs some time off work to acclimatize the child during the early days of the adoption period. We should have at least two weeks' maternity benefits for fathers so that they may be with the newly-born child and the mother to assist her around the house after the child is born. I also believe that the waiting period for maternity

May 29, 1975
Status of Women
and paternity benefits should be waived. If we had that kind of amendment in this bill in regard to unemployment insurance, we would be making some kind of progress.
If we are to be serious about ending discrimination, we should also make changes in labour laws wherever required to provide collective bargaining rights and fringe benefits for domestic and part-time workers. We also require exploration of the concept of greater individual choice in the work week and work year. We need to amend our pension laws to give all women, including those who work at home, the same right to join pension plans and to draw benefits as enjoyed by men.
We must establish a comprehensive sex education program in the schools to end some of the stereotyping that goes on in regard to the respective roles of men and women in our society. Further, we need guaranties that male and female students are equally entitled to enrol in any course of their choosing, so that girls can become doctors, bank managers, or whatever they desire, and not be discouraged by guidance counsellors so they end up as being only tellers or nurses. We also need to eliminate sex stereotyping in all school text books. This is an insidious way of perpetuating the roles that men and women must conform to.
In addition, we need action to ban advertising which exploits sex and demeans the role and place of women in society. I believe we need amendments to take abortion out of the Criminal Code so that women are free, in accordance with their own conscience, to act on qualified medical advice. We need to have established in this country more sex education and birth control centres adequately equipped to advise on family planning, on birth control methods, abortion, and pre- and post-natal care. Lastly, we require community programs to encourage and assist women to take their full part in the political and cultural life of our country. Those are positive proposals, Madam Speaker. They are not new; they have been recommended by the royal commission and advocated by women's groups in this country. But this government has just dragged its feet in regard to implementing some of these very worthwhile and positive recommendations.
This omnibus bill, Bill C-16, provides a few improvements for the status of women in this country, but not many. There is still much to be done, but this government seems to be in no hurry to do it. I hope we will not think of this bill simply as a bill concerning women; I think we should regard it as more than that; because women's issues are men's issues too. We are part of a total society and we must understand that the measure of our society is how we treat all components of that society. The quality of our total society is surely measured by the quality of the least advantaged in our society. The measure of Canadian society today shows that there is no even-handed justice when it comes to the poor, the native people and to women.
We in Canada have deprived one-half of the Canadian population-the female population of this country-of their just place in our society. We have in turn been deprived of the potential of one of our greatest resources, the 11 million women who suffer discrimination because of government inaction.
In conclusion, I should like to quote from the Women's Bureau, 1974 report. I think they put this issue of the

status of women in our country very eloquently. At page 31 of the report they say:
When law affects women in a way that is different from the way it affects men, to the detriment of one or the other, then the quality of Canadian law is reduced. When the courts interpret the law in such a way as to reveal the influence of outmoded social traditions, traditions such as those which support a double standard of morality, one standard applying to men and another standard applying to women, then the quality of Canadian justice is diminished. When social custom and tradition remain fixed and unreformed in the face of growing awareness of the injustice of a double standard based on sex, then the quality of the Canadian way of life, for men as well as for women, is demeaned.
This situation of discrimination against women in Canada has existed in the past and it exists today. It is time it was stopped. This bill falls far short of tackling the major problems facing women, which I have described. I hope this minister and the Liberal government will finally wake up to the severity of the problem of discrimination in this country and make some fundamental reforms to the law instead of the token gestures which we have seen to date.


Mr. Cullen:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it should be pointed out that the engagement of the hon. member for Sault St. Marie (Mr. Symes) was recently announced in the newspapers, and I am sure his intended bride will be reading this speech over and over again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, this afternoon we have undertaken the study of Bill C-16, a long-awaited bill, and I am almost tempted to say that the bill is late in arriving, since most women to whom the bill applies have shown so far their capacity and competence in numerous fields.
Madam Speaker, we have witnessed today a peaceful demonstration that has proven to us that when women put their mind to it, they can achieve great things. Within a few weeks or months at the most, they were successful in obtaining over 1,200,000 signatures with a view to having the government understand that abortion laws should not be liberalized any further. And I was especially glad this afternoon to witness a female member of Parliament accept, on behalf of her colleagues, to submit the petition to the Chair. Indeed I wish to congratulate the hon. member for South York (Mrs. Appolloni) for the way in which she carried out this task, which was greatly appreciated.
Madam Speaker, we are also in a position to note the way you carry out your duties. We cannot help but notice your patience, and especially your tactfulness, when you have to call hon. members to order. There is also a woman presiding over the Senate debates, and there again, we can see the competence with which she carries out her duties.
Besides, another lady had preceded her and I believe we find in parliaments everywhere women who assert themselves.
In Germany, there are 30 women who are members of Parliament in the Bundestag and one of them is the president of that Parliament. In England, a lady is at the
May 29, 1975

head of the Conservative party and she is currently setting an example, to the prominent men of that party and of that country while at the same time giving goose pimples to members of the Labour party, if I may say so.
That goes to show that women did not wait for a law such as this one to take their place in public service more and more in business, in the professional as well as in the trading world, we see women asserting themselves and proving that they are as efficient as men, if not more so.
I believe this bill will nevertheless be welcome by the people. I hope it will be supported by all members so as to be passed following a study of all its objects for, as the minister said, it is an omnibus bill whose objective is to bring about improvement in many areas that have shown deficiencies up to now and particularly in certain fields, for instance as regards federal employees.
We are fortunate in Canada in that discrimination problems over race, colour or religion are scarce but still we should avoid sex discrimination.
We have been saying for some time now: Equal work, equal pay, not in the public service but in the case of federal employees other than public servants. For instance since 1971, a provision of the Canada Labour Code that came into force on July 1, 1971 provides that there must be no difference in the rate of pay of male and female employees working in the same industrial firm or under the same conditions, performing identical or substantially identical work, whose qualifications and endeavours are the same and whose responsibilities are identical or substantially identical.
As regards maternity leave for federal employees outside the public service, the Canada Labour Code provides a leave of up to 17 weeks, namely 6 weeks immediately following confinement and a period not exceeding 11 weeks immediately before confinement as well as any supplementary period resulting from a gap between the childbirth's actual date and the anticipated one. Afterwards, the employer must reinstate the employee in the position occupied by her at the time such leave commenced or in a comparable position with not less than the same wage and benefits. No employee shall be dismissed or laid off solely because she is pregnant. Mr. Speaker, one may recall that not so long ago, whenever a woman became pregnant, she was practically forced to leave her employment and sometimes, after confinement, she could not be reinstated in her position.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but it being five o'clock and pursuant to Standing Order 40, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Indian affairs-With-
Abortion
drawal of vocational rehabilitation services from natives in Manitoba-Request for review and report; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Finance-Suggested review of reduction of tariff on tires; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)- External Affairs-Garrison diversion-Suggestion United States be asked for a moratorium on Project.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills. There being no item under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General and Ministers of Health of the provinces dealing with the subject of abortion and/or section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
He said: Madam Speaker, this motion was placed on the order paper some time ago; to be exact, on October 9, 1974. A long time after that, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), on March 16, 1975, rose in the House and objected to filing the requested correspondence, in this case hiding behind the cloak of confidentiality as his reason for not submitting the correspondence. The reason the motion was placed on the order paper was a suspicion held by a great many people concerning the allegations surrounding the Minister of Justice and the administration of his particular office which was being called into question because of the interpretation he was giving to section 251(4)(c) of the Criminal Code, which may have been in conflict with the intentions of parliament at the time the code was passed and may have been in conflict with the practices and standards being applied by therapeutic abortion committees across the country.
I submit that the onus in this kind of situation is on the government. The onus is on the government, when it hides behind the cloak of confidentiality, to satisfy this House that it is not under an obligation to introduce and table the correspondence, because the public has a right to know how any particular office is being administered, particularly the sensitive office of the Minister of Justice. The suspicions that were held at the time the motion was placed on the order paper, I submit, were subsequently confirmed by correspondence that came to light not too long ago.
Section 251 (4) (c) of the Criminal Code provides an exception for a therapeutic abortion where the therapeutic abortion committee has by certificate in writing stated

May 29, 1975
Abortion
that in its opinion continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health. It has been traditional in this country that the definition of "health" is the World Health definition. I shall read that definition:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
With that kind of background, one must examine what the minister said in the memoranda now released to the public. I wish to see more of the correspondence so that the minister will have an opportunity to defend himself against the very serious charges made that his own personal views on the subject of abortion have been reflected in the administration of his office. It is also interesting that at the time the law on abortion in this country was passed, the minister of justice at that time was the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I should like to quote the minister of justice at that time, the present Minister of Finance, who had an intimate connection with this bill and piloted it through the committee and the House. This is what he said on June 2, 1970:
This act is deliberately left open to medical judgment in order to give doctors some latitude.
That was his interpretation as the minister responsible for the bill that was subsequently passed in this House and which is now being administered across the country. When we look at the statement made by the Minister of Justice in respect of the interpretation of that section, we find it is in clear conflict with what was intended when the bill was passed and is clearly in conflict with the statements the minister of justice made at the time he attempted to bring before the public some humane considerations on the subject of abortion.
Now I should like to quote from a memorandum which was circulated in October, 1974, to various officials by the present Minister of Justice. He said that social and economic considerations were not to be taken into account in determining whether a pregnancy lawfully could be terminated. That statement is in clear conflict with the law as it was understood, it is in clear conflict with the statements of the minister of justice at the time the bill was passed, and it is in clear conflict, I suspect, with the advice given him by the law officers of the Crown.
Therefore, I make the charge, knowing it is serious, that there can be an abuse of the role of this minister who indeed has a sensitive responsibility, in the administration of his office, to administer that office objectively-regardless of his personal views-and in accordance with the law, and to administer it fairly and justly in accordance with the views of his law officers. There is a substantial body of evidence to the effect that this has not been the case.
Unless this correspondence is tabled, how can members of parliament and the public determine whether the minister acted properly in carrying out the duties and responsibilities of his office? The cloak of confidentiality is no excuse, because the onus is on the government to tell us why this correspondence cannot be tabled and why the government is sensitive about this matter. I suggest it is sensitive merely because of embarrassment to the minister that would be created in having further correspondence

released which might pertain to the conduct of that high and important office.
I submit that there is no right of confidentiality when a matter such as this becomes such an intense and important problem. There are circumstances in which the public interest is so great that when a government hides behind the cloak of confidentiality it is not doing a service to itself or to the Minister of Justice, and in fact leads one to the suspicion that justice is not being done or certainly is not appearing to be done. I believe it is incumbent upon the Minister of Justice to tell this House what he told the attorneys general of the provinces about the manner in which they should administer this most important section of the Criminal Code.
This matter is of great public interest, as was evidenced today by the many people who were here from the Right to Life group. That important group feels sincerely and strongly that this is a matter which should be imposed upon the country through the Criminal Code. The Morgen-taler case is one reason this subject is so important in this House. I cannot argue for the release of this correspondence without again dealing with the real facts in respect of the Morgentaler case. He is in jail for one reason-his honesty and integrity in refusing to continue to participate in the sham that has been going on in the province of Quebec over all these years. The fact is, it has been admitted that 5,000 abortions were performed. Most of those were referred to Dr. Morgentaler by medical practitioners.
How many charges have been made against the medical club? How many doctors have faced charges? How many members of boards of directors of Montreal hospitals are facing charges today? The fact is that Dr. Morgentaler is carrying the load for the whole hypocritical system that has developed. The reason it got into that kind of state is simply that therapeutic abortion committees were not established in the province of Quebec. The state of New York now does 6,000 Canadian abortions a year. The only people who have more abortions in the state of New York are New York state residents. We have a law for the rich and a law for the poor. Those who can afford to go to the city of New York can get their abortions, but what happens when you come from Chicoutimi, from somewhere up in the sticks, or from the Northwest Territories?


An hon. Member:: What's wrong with Chicoutimi?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I have nothing against Chicoutimi, I can assure you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He comes from the sticks of Vancouver.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: But there is no doubt in my mind that Dr. Morgentaler would not be in jail if he had not done something that can be called courageous. I agree he broke the law. That has been confirmed. Also, I abide by the decisions of our courts. But there is an element of courage in what he did. Today, 116 doctors in the province of Quebec admit that they, too, commit illegal abortions and that they conspire in these acts. I suspect that the number
May 29, 1975

is closer to 800, not 116. The whole hypocritical sham that has developed around this subject needs correction.
One of the reasons we come to the House to debate the subject, no matter which side of the argument we support, is to get to the question of finally resolving the issue. One of the ways is to establish more therapeutic abortion committees, but another way-and it seems to me the only one that ultimately will be satisfactory-is to remove the subject from the Criminal Code and allow a person to follow the dictates of his or her conscience on this subject. This is not a matter of abortion on demand-that is a ridiculous claim-it is a matter of the conscience of the individual in possession of professional advice. I see no reason why that should not be consistent with anybody's view on the right to life It is certainly consistent with decency and humanity.
I should like to quote a colleague of mine who is no longer in the House but who is a well respected former member, Mrs. Grace Maclnnis, who spoke in the minority parliament on July 6, 1973, on this subject. This is what she said:
But like our own Dr. Morgentaler they have found themselves unable to wash their hands of the matter and piously leave women to suffer the tortures and dangers of a pregnancy which they did not want, for which they were only partly responsible, and which, in far too many cases, they did not know how to prevent.
This is the reality and the hyprocrisy of the whole matter of keeping abortion in the Criminal Code. This is where the injustice lies. I have tried to keep my remarks in low key, without touching on those horrors so often depicted graphically and in words when this matter is discussed.
I have tried to do that also. I do not think this very legitimate debate is enhanced with pictures of deceased women in morgues, or pictures of fetuses. I think that does nothing to rationalism in the debate. I respect views on the right to live and I recognize the concern that many people have that if life is taken, even in its growing form within the womb, if it is taken lightly we may have less respect for it. But there are no absolutes in this and women have a right not to be discriminated against in this one area where in vast parts of our country abortion is not available. Canada has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. Those are things we should not forget.
Madam Speaker, I see my time is running out. However, I want to give credit to the Minister of Justice for one thing, that is that his position has apparently changed. In his latest memorandum of February 26, 1975, he departed very significantly from the position he had taken previously in advising hospitals, particularly those under his jurisdiction, that social and economic conditions were not to be considered in the decision whether to perform an abortion. In his last memorandum he stated:
For our part, it is clear that the justification for killing a fetus which parliament wrote into the law is one of health and life and that it is best to leave that judgement to experts. If medical committees will accept the responsibility and endeavour seriously to determine if the grounds set out by parliament are present, then the law will operate as intended.
I can live with that as a statement of the minister's responsibility. But it is a far, far cry from his conduct at the time when debate developed in the House between the minister and members of the opposition, when previous statements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance were put to him. So I am pleased to
Abortion
see that there is a change. Nevertheless, it is a very deep responsibility that the Minister of Justice bears in the conduct of his office. During the period when he wrote the memorandum, when he attempted to stop grants to women's groups because of his suspicion that they may have been referring some of the women they were counselling to places where they could obtain abortions, there was an abuse of the minister's office, I submit.
We cannot use confidentiality to hide behind as a cloak with respect to what is fundamentally the government's responsibility, that is, to let the public know what has been happening on the abortion issue across the country and see how the Minister of Justice has been administering his portfolio. I urge, Madam Speaker, that the minister be required to table this correspondence so we can determine whether some of the things that I have read today are confirmation of the minister imposing his own interpretation of the Criminal Code on the attorneys general of this country.


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, I find it incongruous and infinitely sad that we should have listened to a speech in defence of somebody who is a self-admitted criminal. Dr. Morgentaler admitted that he had aborted women. The salient question he asked was whether they had enough money to pay him. These are the facts that came out in the transcript of the trial. Yet the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is accused of hiding behind government confidentiality. We heard words such as "suspicion".
Questions such as whether the minister is carrying out his responsibility as Minister of Justice are being asked. Our Minister of Justice is being almost impeached in the House of Commons for carrying out his duty and defending the people of Canada. It is sad to see attempts at impeaching him when a known criminal is offered an award as a humanitarian. It may be a sign of what this society of ours is coming to. I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star of Wednesday, May 28, under the title "Signals of social breakdown". It reads:
In Canada there's a growing fear of social and political breakdown ... The danger is that an individual may think he can disregard the rules he doesn't like, and get away with it. But when everyone-groups, organizations and unions-
And, I may add, abortionists.
-does the same, it's destructive to society as a whole.
I understand the role of the Minister of Justice. His role is to make sure that justice is administered to all Canadians, to all humans. I submit that humanity starts at the moment of conception. Therefore, I am convinced that the Minister of Justice would be remiss in his job if he did not protect the weakest. And what is weaker than an unborn child?
We have been told that Dr. Morgentaler had great courage. We have been told that our Minister of Justice has been hiding. I think the hon. member wanted to give the minister a chance to defend himself. Quite frankly, I know of no other minister in the present cabinet who has so ably and so often defended himself both in this House and
6252

May 29, 1975
Abortion
outside it. I think it is absolutely unjust to put him on the rostrum yet again and to accuse him as if he were the criminal, instead of the protector for all of us from such criminal actions as abortion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: We are told that the Minister of Justice-I am quoting the hon. member-has a deep and sensitive responsibility to be humane. What is more humane than admitting that after 17 days blood cells are formed in a fetus; after 20 days the heart and primitive intestine are formed; after 24 days the heart begins to beat in a fetus? The fetus is weak and is dependent upon its mother. Is it not humane to protect that heart and to let it grow to its full maturity until birth which comes along after the proper gestation period? That is what our Minister of Justice has been trying to do. Now he is accused of being secretive and of hiding behind confidentiality. I think the minister deserves a tremendous vote of thanks from all Canadians. He is a pillar of our society.
The hon. member ended by giving some credit to the minister. Frankly, I am afraid I missed it. I was too appalled by the accusations and innuendos. I will not repeat myself, Madam Speaker. I know there are other people who want to speak on this subject and who are as incensed as I am that a man who is protecting the weakest element of our society is now being impeached in this chamber. If I may, I would like to quote part of the oath of Hippocrates;
The regimen I shall adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients according to my ability and judgment, and not for their hurt or for any wrong. I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortion.
The doctors who now brag of having broken our law took this oath. Do they now become heroes. Or is the real hero not the man who is being asked now to produce his papers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments in this most important debate. I listened with great interest to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and, as I anticipated, he referred to the definition of the World Health Organization. He made reference to previous comments by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) regarding health and his interpretation of it, and the hon. member discussed the law as interpreted now and in the past. He discussed the Morgentaler case and he reiterated the same arguments we have heard from him so many times in the past. He reiterated them on behalf of many other individuals who support the pro-abortionist movement.
I say to the hon. member that in my view he has not accurately assessed the changing mood of the people of Canada as they have become more knowledgeable about the realities of abortion and more vocal in their determination to stop abortion on demand. I think this has been demonstrated in two ways today in this House. The Committee of One Million in presenting their brief on abortion to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last week and in presenting their petition today to the House of Commons,

expressed their concern over the escalation of abortions which now exceed 43,000 per year in Canada, or 12.6 per cent of live births. They also expressed their concern regarding the deleterious effects of abortion on the health of women and their subsequent offspring, and about the social effects of widespread abortion in decreasing respect for every individual human life.
The formation of an all-party group in defence of the unborn child emphasizes the importance with which members of parliament view this problem and their earnest desire to promote fresh, meaningful debate. I believe the new order has begun. A new Canadian conscience is growing and demanding accurate information and informative debate, not only in this chamber but in every community and home in Canada. There is no place for misleading statements and misinformation which have contributed to the present situation of abortion on demand. The goal is to seek accurate information about the life and the world of the unborn child, to seek new approaches, to protect the life of the unborn child and to ensure that a mother's rights to health, happiness and freedom from other burdens are also protected.
I believe it is the responsibility of members of parliament to give the Canadian people the opportunity to determine the laws which will govern this country and it is in this spirit that I wish to make a few personal observations. The issue of abortion is not a private matter. It is not a sectarian religious problem or one of private morality. The issue is not to determine when life begins, for that is a scientific fact which is well known. The question which must be answered is what value we shall place on human life in general and whether the unborn human life in particular is entitled to legal protection.
The implications of this observation extend beyond the special concern of abortion, and in the final analysis they may be more important than the abortion issue before us. If we can justify the killing of an unborn child because it does not, by definition, fall within the arbitrary boundaries of humanity, then the question must logically be asked, will we decide that an individual, because of mental illness, senility, severe brain damage following an accident or for other reasons ceases to have the capability to lead a meaningful life, loses the protection of the law? The list of questions which can and should be asked in this regard is endless.
In the broader context of the abortion issue I would like to make reference to an editorial entitled, "A new ethic for medicine and society." This was published in the official journal of the California Medical Association at the height of a debate regarding the liberalization of the abortion law in California. The editorial discusses the controversy which exists not only in the United States but here as well in which the intrinsic worth and equality of every human life is secured by law regardless of age or health. It also discusses a new ethic according to which human life can be taken for what are viewed to be compelling social, economic or psychological needs of others. I would like to quote an important section of this article and it is as follows:
The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long-held western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for human life regardless of its stage, condi-
May 29, 1975

tion, or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws, and public policy rather than the reverse.
Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.
In defining a growing role of physicians in deciding who will and will not live, the editorial went on to state:
One may anticipate further development of these roles as the problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and death control whether by the individual or by society.
Those of us who believe in the old ethic, and I am convinced that represents by far the majority of Canadians, are looking to the political process to reflect these views.
It is extremely important in debating this issue that we work and seek a point of view which can be accepted by all rational men and women. In this regard I must say to my colleagues and those individuals who utilize the term "sanctity of life" that I find the term is restrictive. In many cases it may only be accepted by those with religious views. It does have the advantage, or disadvantage depending on the point of view, of settling the abortion debate. In similar fashion for those who have the points of view that support abortion on demand, the debate is settled very quickly. So I say to you, Madam Speaker, that it is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with that term.
Another term which is frequently used and which has some credibility is "quality of life". I know that term is used very frequently by those to my left. I believe it is at times an overworked phrase and can take on a very serious dimension which is unacceptable to the majority of people. When quality of life is interpreted as abortion, when quality of life allows a deformed infant to die, or when quality of life determines whether government medical priorities infuse funds to the elderly rather than to the young-and I give that as an example-then surely it is obvious that a consensus among men and women will not be reached.
The question must then be asked: is there a common point of view acceptable to all? I believe the answer to that question is an unqualified yes. In Canada we have the Bill of Rights and in the United States the Constitution, which indicate that to be human is to possess certain rights, and among these is the right to life.
The phrase, the right to life, suggests something objective, something which can be defined and acted upon. For example, the fetus has a right to life; a comatose patient has a right to life; a patient with a brain stem injury who is in a coma has a right to life.
Abortion
This implies that a life should not be taken without adequate justification, and every living thing has a presumptuous right to live. In these circumstances the burden of proof rests on the individual who would take life and not on the individual who would preserve it. I recognize this leaves the crucial issue undetermined, namely, when is taking life justified? That, of course, is where disagreements occur.
I would state in the strongest terms possible that if we are looking for a point of view with universal acceptance, the right to life would fit the criterion, in my view. Such a point of view would protect our own self-interests and concern for our family, friends, and community. It is obvious there is an advantage to each of us to honour such a direction. And what is more important, Madam Speaker, it places the burden of proof on those who disobey the rule and opens the debate, as it should be opened, to decide what constitutes justifiable exceptions.
I hope my brief comments will serve a useful purpose in forming the framework upon which scientific data and the broad range of new knowledge and information can be added. I am convinced that if this House is permitted to debate this particular issue at a later date with honesty, with seriousness on the part of all members, and in a very rational form, and with new sources of information and knowledge, then the Committee of a Million that has been in Ottawa today will have been successful in its efforts.


Douglas Roche: It is a
rare event when we hear in this House a speech of such high principle and practical wisdom as we have just heard from an hon. member who is, I would remind you, Madam Speaker, a medical doctor.
I should like to say a word in response to the speech made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) who summed up his remarks by saying, "Let's find out what is happening in the abortion issue". I can tell the hon. member what is happening.
I want to make some remarks concerning the suggestion of the hon. member in a spirit that I hope he will accept-a spirit that is not contentious, not filled with wild emotion. I would ask him to look at this very serious question in a way that I know he is capable of looking at it. In the time that we have served together in this House I have to come to admire the hon. member for the perspicacity of his approach, for his fighting spirit, for his legal expertise. Because he possesses these qualities I would ask him to move to an even higher level in this question and consider the civil rights of the unborn child.
The hon. member put forward a case that has a fundamental flaw. When he was summing up that portion of his remarks regarding Dr. Morgentaler he was calling for more therapeutic abortion committees to permit the kind of abortions that he would like to see permitted in the country. He moved from that to what is his real purpose, the real approach that he brings to this House, and that is not so much that he wants more therapeutic abortions as that he wants abortion taken out of the Criminal Code and made a private matter between a woman and her doctor- a matter in which, as he says, women will not be discriminated against.
6254

May 29, 1975
Abortion
I want to go on to the legal position. I encourage the hon. member to review this. I say to him, as the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) has said, that abortion is not a private matter. The destruction of human life, even incipient or developing human life in the womb, can never be considered a private matter under our law.
I am not going to take the time to go down the side avenue of the legal case of a pregnant woman being hurt in an automobile accident and the double suit that results because there is a double life. I only want to say to the hon. member that just as the civil right to vote and the civil right against discrimination that all of us have must be protected by law, so too must the most fundamental and basic of civil rights, the right to life, be protected by law. It is that protection by law of the right of the unborn children of our country that I am addressing myself to, and practically no other element of this very complex issue.
If it was the intention of parliament to have the kind of abortion law envisaged by the hon. member for New Westminster, I think parliament would have made that clear in the 1969 amendments. I, too, have read those debates. I have come to the conclusion that it was not the intention of parliament to put through a law, the result of which would be the quadrupling of abortions over the next four years. In the year 1973, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 43,201 abortions, or 12.6 per cent of live births in this country.
I submit that the facts on that occasion illustrate the deep concern that members of parliament had to protect human life in the womb and at the same time to provide that avenue, as my colleague from Lambton-Kent said, for what constitutes justifiable exceptions. Therefore I appeal to the hon. member to consider that the intent of parliament, however badly that law was finally framed, was to protect human life and to allow for exceptions in cases that would be medically indisputable.
The hon. member comes from a province adjoining mine, the province of British Columbia. I ask him to consider British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, the three wealthiest provinces in this country, which now have the highest rates of abortion by far. Are we to suspect that it is more dangerous to a woman's health to be pregnant in British Columbia, Alberta or Ontario than in any other province? Surely that fact alone illustrates that in those provinces abortions are being performed for social reasons, which was not the intent of parliament.
As legislators we must give very serious consideration to our responsibilities. A short while ago the hon. member and I were on the external affairs committee together. We achieved a result because there was collaboration. We achieved something that will benefit Canada in the long run. We did that by working together, even though we do not share the same basic views. I ask him whether we can work together, as reasonable people who have a common bond in this House, for good law. I cannot believe that the hon. member will accept any law as good if it violates the civil rights of unborn children in such escalation as we have seen over the past four years.

The hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) brought in a petition today with over one million names. I remember a cold, wintry day in November, 1973, when the Alliance for Life and associated groups came to parliament Hill with a petition of 350,000 names. They presented it to members of parliament in a demonstration of concern for the pro-life movement. We encouraged them to go back to their homes around the country and triple their efforts to bring back to parliament a petition containing the names of one million Canadians who wanted nothing more or less than justice on the abortion laws.
Today we have seen the result of the determination of that group of people who have touched the nerves of so many Canadians from coast to coast. The petition they brought in today asks members of parliament to consider this question seriously. Members of parliament from all four parties in this House have banded together in a spirit of co-operation to try to achieve a good law. I appeal to the minister and the hon. member for New Westminster to join with us.
We have produced a statement which all hon. members in this House are invited to join through signature or association. Many members of parliament have already become associated with this inter-parliamentary group. I predict that it is going to grow. As it grows and as we move into a major debate in this House, I ask the hon. member to consider seriously whether he can work with us to achieve what is our common goal of law.
The hon. member for York South put on record the words of the petition so that those thousands of Canadians who will be seeing Hansard over the course of the next few weeks will be familiar with what is actually stated in the petition. I want to put on record a few paragraphs of our statement of concern with which members of parliament are becoming associated. I quote the precise statement:
As members of parliament, representing all parties, we wish to indicate publicly our concern at the growing number of abortions in Canada.
Section 251 of the Criminal Code permits a therapeutic abortion committee to allow an abortion when continuation of a mother's pregnancy "would be likely to endanger her life or health". Since that law went into effect, abortions quadrupled to 43,201 in the four years 1970-73 and are now 12.6 per cent of live births in Canada.
This indicates to us that the word "health" is being defined very broadly and that in fact abortions are being permitted for a variety of social reasons. We believe parliament did not intend this to happen and we ask that legislative action now be taken to stop this needless escalation while at the same time allowing abortions in genuine cases of danger to life or health.
We affirm that abortion is not a private matter. The destruction of human life, even incipient or developing human life in the womb, can never be considered a private matter under our law. Nor is abortion a merely sectarian religious problem or one for the area of private morality. As legislators, we view abortion as a question of civil rights: the civil right to life of the unborn child. The civil rights of the mother cannot be expressed by summarily taking away the life of the unborn child.
In saying this we also emphasize our support of measures to assist pregnant women who are troubled. A positive response to social problems will help to remove the desire for abortion.
All this is a profound and delicate problem.
As legislators, we recognize that the problem must be dealt with primarily in parliament. It is not a matter of better application of the present law; it is the wording of the present law which permits such
May 29, 1975

loose application and which consequently must be changed. This issue, cutting to the very core of life itself, transcends partisanship, and it is in a spirit of collective responsibility that we are seeking a better law. To this end we have formed a Parliamentary Group in Defence of the Unborn.
We welcome the petition of one million signatures sponsored by the Committee of One Million which requests legislation "providing for the child conceived but not yet born the same protection provided for any other person."
We ask the Canadian government to give earnest consideration to a legislative change in Section 251 to restrict abortions to cases where the medical need is indisputable.
I close on this note. I believe this to be a moderate and responsible approach taken across the aisle of this House, and I ask the government to give serious consideration to what we have set forth in this document, one which expresses the will of one million Canadians and many more besides.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, the important matter we are debating today concerns the confidential nature of the discussions and communications between the federal and the provincial governments. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has asked that copy of the correspondence on abortion and section 251 of the Criminal Code exchanged between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), the provincial attorneys general and provincial health ministers be tabled in the House.
In the last few years, the disclosure of information by ministers of the Crown has been the subject of many a discussion. Indeed, on March 15, 1973, the President of the Privy Council proposed a series of guidelines on that vast subject. The correspondence concerned in the motion before the House obviously falls under section 4, which guarantees the confidentiality of government documents whose disclosure could be prejudicial to federal-provincial relations.
On presenting that text, the President of the Privy Council stated, and I quote:
Our objective is to make as much information available as possible. We believe that Members of Parliament require factual information about the operations of the government in order that they may carry out their parliamentary duties. That statement is included in the general principle. We are also aware that the desire to make available as much information as possible must be balanced against effective public administration, protection of the security of the state and rights to privacy. It is always a delicate matter of judgment to balance the desire to make information available with the effective administration of the government, security of the state and other considerations.
All members, I am convinced, recognize unreservedly the often delicate and extremely complex character of federal-provincial relations. It is obvious that in some cases, the first governmental objective-information- should give place to superior interests, of which free and honest communication between the federal and provincial governments is not the least. One cannot deny that when information is intended for the population or for public debate, its expression often takes on a meaning or colour that is different from that which is important to the promotion and preservation of elements of compromise and comprehension as well as to the openness of mind and equilibrium essential to federal-provincial relations. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that this touches on the
Committee Report
main principles governing the divulging of internal administrative instructions and documents.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, may I point out that the Minister of Justice, members of parliament and the public in general have all interest in any information on governmental activities being published, but obviously, in my statement, there must be "reasonable" limits to such a policy, and the word "reasonable" is the key word, so that the government may act with efficiency and security. As a result, the exclusion of intergovernmental correspondence, such as the kind mentioned in the motion, represents an exception that is motivated as well as essential. In the present case, Madam Speaker, official secret regulations have been well observed, of that I am convinced, so I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion. Madam Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. The hour appointed for private members' business has now expired. It being six o'clock, I leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning a report tabled in the House today. I am referring to the third report of the Special Joint Committee on Public Service Employer-Employee Relations. I wish to point out a substantial discrepancy in the translation. On page 5 of the French text, paragraph (a) reads as follows:
(a) Les fonctions et pouvoirs du tribunal d'arbitrage, de l'arbitre en chef et des arbitres devraient etre confies a la Commission des relations de travail dans la Fonction publique et revoques par les membres de la Commission, siegeant en comites ou a titre personnel;
I point out to the House that that was not what the committee had in mind when it drafted that provision. The English text is the one that reflects better the opinion of the committee, and I quote from page 5 (a):

(a) The functions and powers of the Arbitration Tribunal, the Chief Adjudicator and adjudicators should be assigned to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and discharged by members of the Board, sitting as panels or as individuals;


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the point raised by the hon. member is very important, doubly so as the report will appear in today's Votes and Proceedings. The Chair therefore will see to it that the matter is looked into and corrections made so that the text be consistent with facts and the translation revised.

May 29, 1975
Status of Women



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-16, to amend certain statutes to provide equality of status thereunder for male and female persons, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned at five o'clock I was mentioning that in the old days female employees could be laid off because they were pregnant or after giving birth. This practically never happens nowadays, neither among federal employees who are not civil servants nor even in the private sector. So the legislation has evolved. Representations were made to that effect by organizations which defended the role of women in business, and employers took heed.
Mr. Speaker, there is also in that omnibus bill an amendment which caught my attention and which I fully endorse. I am referring to the cadet corps sponsored by the National Defence Department. Up to now, that department only accepted young boys in that cadet corps, and in the amendment of the minister, the word "person" would be substituted for "boy", which would enable young girls to take an active part in such cadet corps. Now, there again, Mr. Speaker, even though it was not provided in the act, the Department of National Defence has been allowing young girls into cadet corps for at least two years. In fact, a few days ago, I attended in La Sarre, in my constituency, the tenth anniversary of the foundation of the cadet corps, and I noticed several young girls among the cadets. At the various information booths, we saw for ourselves that those young girls, especially in the field of communications, managed quite well among the boys of that cadet corps. They showed that they could provide us with the required information, that they could find co-ordinates on maps of the area and, therefore, eventually render services and even direct, if necessary, the operations of a military corps. Well, I agree with that provision of Bill C-16 which will actually allow young girls to enrol in those cadet corps. Since it was decided that 1975 would be Women's Year in Canada, the press especially and the broadcasting media have given that event a wide coverage. This publicity has not always turned out to women's advantage. Even if they wanted or thought they would liberate women in all their daily activities or whatever, it seems that they tried to ridicule the role of women at home, and it is quite unfortunate. They have tried to lead people to believe that women had no future at home, that they should be only outside, that they could be useful only out of their home, which I believe, Mr. Speaker, is completely wrong.
Recently in northwest Quebec, in Abitibi, there has been a meeting of more than 250 women from Abitibi, a meeting

about a project for the promotion of women; the women at the meeting have been able during that day to evaluate their situation and to think over many aspects of life today. They believe that publicity diminishes women by leading people to believe that the mother or the wife at home is of no use to society. They suggested that women at home bring out human values, they prepare the society of tomorrow, first by giving life, by educating children, by giving them the sense of moral and social responsibilities, as the family is the cell of society.
Mr. Speaker, how often have we seen or heard judges of the social welfare court mention that juvenile delinquency, for example, was generally due to the desertion of women from home. They have deplored this situation. But, to try through a huge and well-organized campaign to make people believe that a woman's place is not at home anymore, that is fostering juvenile delinquency. A woman's duty is first and foremost to her-home. When she has to work outside for long hours, especially when there are young children, she cannot achieve maximum efficiency, either in one place or the other.
There is another important role: that played by a woman within the family. There is no better way to get involved in society. As far as religion is concerned, it is emphasized that the woman who believes in Christ gives another dimension to moral and human values; she gets involved in a more serene manner. That also is important, Mr. Speaker. There is too much of a tendency nowadays to forget human values. This definitely leads us to lose the sense authority. In the last fifteen years, especially in Quebec, there has been constant demands to relax authority, so that next to nothing is respected anymore. There is no more respect for authority. Parental authority is disregarded. So is government authority, at every level. The law is ignored, so we should not wonder at what is now happening. This is important. We must insist that the woman with small children may spend all her time bringing up her children, if she so desires. Ten years ago or so, one bank researched the homemaker's monetary value, what should be a fair return for the work she does in the home. The figure was quite impressive.
This is what was found ten years ago. The daily work load of the wife was assessed as follows: As a baby-sitter, $55.63 a week; as a dietitian, $3 a week; as a shopper, $4.95; as a cook, $32.75; as a dishwasher, $9.30; as a housekeeper, $26.25; as a washerwoman, $11.21; as a seamstress, $3.25; as a practical nurse, $1.20; as a caretaker, $3.83; as a gardener, $3.57; as a driver, $4.44 a week. That makes a total of $159.38, and that was ten years ago.
Mr. Speaker, if we had to pay wives at those rates, I believe that many more men would wash dishes, do the housework and the shopping, but such is not the case. The fact is that the housewife plays a very important role which frees the husband and enables him to spend more time at his work and earn what is required to support this cell of society that is the family.
Mr. Speaker, these values must not be ignored. This is why we are always trying to improve our social legislation, for instance. When we press the government, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde),
May 29, 1975

for instance, we are often thought hard to deal with and demanding, but, Mr. Speaker, we do this precisely to give more freedom to women, to enable the wife with young children to do her work and raise her children without having to get outside work in order to supplement the income required for the welfare of her family.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Bill C-16, which includes several amendments, will improve in certain cases the status of women. In other cases, it may deprive the wife of certain privileges she previously had, for instance, when her husband is brought before the court for a criminal offence. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill should be considered further in the appropriate committee, and I believe that for the moment, even though we could ask for more, either in this bill or in the related legislation, it remains an important step, and we are ready to support and endorse it.


Marc Lalonde: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of National Health and Welfare on a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with the representatives of the other parties and I think that the various parties agreed that the next speakers should be restricted to 20 minutes up to the end of the debate on second reading.


Walter David Baker: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: D'accord.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it agreed that the speeches be limited to 20 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the feminist author Simone de Beauvoir said that there were two kinds of beings in this world, human beings and women, but that when women began behaving like human beings they were accused of trying to be like men. We've come a long way as the ads say, but we have a whole world of attitudes to change before we will progress much further.
It was in 1921 that Agnes MacPhail blazed a trail from the prairies to Parliament Hill. But even then, once we knew the way, we did not follow in large numbers. In 1972 there were five women in this chamber. As five more came to join them, Grace Maclnnis, a respected veteran of long years on the political and feminist scene, retired, reducing our total to 9 out of 264. We still have a long way to go until we accomplish the minimum 51 per cent coup d'etat.
Exactly this time last year I received a letter from the only declared feminist in my area. It arrived just after my nomination, and read in part:
Prime Minister Trudeau in his Throne speech promised "equality for women". There are very few women's rights groups in the north but it is only a matter of time before the movement reaches us with any momentum.
Status of Women
The only people who can be truly interested in seeing the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women implemented are women themselves.
If you become our elected representative I, as one of your constituents, would expect you to be familiar with the Royal Commission Report and also do work in support of its implementation. I will work toward a successful campaign on your behalf ...
She went on to say I have her vote even though she is a socialist, and she hopes she can secure many more.


An hon. Member:: Is that from Frank Howard?


Iona Campagnolo: No. It is from a woman.
I must tell my constituent, and her newly organized more than 200 sisters in the north, that the bill of rights, which will bring forward for debate the major unfulfilled recommendations of the report on the Status of Women, is almost completed. But I must admit, it seems there is an unjustifiable length of time before getting such measures into the House for consideration. What good is it to put forward a bill such as the one we address ourselves to tonight if it languishes, waiting for House time? Yes, it is good legislation.
The statute law (Status of Women) Amendment Act, 1974, would have been good legislation in 1954. Substituting the word "spouse" for "wife" is important. Amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide more flexibility in the period during which maternity benefits may be paid is important. Amending the Pension Act to create new entitlement for widowers of members of the armed forces is important. It is just that spouses of military women should receive benefits. It is just that members of the forces who are married to each other receive consideration. It is very important that girls be allowed to belong to cadet organizations, and that the National Defence Act be amended to accomplish that. But it is attitudes of mind that are the most important to change.
The persisting myths and fables about women must be banished forever. We women are reputed to be waspish, ungenerous, even evil; and of course, most of all, we are reputed to hate each other. We are manipulated to oppose each other like prize cats, a tactic that has worn thin with age and fatigue, for women of every station in life, of every philosophical persuasion, have come to realize that by being supportive of each other, by giving the other woman the edge, if you will, the unity that results can change our destinies.
I will not quote again the endless statistics that show quite clearly women face economic discrimination. I would like to remind hon. members that it costs as much for a woman to rent a room, buy food and clothes, get medical, dental and professional aid, as it does a man.
Are there 20 per cent price cuts in theatre tickets, for instance, to the hardworking ladies-wear clerk who makes 20 per cent less than the male clerk selling lingerie beside her?
Ah, but the potential employer says gravely: "No matter how competent you may be, you may prove to be unreliable because women have babies". I submit once and for all, so do men. Men have babies too. Parenthood is not a unilateral business.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!

May 29, 1975
Status of Women


Iona Campagnolo: You will find that 34 per cent of families are headed by women in this country today. Is raising children to become exclusively women's work? I have real faith that the new generation will reserve this trend and allow fathers who wish it to become an integral part of their children's lives.
One of the concerns of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), both as minister of that department and as minister responsible for the status of women, has been to study the possibility of including non-wage earning spouses, those who work in the home, under the Canada Pension Plan. It was for this reason that last year he requested the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee to submit proposals to him, outlining ways in which spouses who work in the home could become contributors to the Canada Pension Plan. Early this year he received the recommendations of these two groups.
Both advisory bodies considered three alternatives unacceptable. They concluded that it would be impractical to include non-wage earning spouses in the plan through the payment of a salary to spouses working at home. In addition, they submitted recommendations against including spouses in the plan through a system of voluntary contributions or through the establishment of a separate plan.
They did both recommend, however, that spouses at home be included within the plan, and that Canada Pension Plan credits be evenly divided or split between marriage partners for the purpose of applying benefits and other provisions-either on a continuing basis, or only in case of marriage breakdown. The Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee suggested that this might be carried out on a universal basis, or only in the case of marriage breakdown. The ACSW, on the other hand, proposed that the splitting of credits be implemented on a universal basis for the future and, in the case of marriage breakdown, splitting of past pension credits also.
Now let us look for a moment at that romantic stereotype with which we are all so familiar, marriage. You all know it well. Women and men are socialized to believe that their roles as mother and wife and father and husband will prove to be the ultimate source of fulfillment. In some cases blessed couples are able to accomplish that, but the realities of marriage are harsh.
Let us look at some marriage laws and interpret the meaning, clear eyed and without romance, as a recent women's publication did. Here we have what women think about marriage:
The law says a husband must support his wife and children ... but a working wife can keep all her earnings for herself. She does not have to support her husband or even her children. The law means women are not responsible for supporting other people, women are kept, they are not keepers. The law says the wife must live wherever the husband chooses. If she doesn't she can be classified as a deserting wife. She will lose her dower rights and right to support, and he can divorce her. The law means she must be physically available. The law says if the wife leaves the husband or is unfaithful to him, she loses her right to be supported by him and she loses her right to his property. The law means even if she has lived with him for 20 years and has been a full-time cook, housekeeper, nursery-maid, janitor, secretary and lover, all without pay, she loses her rights to everything as soon as she stops
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).j
providing sexual services exclusively for him. The wife has a right to the husband's property only so long as she is part of his property. The law says the husband can sue for loss of consortium, the wife cannot. The law means the wife has pledged her body, the husband has not... The law says a man cannot be convicted of rape if the victim is his wife. The law means it is not a crime to violate what you own.
There was talk of urgency today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and he is right. There is urgency. Women have defined beyond question their needs; they have been studied, they have been analysed, they have been researched. Now is the time to end the study and the talk, now is the time for action. Women have sought out their history and their heroines, and there are many, many heroines in this country, ordinary Canadian women who have striven, worked, protected, comforted and nurtured their families but who have sought a richer, kinder, gentler life for all mankind at the same time. Kindness is our weapon and our strength. A society as torn with extremes as ours requires healthy doses of love, warmth, and kindness if it is to survive. But we want these to be considered and actually to be male as well as female attributes. We want these characteristics to be assumed unashamedly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: In other words, we want both sexes to be full-flowering, well-rounded, loving human beings.
"Vive la vie", I see it around me today everywhere. Life is sacred and precious, and I agree most fervently. But "vive la vie" must be considered at both extremes in our society and in our time, and I submit that in extreme circumstances there will be abortions and there will be capital punishment under the laws as they presently stand. The two are irretrievably locked in logic. Neither abortion nor capital punishment would take place in an enlightened society. Abortion should be unnecessary, execution by the state unwarranted. But sadly, in my opinion, we are not at that stage of development at this time.
Before I was elected I told my future constituents how I felt about the issue of abortion. I said I believed abortion should be removed from the Criminal Code and placed under the provisions of the National Health Act.
I believe there are considerably more abortions taking place in our hospitals than are necessary, and I submit these abortions are dehumanizing to women and weaken their general integrity. I do not think that hospital committees are functioning in the manner in which they were intended to function in some cases, and I do not think the present system is equally administered across the country.
I believe that checks and balances are required, and I respect the stand of the Alliance for Life, but unfortunately L cannot agree with them, because until our country places more emphasis on sexual responsibility and contraception, there will continue to be too many abortions. There have always been abortions, there are abortions now, and I submit that until we have a perfect society there will continue to be abortions.
If we submit to the anti-abortionists, there will resume in our back streets the devastating disgrace of illegal abortions, a return to the maiming and deaths of women in the past. On the other hand, if we move to the completely pro-abortion stand, we will do irreparable harm to the
May 29, 1975

social fabric of this nation. The Hippocratic oath, I submit, would have been written differently in the matter of abortion had it been men who conceived in ancient Athens!
It has been an emotional day in the House and many of us have met with the earnest representatives of the Alliance for Life, but I appeal to members of the House, and to people outside this House who look to us for leadership, for a rational approach to a profoundly complex problem. The present law of the land is a good law when administered with equity.
I think I would like to answer one question that was raised by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). He wondered why the richest provinces had the highest abortion rate. I can offer an answer to the hon. member. The answer is that the wealthy of this country and the wealthy of the world have always had access to abortion, and the poor, the ill-educated, and those who are unfortunate not to share our level of life, have not. Their sisters are beginning to have the same type of equity as has been known in the circles of the rich since time began.
There must always be room for rational thought. Slides of aborted fetuses to sensationalize a particular philosophy serve no other purpose than to bring to mind the revolting human degradation of women who were driven by such desperation as most men cannot imagine to attempt to abort themselves, or to submit their bodies to an inept, illegal, back-street abortionist. Is the bloody and dismembered fetus any more or less repugnant to anyone here to view than, for instance, a thirteen year old girl, crouched naked in death in her own blood, after attempting to abort herself with a sharpened kitchen implement? I leave those two thoughts in the minds of hon. members tonight as they consider the status of women in this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that although perhaps some of us in the House would not agree completely with all of the sentiments that have been expressed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo)-and I emphasize "the hon. member"-there are none in the House who would in any way deny the conviction and passion with which her speech to us was delivered this evening. After having said that, I would like to deal with the basis of the bill, and not to deny in any way the very strong feelings which the hon. member for Skeena has expressed.
Some time ago the director of the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labour was speaking at Thunder Bay, Ontario, and she put forward in a very simple but a very profound way the principle that the bill seeks to advance. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote her words on that particular occasion so that they may appear in the records of the House. She said:
Canadian society consists of a single total entity made up of many component parts, men and women comprising the two basic major components. But men and women in Canadian society belong to a considerable number of cultural, ethnic and religious groups, each of which is in itself an integral component of the total social structure.
Status of Women
Only in recent years have we come to understand that the quality of this total society cannot be higher than the quality of the least advantaged of all of its components. Thus, if the status of any one ethnic group is of a lower degree than that of another ethnic group, the quality of the total Canadian society is reduced, if the status of one cultural group is considered to be inferior to that of another, then the quality of the total Canadian cultural mosaic is thereby lowered. If the status of one racial group is inferior to that of another, then the quality of the total Canadian society is lessened.
Similarly, if the status of women in Canadian society is less than that of men, either in law or in practice-
As was so well put by the hon. member for Skeena.
-then the status of Canadian society, as a whole, is lowered thereby. For in these circumstances Canada is not only seen to be a society in which evenhanded justice fails to prevail but the country is deprived of one of its greatest resources, for it is deprived of a potential inherent in half of the population.
I think that hon. members on all sides of this House will agree that the words of the speaker on that occasion were indeed profound.
If Bill C-16 is carefully reviewed it can be found that it is part of the legislative action we must deal with in this House if we are to give more than lip service to the sound principle which is being discussed tonight, the principle of equality of status. In speaking to this bill and in stating my basic support for what it contains, I want to make it clear that I do not condone what must be described, even by the most unbiased observer, as some pretty slow progress by the government.
This bill, or one similar to it, was introduced into the twenty-ninth parliament, but during those days the government was more concerned with survival than with equity and justice, so it was allowed to die. I believe that its action-or in this case, its lack of action-is more eloquent than ministerial protestation and pronouncements, particularly in that year which preceded International Women's Year. This lack of action, I submit, speaks for itself. The fact is that the government has given a low priority to the status of women in our society.
In the fall of 1974 the bill came forward again in the form in which it is now before us, and here we are halfway through International Women's Year, just beginning the discussion of the principles of this bill, and at a time when this House is running into the tail end of the first half of this session. And all of this is occurring in the atmosphere which was created by a minister who tried to give the impression on the program entitled "Lady is a Four Letter Word" that his government gave it a high priority.
In view of the atmosphere he tried to create, perhaps we may be able to thank the minister for saying what he did because I am convinced that if he had not been cornered on that program, thereby creating the impression that he did, he would not have had to move at long last. The minister has now moved, and I suggest with the greatest of respect to him that he has moved in this direction not out of any great commitment to the rights of women, but by reason of a great commitment to himself and his own preservation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 29, 1975
Status of Women


Mr. Caccia:: How can you say that?


Walter David Baker: All my friends on all sides of the House know that in a matter of this nature it is not my intention nor my way to be partisan-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Walter David Baker: -because this piece of legislation does involve the fundamental rights of one-half of the Canadian people, how that one-half is to be treated, dealt with and considered, and in what way and whether that one-half is to be subject to the same law and the same practice as the other half.
What is the cause of women in Canada this year and, indeed, in every year to follow? Women in Canada are asking for the opportunity to play a full and complete role in the social, economic, and political life of this land. They ask for no more, and they will accept no less. In those terms they are asking all Canadians, men and women, to re-examine their respective attitudes toward women, and we are asked today to approve in principle a bill to give at least part of that re-examination some life.
I know of no case which could be based on a stronger foundation. Surely there are few causes which can claim to be based on such principles of human rights as have been proclaimed and are supported in our own country and in other countries throughout the world, through the auspices of the United Nations.
In Canada the fundamental document is the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and human rights legislation, such as it is, in our statutes and in those of the provinces which have made advances in that sense. This bill puts forward for consideration by this House some eleven more of the recommendations of that royal commission, so it is important on that ground alone. But let us not rest on our oars, for this bill does not bring us to the end of our labours or to the end of the road. However, we can say that it is a step, even though it is a minuscule step, along the way to what women and, I hope, fairminded Canadians regardless of sex would like to see for that one-half of the population.
I had intended to deal at some length with the principles of the legislation. The minister was kind enough to do that in the course of his speech, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has also touched on it. The Committee will have an opportunity to deal with the detail of this legislation, so I will not do so at this time. Regardless of that, the changes which are inherent and understood in this legislation are long overdue.
Although some may say that the government and the minister cannot be faulted for bringing these changes forward at this time, I say with a great deal of respect for the minister that he and the government can certainly be faulted for not bringing them forward at an earlier stage in this parliament or, indeed, in the twenty-ninth parliament.
In considering this bill I think it is fair to say to the minister that the work of the government and of this parliament with respect to the position of women in our society and their status in that society is by no means completed. For example, I would call the attention of my

hon. colleagues to the position of women in the Public Service of Canada. Within that public service women are gaining some recognition for their abilities, but though women represent more than one third of the labour force they are still mainly restricted to lower paid, non management jobs. This is not to say that the onus must fall completely on the government. The government has made some efforts in the direction of assisting women, or providing the vehicle by which women can move into management positions to a greater degree.
There is certainly an onus on women to prepare themselves educationally for the positions they desire and then to push for recognition to obtain those positions. There is support for this from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and I know that there is the same degree of support from the Professional Institute of the Public Service. I hope that as time goes on, women for their own part will adopt a firmer stand within their respective bargaining agencies. One would hope to see more women elected to executive positions in those bargaining agencies. I think that would be carrying on the example set by Mrs. Carr and others in the labour movement.
I suppose part of the problem is the question of attitude. I know the position is changing, but for many women now in the public service I am sure their early life was one in which they were encouraged to become participants in traditional women's occupations. There were likely very few Canadian homes in which it was said to the daughters of those homes that they ought to become lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects. This attitude is certainly changing as enrolment in the professional schools would indicate, but there is still that reluctance which only time and new attitudes can eliminate.
I would not want anyone to have the impression that the onus is all on the women in the work force to improve themselves-there is a very heavy onus on the men in the work force with respect to their attitude toward their employees who are women.
I should like to commend to members on all sides of the House an article, actually the first five articles, referred to by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. The title of the article is "Canadian Business Isn't Really Committed to Extending Equal Opportunity to Women". The findings of a survey done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of some 850 CBC women across Canada are surprising, to say the least.
The conclusions of the task force report are that the majority of women are dissatisfied with their status in the corporation; that they suffer from frustration in their work situation, and there is a growing feeling of powerlessness.
The very interesting statistic to be noted, and this was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, is that the working environment in careers of CBC women are controlled by a male majority of three to one, who held an even greater proportion of decision-making power, 93 per cent of managerial jobs, and whose underlying beliefs about women's appropriate role at work differed drastically from the women's view of themselves. Another important finding is that there is a deepening frustration that
May 29, 1975

there had been so little change made. As well, there was a deep-seated belief that men were basically oblivious to their dissatisfaction and concerns, and had no real inclination toward equality of opportunity.
The results of all this, according to the report, are a reduced willingness to work, diminished productivity, and subtle forms of non co-operation in daily activities.
The report contained an excellent discussion on the problem as it relates to one corporation. I would respectfully commend it to members of the House because it concerned a public corporation analogous to the Public Service of Canada.
I would not want it to be said that there has been no advancement at all in terms of the public service. In fact the Public Service Commission annual report for 1974 does reveal some improvement in the statistical sense. But in the sense of the numbers of women involved in positions of increasing responsibility, the record is nothing to write home about. It is in this latter sense, as opposed to pure statistics, that progress should be measured.
One of the basic and classic cases of the lack of awareness of the government, and its failure to act with dispatch in terms of a large group of public servants, can be found in the case of the public service secretary and-the whole matter of rug-ranking. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I raised this matter in the House. It struck me as rather strange that the government, having received a brief in July, 1973, was only brought to a realization of the problem on February 14, 1974, a cold and frigid day when some thousands of public servants marched to this hill. For the first time there was a statement by the then minister responsible for the status of women, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), that he at least recognized that they had a problem. This was a victory won by the women in the public service by way of a peaceful demonstration.
There has been a lack of action, Mr. Speaker, and a lack of awareness, and these can be found in both the public and the private sector in the world of work. The fact is that women can no longer be restricted to traditional roles. The atmosphere and the circumstances must be provided that will enable them to make choices where they are encouraged to develop their own talents in any area that they choose. That principle ought to apply in the field of federal appointments-to the bench and to government boards and agencies, and to the Senate. In terms of the public service, of course, equal opportunity for women is more fundamental than that of merely filling posts at the top; it is at the middle and the lower echelons of the public service that there exist grave disparities between the numbers of men and women.
There is a tremendous requirement in all of the urban communities in Canada for the facility of properly staffed and properly equipped day care centres. There are some who regret the necessity for this kind of centre in the community, and they are entitled to their point of view. But social and economic conditions exist in this country where, to neglect day care facilities and their importance, can result in the imposition of an economic ball and chain to those women who choose, through necessity or otherwise, to enter the work force. There is a corresponding danger to the children of those women in terms of their care. The statistical parameters of the problem can be
Status of Women
simply put. In the city of Toronto there are 82,800 children in single parent families where there is the necessity for the parent to work.
We can deal with a number of factors that affect the status of women which this bill is intended to advance which, if I may put the case simply, is this. The case of women in Canada is the case of for equality before the law; equality in political life; in social and domestic life; education; and in employment.
While there is great emphasis given to the woman in the field of work, we must not forget those women who make the free choice of not participating in the work force but choose freely to participate in the community in the role of wife and mother. The government of Ontario has made some signal strides in this direction. The Law Reform Commission of the province of Ontario and the Attorney General of that province are to be congratulated. I suggest that such steps within the federal sphere would be welcome as well.
I do not know how one can reasonably argue that a woman who chooses to stay at home, raise children, and provide an atmosphere of tranquility, peace and stability, does not make a contribution in an economic sense to the well-being of that family unit and to the betterment of Canadian Society. Certainly the laws of contracts, and property rights, ought to recognize that equality. I believe that the law is generally moving in that direction.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say I do not believe that we have yet seen in this country or in the western hemisphere the opportunity for women, as one-half of the population of our country and of this hemisphere, to develop themselves fully in the sense that I have put before this House. I am one who firmly believes that while the initiative must rest with women to further their participation in those aspects of Canadian life, there is a duty on all Canadians, and a particular duty on this parliament and this government, to provide the atmosphere and the legislative framework for the advances that every fair-minded Canadian believes are right and just. Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that we must approach this legislation.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, if at all times it has been said and readily recognized that behind every great man there stood a woman, I feel that the Progressive Conservatives, and especially the hon. member who has just spoken, should understand that the Liberals have learnt that lesson long ago and stick to it. The Liberal party has close to ten women members, whereas they have only one.
Another point raised by my colleague is that the government should appoint a great number of women to positions other than that of simply presiding over the Senate, but he did not say so clearly. I must remind him that in the past five years, seven Canadian women were appointed either to the Supreme Court of Canada or to the higher courts in the land. These are simply remarks that I wished to make following his speech which did not contribute much of anything positive.
But the fact remains that I realize, as he does, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian women have had to wait a long

May 29, 1975
Status of Women
time before obtaining true recognition. One has only to recall the few following facts. In 1858, women were allowed for the first time to attend lectures at the University of Sackville in New Brunswick, where not until 1867 were they allowed to take a university course, although without hope of obtaining a diploma. In 1879, the University of King's College granted its first B.A. to a woman. Only in 1884 did McGill admit women, and only in 1885 in the case of the University of Toronto.
As for the role of Canadian women in politics, we had to wait until 1876 for the emergence of the first suffragette associations organized in Toronto by Mrs. Emily Howard Stowe, the first ever women doctor in Canada, who was to advocate women's associations that rapidly spread throughout the country. Then in 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919, the provinces successively granted women the right to vote and to sit as members of parliament.
In the province of Quebec, which I represent, such rights were granted only in 1940, unfortunately. Only in 1957 did we have the first woman appointed Minister of the federal government.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, in 1975, while people of all countries are maximizing their efforts to eliminate all forms of segregation, our attitudes in our own country, which are based upon our deepest traditions, are prompting us against our will, I believe, to cultivate the least excusable form of discrimination towards the ones who, for a long time now, have shown us their equality pre-eminently, and I mean women with a capital "W".
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, one needs only take a look at a few recent statistics to show that before 1960, particularly in Quebec, people were talking about the elite from colleges and universities. But already in 1952, 21 per cent of registrations in colleges and universities were from women and that proportion reached 36 per cent in 1971-72. Moreover, I believe, whatever people may say, that liberal professions and professions from "social democracy", as some would say, were always the ones to contribute more than others to the progress of our societies. One has but to quote a few statistics to show to what degree women paved a way for themselves in our present society.
I need only talk about self-sacrifice. Whenever I talk about self-sacrifice, I talk about nurses. In 1968, 100 per cent of the nurses in Quebec were women. As regards social workers, 95 per cent were women. Twenty-two per cent of the psychologists were women although it is a science where it is most difficult to get a university diploma. I am also speaking about psycho-analysts and public relations agents.
I think we men must recognize that we have entertained and fostered certain myths because in 1968 .1 of 1 per cent of engineers were women. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that we change our attitude. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) mentioned both in this House and in interviews he had previously, the government may bring in any possible and imaginable legislation, but if the attitude of Canadians does not change, if we are not prepared to evolve, none of those pieces of legislation will bring the results hoped for.
Yet Canada, even if we blame ourselves, as early as 1972 and 1971, to contradict somewhat my colleague opposite,

passed an order in council to urge all deputy ministers to review the role of women within departments to make it easier for them to have access to senior positions in the public service. And in 1972, again Canada showed leadership at the international level-leadership that is increasingly recognized-by asking and putting before the International Labour Organization the instrument of ratification of Agreement No. 100 concerning equal pay for men and women for equal work.
Following the recommendations by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, the government also quickly passed several measures both regulatory and legislative, and I mentioned one a few minutes ago. And in 1971 also under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Liberal government passed a legislation providing a maternity leave of 17 weeks. And Bill C-16 that will be passed I am sure by the majority of those who have an enlightened mind, will be a step forward even though it may not be the ultimate end of the purposes the government intends to achieve.
Indeed, Bill C-16 contains excellent steps such as those that were pointed out by the Minister'of National Health and Welfare. He talked about the Canada Elections Act and the Criminal Code. However, there again perhaps women are losing some of their privileges. But actually, it is a sign of her equality when there is talk of complicity vis-a-vis her husband in respect of the Immigration Act, the Public Service Employment Act, pensions, the Veterans Pensions' Act and, as I said, the legislation of 1971.
All those actions are a step forward indeed. But there are others to be taken. When we talk about confinement leave, Madam Speaker, I think we should progress further. Just think of a Scandinavian country where women are granted-and that might be a measure to consider-six months' leave after confinement, and men are also granted six months' leave directly after that so that they can become thoroughly acquainted with the realities of home.
As far as industry is concerned, Madam Speaker, I think women, although they are reaching higher and higher, should make their way to executive occupations. In my profession, in lawyers' offices, I deeply regret that, when one of my colleagues who had completed her course applied at a lawyer's office, they would wonder why they would place hopes in a woman who, four or five years later, would get married, have a child, and leave the office. If that very conservative branch does not alter its attitude, as I mentioned earlier, we shall miss the boat. In the business world, in the financial world and in international relations, I met women who indeed could have given remarkable lessons to men who indulge in a conservatism which only women will reverse and turn into a better attitude.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the year 1975 which was called Women's Year is falling short of its target, for this year should have been dedicated to the identification, not revalorization of women, since they were in Quebec and in Canada as a whole, I believe, given fair recognition. However, this year was used, I believe, more to voice claims than to identify women. The Secretary of State Department, through all its programs, gave Canadian women the opportunity to have programs which would enable them to come forward and display their sense of originality, not prove it, but show their mettle, for I think
May 29, 1975

it had already been proven. And I wonder, after talking with many women in my riding, whether some of the movements really are representative. Indeed, they served all sorts of more or less bitter purposes which only lead to recriminations. Women in the Chambly constituency like all other women in Quebec and the rest of Canada really want to live Women's Year in a better way than several associations let us know, and they really want to secure through this year's programs, the means of putting forward on a long term basis programs which will not only provide women in Canada with a better situation, but will enable us to reach that just society the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) advocated in 1968. And if a majority of our population are women, we must also expect great efforts on their part to help us govern this country. Just as the prime minister repeated in Montreal last weekend, to govern is not merely to pass pieces of legislation, it is to try to improve the condition of a whole society and that improved condition, Madam Speaker, is for both women and men and for the entire society, present and future.
Madam Speaker, I must congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who, I believe, increased his efforts by sponsoring Bill C-16. I commend him also for the meetings be held, for his drive and for the examples he gave to the Canadian people. It is not enough to pass laws in order that women be better accepted in the public service. It is not enough to pass laws in order to change something in immigration. It is necessary to adopt measures that will really change this society. Problems sometimes come from the laws, and I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare has already thought of a solution. I am also convinced that he has already engaged in talks with the provincial governments on that subject. One has only to think of the problem of alimonies when a woman wants to get a divorce. How many women are forced to collect their alimonies at unimaginable places. Their husband has fled the country, simply seeking to evade his obligations. I think the government must take steps to correct that situation. I remember that during the last electoral campaign, the Liberal party talked about a guaranteed income for all heads of families, and I expect this will be a subsequent step to Bill C-16.
Madam Speaker, we could enlarge upon many other subjects that should be dealt with along with Bill C-16, on the occasion of Women's Year. I believe hon. members who preceded me dealt with the proper subjects. As member of Parliament for Chambly, I wished to provide my whole support and agreement to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to support the women and even the men who are participating in this year's activities and indeed urge them to understand the real meaning of Women's Year, instead of seeing in it a year in which we are merely going to display past sores without introducing new solutions.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, at the outset may I say we have heard several erudite speeches this evening and these have dealt well with the philosophical and ideological implications of Bill C-16. I should like to take a few minutes to deal with a number of practicalities and suggest ways of solving certain problems. Along with my party in general, I support this omnibus bill
Status of Women
which appears to be an attempt to provide equality of status as between males and females in our society.
I should like to make a few comments about the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act as applied to maternity cases, and the manner in which benefits are given out. I might say I question whether this omnibus bill is the appropriate place for these amendments. Successive ministers in this government have promised to bring in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971. It appears they have failed to produce them because undoubtedly they were afraid of being defeated in the House. Again, they have talked about amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and there certainly is a need for a whole series of them. They were to have been brought in some time ago, but there is still little evidence that the government intends to move in this direction.
The cost of maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act is one which remains approximately the same from year to year. In 1973, according to the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee, almost $67 million were expended in benefits. Certainly maternity benefits do not rise or fall with unemployment rates to nearly the same extent as regular benefits. It is interesting to me that sickness benefits paid out in 1973 amounted to a little more than $80 million.
The proposed changes are, indeed, welcomed. The records of the committee studying the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971 show that the need for these changes was brought to the attention of the minister at that time. The answer then was that the requirement concerning the eight weeks previous to the confinement and the seven weeks after the confinement was in keeping with established international labour legislation. I would be interested to hear whether this international legislation has taken a different course, or whether there is new thinking on these matters.
Eligibility to receive maternity benefits under the act rests, first of all, upon the ability to provide a medical certificate. This would, presumably, not create any difficulty for most people, but there might be a few cases in isolated areas where pre-natal care is carried out by medical personnel who do not hold medical degrees, and in such circumstances it might be difficult to get such a certificate easily. I hope provision will be made in the regulations to take care of any hardship cases which might arise.
The second criterion of eligibility requires the applicant to have worked for at least 20 weeks within the year preceding the claim or since the last unemployment insurance claim. This is at variance with the regular benefits which may be obtained after only eight weeks of regular employment. The 20-week stipulation is in line, I believe, with the sickness provision, but it does create significant problems for claimants if they get caught in certain anomalous positions. For instance, if a woman temporarily collecting unemployment benefits becomes pregnant and then finds work but is unable to continue so as to accumulate 20 weeks of employment, because of her pregnancy she will not be eligible for any benefits even though she is a permanent member of the work force and a bona fide working person. I do not know what might be done in cases such as this, but possibly a careful framing of the

May 29, 1975
Status of Women
regulations might be of help. I should like to hear from the minister on this point; we should certainly look carefully at this aspect in committee so that untoward hardship may be avoided.
Again, difficulties might arise in cases where a woman is an active member of the labour force at the time of conception. Human nature being what it is, few women remember precisely when they became pregnant, and as the months go by they become even more hazy as to when conception occurred. Most rule of thumb methods used to identify this date are based upon the date of the woman's last menstrual period. However, this is not a reliable guide due to the extreme variations in the physiological activities of women.
Most full time pregnancies are considered to last approximately 280 days, but again there seem to be wide variations. There is the celebrated case in English jurisprudence in which, in a paternity suit, the court accepted a gestation period of well over 300 days. Therefore the regulations governing the eligibility of maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be looked at carefully to prevent situations arising which will deprive people of their benefits through peculiar circumstances.
Further, in the pay-out of benefits considerable difficulty arises for recipients of maternity benefits. Pamphlets underline the fact to the recipient that "Your benefit payments begin after you have served the required two week waiting period". This statement is not only misleading but somewhat fallacious. Eligibility begins after a two week waiting period, but payment will not be received until five to seven weeks after the applicant's interruption of earnings. Nowhere is this fact documented and, as a result, many families budget on the expectation that they will be receiving benefit payments two weeks after application.
In other words, a single parent family, or family with no visible income outside that of the woman's, may go for up to two months without receiving any benefits or any income. The only alternative is welfare. However, when UIC benefits are viewed as insurance and a "right", as the government proclaims, this is really a poor alternative.
In this area the government might consider whether the waiting period prior to receiving benefits could be speeded up. Certainly there are individual cases where, if the mother were the only wage earner in the family and were closely tied to her work for necessary income, she would suffer considerably. A change of the benefit period, which is something that I mentioned as being deficient in the old act, is to be welcomed. Benefits can be collected to a maximum of 15 weeks. However, this period was broken down to a maximum of eight weeks previous to confinement, then one week of confinement, and six weeks after confinement.
Babies have a habit of arriving early, due to the uncertainty of the mother as to her exact dates. Complications may arise leading to an early delivery, and in many cases late delivery. By and large, women prefer to work closer to their date of confinement and really, in many cases, they need extra weeks after the confinement rather than before

the confinement. Certainly in a fair percentage of maternity cases the mother may have had unusual complications, or her infant may have developed problems that make it important that she has more time out of the work force after her confinement, both to provide for her own health and that of her child. Certainly this provision is welcomed, and it should certainly have been included in the first place. I think it is fair to say that it was the rigidity of bureaucratic thinking that prevented it from being put in previously.
This bill also removes the built-in work disincentive in that the woman who worked closer to her date of confinement was penalized in favour of those who took leave early. Therefore in the whole concept it has become fairer and, as such, will be welcomed.
Finally, turning to eligibility for regular benefits, several problems arise. Recipients of maternity benefits become eligible for regular benefits when the child is seven weeks old. In certain areas the recipient becomes eligible only when she is actively looking for work and can produce a certificate that child care arrangements have been made.
A survey in the Ottawa-Carleton region by phone turned up the following. There are very few day care centres, and of those surveyed only three made provision for a seven week old child. They all thoroughly discouraged the admission of the seven week old child. Of the estimated 1,000 children under three months, only five are receiving day care. Furthermore, most child day care centres contacted have an average waiting period of four months. In other words, this stipulation under the provision for maternity benefits would essentially disqualify the average mother from receiving any benefits after the initial six week period. I believe this is one area where further government input should be made. Certainly if the woman is a single family parent she may have great difficulty.
So, in summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill does offer improvement over the status quo, but there are indeed some snags which ought to be removed from these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act as proposed in Bill C-16.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation of the kind but appropriate reference the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) made to the first woman member of the House of Commons, my late friend Agnes Macphail. I appreciate as well the equally kind reference made to one who is remembered by more of those who are here, namely, Mrs. Grace Maclnnis.
The reference to Agnes Macphail reminded me of what I think is one of the best stories about her participation in debate. It seems that on one occasion when she was making headway with an argument, some male member for the House of Commons interjected by saying "Don't you wish you were a man?" Quick as a flash Agnes retorted "Yes, don't you?"
It will sink in in a minute, Madam Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Don't worry, we got it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We just didn't want to laugh.
May 29, 1975


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members in all parts of the House are making what, in my view, are excellent speeches in this debate. For the most part they are agreeing that the bill is a necessary one and that it makes progress in the direction of establishing equality between men and women. But member after member is listing the areas and respects in which that equality will not yet be achieved even after the passage of Bill C-16.
I might add that Bill C-52, which will come before us some time later, might also be included among the bills that seek the establish equality. Bill C-52 is one that deals with pension rights under a number of pieces of legislation, and in all of those pieces of legislation it attempts to establish equality between men and women.
It is in this pension area that there is one shortcoming that I should like to mention. There have been discussions, and I believe that there is agreement that the second reading debate on this bill will conclude tonight. Therefore those of us who are now taking part are speaking for even a shorter period of time than was agreed to publicly a short time ago. This is my reason for dealing with just one subject.
I believe that it is a piece of gross unfairness that most pension plans-this is true of the Public Service Superannuation Act, it is true of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, and it is true of the pension plans of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway and many other employers-provide that if there is a survivor pension it works in a strange way. If a man and wife have lived and worked together, presumably they are both responsible for whatever equity they have established. But when retirement time comes, assuming they are both still alive, a pension, whatever its full amount may be, is drawn by the husband. I am speaking of things as they are in most cases.
Now, if the husband dies before the wife, the usual plan is that the widow draws a pension which is only a portion of what her husband's pension was; in most cases it is 50 per cent. In the case of members of parliament, our widows will be entitled to a pension of 60 per cent. But in any case that is the situation. If the husband dies first the widow's pension is only a portion, in most cases 50 per cent. But if the wife dies first and the widower stays on, his pension is not 50 per cent, or 60 per cent, or 75 per cent, it is the whole amount, 100 per cent. We have had this kind of arrangement with us for so long that, like lots of other things, we have accepted it as though it were perfectly proper. I do not think it is.
It seems to me it should not matter which of the marriage partners dies first so far as the amount of the pension that goes to the survivor is concerned. My preference would be that it would be 100 per cent in either case, but if for actuarial reasons in order to get this sort of thing started we have to start with 75 per cent or 90 per cent in either case, let us do so. If it is proper for one of the marriage partners who survives to have a full pension, why does that not apply to the other?
I hope we will soon start to make progress in this field. There is no better place to begin this sort of change in respect of pensions than with those plans which are under
Status of Women
the aegis of the federal government. The Public Service Superannuation Act is a case in point, and our own members of parliament pension plan is another. There are also the plans of the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces, and all the other plans that come directly under the government, as well as plans like those of the Canadian National Railways, Air Canada and so on.
As other members have been pointing out today, there is no use boasting about legislation establishing equality when so many areas of inequality remain. I am glad there are some points of equality which have been established under the Canada Pension Plan, and I am glad that under Bill C-52 there a number of instances in which a working woman who dies will be able to leave to her surviving widower the same benefit the working man would leave if he died first and left a surviving widow.
That does not touch this one point I am trying to focus on tonight, namely, that when both partners to the marriage survive into the retirement period, and one dies, why should not the benefits to the survivor be the same whether that survivor is a widow or a widower? I press that point as one that should be considered by the federal government because of the many pension plans for which it is responsible, and I also press the point that those who are dealing with pension plans in private industry should consider this as well.
There is no use muttering about things always having been this way, or about it being the man who has been the one to go out and earn the pension. They have both earned it, and if there is something joint or equal as between men and women let us make it equal all the way. I hope, therefore, that this point is one of those still unfinished bits of business that we will deal with at the earliest possible time. If we believe in equality, let us practice it all the way.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, among all the interesting events of today is this long awaited debate on the omnibus bill respecting women in Canada. The debate has hardly begun. We have hardly begun to discuss the serious ramifications opened up by the minister when introducing this bill, yet I understand the bill is about to be given second reading and sent to the committee.
I ask myself if this is all there is in the Canadian parliament to International Women's Year, that is, a handful of speakers in a mostly empty chamber? I ask myself if it is really possible that only one of nine women members of parliament wished to speak in this debate? Let me be fair to my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Campbell), by saying that I have the impression she has given up her place in this debate in order that I might speak. If that is so, then apparently there has been some change made during International Women's Year in that apparently it is now gentlemen before ladies. If she intended to speak, then I exclude her from my general criticism of women in parliament for not having spoken during this debate.
Let me say to the women in parliament that the women of Canada want to hear their voices in parliament, but when they have the opportunity where are they? The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) made a speech,

May 29, 1975
Status of Women
and I will refer to that speech in a moment or two. I think we might well ask in the words of that song by Peggy Lee, "Is That All There Is"?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh dear, oh dear!


Douglas Roche: The other day I received a letter from one of my constituents who wrote:
This letter is to ask you, as my member of parliament, to end the discrimination against women in Canada.
That is quite an opening sentence in the morning mail, and I was already on the defensive because there are limits to our effectiveness. This letter went on to state instances in which the courts have been discriminatory. The writer ended with what baseball writers would describe as a sliding curve by stating:
Please do not answer my letter personally. Use your time and your energy to right the wrong against women in Canada.
I thought that was what this bill and this debate were all about, but where do we start? I read Ms Magazine. I like to think I have been liberated from the chauvinistic thinking of a dying culture in which women's interests were cradle, kitchen, and church. I defend women's right to equal opportunity and equal pay. I have encouraged many women to run for political office since the city councils, legislatures, and parliament of Canada are largely bereft of women's voices. It is ridiculous to have only nine women among the 264 members of parliament. If India, Israel and Ceylon can have women prime ministers, why can we not have more Canadian women in public life? When I look at the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-well, let us not get into that.
If we had more women in public life we would get faster action on those discriminatory blotches that still mar our social landscape; labour and pension inequalities, inequitable executive opportunities, inadequate child care services, and unjust property settlements that degrade husbands and wives. On the other hand, the continuing economic and social handicap that women must surmount in order to succeed in modern society effectively bars many of them from public life.
The politician in me is anxious to proclaim that women's rights must be fully achieved, and that we will not have a truly civilized state until the full status of women is assured. Therefore I give my backing to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women set up by the federal government to give advice on how to implement the 167 recommendations made by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1970.
I give my backing to the present bill, C-16. We cannot afford to continue to waste the talent and potential accomplishments of 50 per cent of the population. These are all sincere statements. They are also politically popular and they might re-assure, somewhat, the women who voted for me. Truthful as they are, these statements are incomplete and they appear to me to be superficial. Politicians can get by with superficial statements. It would be easier not to pursue this subject beyond the black and white answers that can be so easily projected to the electorate. The full truth is that I am profoundly disturbed by the relationship of the women's rights movement to the over-all question of full humanism in modern life.

What I am concerned about is value conflict. Professor Charles Hobart, a sociologist at the University of Alberta, expresses the conflict well:
The family depends upon and symbolizes inefficient values of being, knowing, caring, loving, unconditionally committing oneself. These values are incompatible with the urban industrial values of production, achievement, exchange, quantification, efficiency, success. Simultaneous unlimited commitment to people and love and concern-and to achievement, success and prosperity-is impossible.
It is disruptive and potentially incapacitating to try to accommodate both sets of values. Because men all too often sacrifice success in marriage for success in careers, should women too choose the dehumanizing urban values as the criterion for success? What business is this of the politician? Why does he not stick to the clear issue of removing discrimination against women?
Again I say that it is not enough to take a single-minded view. I want to say with respect to the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), who made what I have already described as a courageous and fighting speech tonight, that I would encourage her as she considers the role of women in modern society, to which she addressed herself tonight, by saying that she will enhance and strengthen her case by taking a much larger view than that of abortion.
Most of the hon. member's speech concerned abortion. I would encourage her, having the feeling she has which I respect, to persuade her colleagues in the government to have a full and major debate on abortion. However, I say to her with respect that when she delivers a speech on women's rights, three quarters or four fifths of which were devoted to the subject of abortion, she does her cause a very serious injustice.
I cannot separate women from the totality of society any more that I can separate men. To express genuine concern about the attack on marriage as an institution and families as the central cell of our society, is not to diminish the need for women's rights. The two subjects must be fitted together. If that is not seen to be the job of the lonely politician, it is certainly the responsibility of the government in creating an economic and social climate that enhances the fulfillment of family life. I thought that was what International Women's Year would involve, and that parliament would be responding to that. I have not heard anything like that tonight.
I think that the status of the family may well become one of the explosive political issues in the decades ahead. The considerable talk today about complusory contraception, abortion, and sterilization indicates a foundation for state intervention in the name of quality of life. There is now abundant literature arguing against marriage in the traditional sense, and the increasing divorce rates reveal the de facto instability of the marriage institution. I will not take up the time of the House tonight to go through the divorce statistics.
Much of the new wave of thinking is suffused with the belief that the family is a tyrannical and decadent institution that needs to be replaced. In this view women should be liberated from child-rearing, mothers being an outdated occupational group. The door is then opened to those who would bypass reactionary parents by control systems that
May 29, 1975

would not only biologically engineer children but program their social and cultural environment. The point I want to make now is that what is needed especially is an application of law that accords women their human rights and, at the same time, strengthens family, and hence human, life. This principle is valid whether a woman marries or not; there simply cannot be an artificial line drawn between the feminist movement and the general society, of which the family is the core.
In fact, we increase the serious political and psychological risks by continuing to frustrate such a sense of connection between the individual and society. Whether we focus on politics or family development, our aim should be to lessen the antagonism between the sexes and also between government and its women citizens. The point of women's liberation, as I see it, is not to create a new dominance but rather to make possible the fullest participation of women in the human conversation. In short, both men and women are responsible for changes in relationships that will have deep consequences for our children, and we may not escape such responsibility by focussing only on our own emancipation. Increased freedom should increase, not decrease, accountability.
What this argument boils down to, in practical terms, is the ability of people to experience other people as real, as human. That depends to a large extent on the ability of children to experience deep and lasting relationships with adults. Some institution must exist in our society to do this. Call it a family. Give it permanence. Help youth to grasp the idea that human beings are not manipulatory conveniences, floating in and out of the realms of life, to be disposed of with the rest of the junk in our throw-away society.
The resistance of people to the throw-away mentality depends on the depth of their experiences with other people-the kind of experiences that are developed in a family. It is essential for young children in particular to have secure relationships. This is primary not only to the well being of the child but to the stability of future society composed of individuals who are reasonably secure, reasonably strong. The way in which these relationships have been provided to children historically is by women. Today women want to do other things, one of the manifestations of women's liberation. They may be able to, but they cannot discard overnight their historic contribution to the development of children in the name of occupational rights.
Day care centres have value but they are not the total solution, nor should women shrug off their responsibilities by pointing to day care centres. I am saying that until I can be confident that the full human support the family gives a child can be protected I am cautious about women's liberation.
Reverting to my responsibility as a member of parliament, I look for social policies that will help families to stay together and develop the potential of all within the family. This certainly extends beyond voting for increased family allowances, which is the easy way out for the government in meeting its responsibilities. Every policy, whether it be economic, cultural, social, recreational, affects families in some way of course. We must begin to see more clearly the impact that they all have on human
Status of Women
relationships. As William Dyson, executive director of the Vanier Institute of the Family says:
We must go deeply into what we mean by law, which now reflects the machine world so heavily, and recognize fully that if we want a family policy that is truly applicable and useful, we have no choice but to perceive the whole of public policy as critical to our future as persons, as families, in our groups and in our society.
We are back again to the need to change our priorities in policy making so that people, not economic growth, come first. As a member of parliament, then, I am concerned with monitoring the consequences of policies and programs which may seem unrelated but actually make up the total social community. I have to learn to live with the fact that I do not have all the answers. Even being able to ask the right questions about the direction of society is a sizeable accomplishment these days.
I ask these questions in the framework of a set of values, that the good of everybody, women, men and children, be taken into account. One of the ways in which this total approach works out is seen in wages. A man today cannot afford to give up his job and have the family exist on his wife's earnings because women ordinarily earn less than men. But if her earning power were as great as a man's then the wife could, when desired, be the sole bread-winner, allowing her husband to manage the home or explore new interests. Thus women's rights could work for the liberation of men.
This larger view of women's rights was expressed by Sylvia Gelber, director of the Women's Bureau of the federal Department of Labour, who favours a bills of rights entrenched in the constitution of Canada to provide for women's equity before the law, as follows:
If carefully drafted, it might also provide for other groups of people, people who are young; people who are old; people who are disabled; people who are poor; as well as people who are female, be they single or married, that even-handed justice which is the goal of those concerned with the well-being of our people and of our country.
In this way we can see women's rights as part of the whole human rights field that has occupied international attention since the end of World War II. When the universal declaration of human rights was adopted in 1948, fundamental rights were declared to be the right of all without distinction, including sex.
The United Nations has, in the meantime, devoted more energy to ridding the world of racial discrimination than sexual. Some specialized agencies have, however, adopted a number of conventions affecting the rights of women in such fields as education and employment. The International Labour Organization has adopted a number of conventions affecting the rights of women in all conditions of employment, including recruitment, promotions and pay. The I.L.O. conventions have been ratified by Canada, leading to the passage of anti-discriminatory legislation here-although it took the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women to produce clear legislation outlawing sexual discrimination.
Even now, however, more legislation is needed to amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure equal access to job opportunities; amendments to the federal Superannuation Act are needed to ensure equal pension and fringe benefit rights; there should be equality for women and inclusion

May 29, 1975
Status of Women
of homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan; and there should be proportionate appointment to and employment by federal boards, commissions and Crown corporations.
The Canadian Bill of Rights, passed in 1960, was designed to provide, within the area of federal jurisdiction, equality before the law without distinction on grounds of sex. But, as Miss Gelber notes;
The courts have generally interpreted the Bill of Rights in such a way as to assume that parliament did not intend by its provisions to alter other federal laws which might have been interpreted as being inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
Because of the limitations of this federal statute, a stronger instrument is needed to override any existing statute that allows discrimination. The laws in a number of provinces contain a variety of discriminatory clauses affecting women, particularly in the fields of family law, welfare and property rights. Welfare legislation often operates to the disadvantage of women, frequently denying equity on grounds of personal morality. We have not touched on that contentious issue tonight.
The assurance of equal rights in the provincial field is required as well as in the federal. This is what has led to the clear need for Ottawa and the provinces to agree on a constitutional bill of rights-even though this goal is a very elusive one. The establishment of the federal Human Rights Commission to enforce anti-discrimination laws is a step toward this goal because it will help to strengthen public attitudes concerning justice.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He can continue only with the unanimous agreement of the House.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, may I have three seconds more to complete my remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Roche: Putting women's rights in the context of human rights enables us to think positively and avoid the polarization that is inevitably produced by the bra-burning syndrome. Men need to be liberated too. I agree with Betty Friedan's judgment that:
Women's liberation is only the first step in a sex role revolution that's allowing men to be tender, gentle and compassionate.
I hope she is right when she claims that dropping the masks of male dominance and female submission will not lead to unisex but to a more robust and joyous heterosexual love.
I think the present social position of women can be understood and improved only within a broad social context where, as Esther Greenglass says:
-the effects of attitudes, motivation and social structures themselves are systematically examined.
It is time, finally, to get rid of the idea that one sex must be compliant, supportive and inferior, while the other sex must be aggressive, ambitious, and strong. Parliament spends a lot of time on subjects of much less importance.


Marc Lalonde: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. There seems to be a favourable disposition on the part of hon. members to extend this sitting by ten minutes so that my parliamentary secretary may conclude the debate and we can give second reading to the bill tonight.


Douglas Roche: I rise on the same point of order, Madam Speaker. Speaking for our party, we would be most pleased to agree to the suggestion and to return the favour which the parliamentary secretary gave me.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, you might probably be able, just as successfully as Mr. Speaker, not to see the clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, before proceeding I would like to refer to what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) noted, namely, that there were not too many women present to speak in the House on the subject before us. May I point out that most women would prefer to hear men speak on the subject of inequality with regard to women.
Also, I would like to point out the active role that women politicians, at least from our side, are presently playing. Madam Speaker was in the chair during the debate; the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) has spoken, as we know; the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) is in Europe with the parliamentary committee; the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) is at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Immigration Policy; the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) was to speak this afternoon but had to be called away; and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) has been in the House all evening during debate of this important topic and has spoken on it on many other occasions.
It is indeed with pleasure that I rise to close the debate on this bill called by many the omnibus bill but really called the Statute Law (Status of Women) Amendment Act 1974, and to see it go to committee, following which, I hope, it will come back here soon on the road to its final destination.
The bill, can only help all Canadians. As we know, it amends certain acts to provide equality under these statutes for male and female persons. The government, following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and of many organizations and individuals, has sought to do away with the provisions in eight pieces of legislation which discriminate against women or are otherwise prejudicial to women.
Among others, this bill will deal with the Canada Elections Act which will have one set of rules for listing electors. Information will now be descriptive of the elector in terms of the name, address, occupation and sex of the elector.
The Criminal Code will have two changes. No longer will there be presumption of coercion of the woman by her
May 29, 1975

spouse under section 23(3). In addition, section 197 will be amended to make it obligatory for married women to provide the necessities of life for their spouses. This puts the same onus on both spouses.
The National Defence Act will allow girls to be treated the same as boys-all as cadets. The Unemployment Insurance Act will also be amended to make a flexible 15 week period for maternity benefits, something which I am sure most pregnant women merited in the past and will have in the future. Other acts to be amended are the Immigration Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Pension Act, and the Civil War Pensions and Allowances Act.
The government has also moved amendment to the Canada Pension Plan, one of the most significant being provision of full equality for male and female contributors and beneficiaries under the act.
Presently before the House there is the citizenship bill which, among other things, will grant citizenship for either the male or the female parent. It is also anticipated that the Human Rights Commission legislation will be brought to the House, as well as amendments to the Criminal Code in respect of rape and other sexual offences. All these amendments can only show the ability of this government to recognize the need for providing equal treatment for men and women.
However, attitudes will not change in Canada simply by enforcing legislation. One must remember that we are striving for equality between men and women on the basis of freedom of choice of work, freedom of choice of environment, and freedom to choose something other than existing ideas which categorized women in the past as being designated to one role.
Young people today are moving that way in a much easier fashion. There will be no stumbling blocks. They know what they want. I will quote from the magazine Ms., a letter from Anita Buzick II of Killeen, Texas:
When I saw that in my spelling book they had "The Queen is the wife of a King", I got really mad. Even though I'm only nine years old, and only in the fourth grade, I've written five poems. One from the five I thought you might want to put in Ms.
Here it is:
If you think I'm going to slave in the kitchen for a man who is supposed to be brave,
Then I'm sorry to say, but you're wrong all the way,
Because I'm going to be an astronaut.
These ideas are among our young coming up. No longer will young boys and girls be thought of in different directions. They are going to go after the same jobs whether they be in construction, teaching, medicine or any of the other fields.
I, being a parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), at any time in the short while in this position have had to clarify that I am a member of parliament and that being a parliamentary secretary is only for a member of parliament. It is always assumed when I appear to represent the minister
Status of Women
that I must be one of the secretaries from withjn the department. This, I am sure, does not happen with the opposite sex because secretaries have always been designated female.
It is my understanding that a statement was made this afternoon in the House to the effect that every woman should have the choice to stay at home and be a housewife if she chooses. I agree with this commendable statement, but I would like to point out that it is the type of statement which creates an attitude, and a false one. One should say, rather, every person, instead of delegating the role of the home to a woman. While on the same statement I would like to go one step further and define choice.
In the past women had the choice to go out and work for a few years at some defined position which belonged to being a woman, and then to get married and have a family. There was no choice in this accepted role. The woman had to find a husband because she could not survive, for the most part, on the amount she could bring in and, under the circumstances, which would eventually offer no challenge to her. She therefore accepted to be challenged as a housewife without being able to choose any other role to fulfill herself. Equality in our society in the future will allow all people to choose a role and to further themselves within that role to the extent that their choices were educated and not designated by society to be fulfilled.
Under circumstances where women are employed and earning the same amount as men, perhaps at that point one can have an educated choice either to pursue the role within the working world or to stay at home, raise a family and be the supportive element to the working spouse. But for this person it will have been chosen and will become a career. This type of choice can only enhance family life.
At present there is probably under utilization of half the talent in this country. This can only show that both men and women are losers and that the country as a whole becomes a loser. Role stereotyping is damaging to men as well as to women, and true equality can only be good for both sexes.
I would like to speak for a few minutes on the economic discrepancies which exist and which it is hoped will be changed before too long by legislation at the federal level, such as the Human Rights Commission, and surely all provinces will bring this type of legislation into play in respect to provincial government jobs. However, to further heighten this point I would like to read from "Women's Bureau '74" put out by Labour Canada, at page 39:
The average employment earnings of full-time full-year male babysitters were more than twice (127.5 per cent) those of female babysitters during 1970. In a world where we have become accustomed to looking on certain kinds of occupations as male and female, this interesting fact appears to be somewhat ironic. Yet it is not the only occupation generally viewed as female in which male workers show average employment earnings in excess of those of the female workers in the same occupation.
Among the professions, for example, that of librarian is generally viewed as a female profession; yet the average employment earnings of men librarians exceed those of women by almost one-fifth (18.6 per cent). Similarly, the professions of dietitians and nutritionists are generally looked upon as female; yet male workers in these professions derive average employment earnings almost one-quarter (22.6 per cent) more than the female workers. Another example of an occupation that at one time was looked upon as male, but, in recent years, has

May 29, 1975
Status of Women
tended to become female is that of tellers and cashiers; yet the average employment earnings of male workers in these occupations are one-half (50.9 per cent) greater than those of female workers.
Madam Speaker, I now turn to page 43 to read a little bit further about this economic discrepancy as follows:
In so far as the gap in earnings between men and women in the labour force is concerned, disparities are all too evident. In fact, in terms of actual dollars earned, there is evidence that in many instances the gap is a widening one. For example, between the years 1969 and 1972, the dollar gap between the reported earnings of men and women workers widened in 37 out of 74 occupations.
The broadening of the dollar gap, it would appear, is due primarily to the widespread practice of increasing wage rates on a flat percentage basis. Thus, for example, if in a given occupation, a male worker is paid $3.00 an hour and a female worker is paid $2.50 an hour, the effect of a flat rate 6 per cent increase is to widen the dollar gap between the two.
The remedy lies not only in achieving at long last the principle of equal pay for equal work but in opening up opportunities in the work world for women workers so as to remove existing obstacles to full participation in the Canadian economy. One of the means of achieving this end is by ensuring that women prepare themselves academically and technically through the existing institutions of higher learning as well as the technical schools of the country.
It is very easy for the members of the opposition as well as organizations to say that the government has not done enough. However, it is only recently that an awareness among 51 per cent of the population has started to take effect. It is only through those situations arising from their jobs that women can now begin to concentrate on what is dissatisfying, concentrating and organizing to use their very powerful 51 per cent to register their dissatisfaction and ask for more education, more legislation, to obtain more jobs of importance. This way women will be giving their own input to affect other women, such as the demand that all provinces obtain day care centres.
For example, in the case of women lawyers when a client comes to an office on a family matter most often the male lawyer cannot help but look at her and say "I suppose if I were married to her I would divorce her too, or separate from her" and the female lawyer deals with the matter. This is common amongst most male lawyers-at least the ones who have brought it to my attention.
Women are beginning to waken up to the fact that they too can do the job. Awareness of this fact will change attitudes, and time will bring this about. It is easy to hide behind the "do something" syndrome when women themselves do not know what to do because of the mixed feelings they have about their own role. It is not just by providing legislation that we will change and become equal-it is by attempting to change attitudes and make people aware that women can do the job equally as well as men, be it in the working world, be it at technical schools, be it at universities, be it in government, or be it in the homes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

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

Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Speaker, the other day I directed a number of questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) concerning difficulties being experienced in the Canadian auto tire production industry. The answers I received were quite unsatisfactory. Therefore I wish to pursue the matter further at this time in the adjournment debate.
We have witnessed recently yet another example of Liberal government economic policy putting Canadians on unstable economic ground. At Whitby Tire at Whitby, Ontario, 290 workers were indefinitely laid off. The company cites the economic slow-down in the auto industry as the cause, but the facts dispute this. Sales figures show that the volume of sales has increased slightly, although the profits are down somewhat. Obviously from the company's point of view, the decision was a micro-economic decision based solely on the profit maximization principle.
The United Rubber Workers, who incidentally report 2,000 of their 18,000 workers laid off, see part of the reason for the Whitby lay-off as the result of a tariff reduction from 17 Vi per cent to 12 Vi per cent on imported tires and tubes. This, without doubt, is a contributing factor, but the scope goes well beyond the tariff rate.
Since 1965 Canada has had a trading deficit in the rubber tire and tube industry every year with the exception of 1967. The total deficit to the end of 1974 was $298 million. The deficit for 1974 alone was $155 million, an increase of 600 per cent from 1973, and the trend shows no sign of change. The trade figures for January and February, 1975, show a $24 million deficit, itself equal to the whole deficit of 1973.
The causes for this jump are quite clear. In 1974 the companies tried to break a strike in the Canadian industry by importing American tires. The American parent of Whitby Tire, Firestone, increased their product imports at that time in an unsuccessful bid to circumvent the strike. Now that the American parent has a strong established foothold in the Canadian market, what use is there for a small subsidiary such as Whitby?
How many Canadian jobs must be lost before the government and its supporters realize that Canada must take positive steps to control its own economy? How many jobs of Canadian workers will be sacrificed to benefit United States parent companies before the government realizes that the Foreign Investment Review Act must be revised and tightly enforced? When is the government going to institute quotas as a stipulation in its tire-import-export trade?
The problem, as illustrated by Whitby Tire, is that Canadian plants do not have a reasonable share of the
May 29, 1975

North American market. The Liberal government is guilty of mismanagement and indifference. The workers of Whitby Tire, especially the 290 laid off, would be the last to agree that the Firestone takeover of Whitby Tire is of "significant benefit to Canada", as required by the Foreign Investment Review Act concerning Firestone's takeover of the company.
Is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) prepared to review, along with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, the decision to reduce the tariff rate from 17Yi per cent to 12V4 per cent? Is the minister prepared to consult with the tire industry officials to work out a means of recapturing Canada's rightful market share? These questions have been asked before but responses have not been forthcoming. The question boils down to whether or not the government really cares about the thousands of rubber workers and their future.
The Department of Finance took some interest, for it invited the presidents of the Canadian tire industry to Ottawa so as to ascertain their plans for expansion and employment. Was a bleak picture presented? Quite possibly, because the department did not inform the union or this House as to what transpired. The only statement forthcoming was that at the present time there was no need to increase the tariff to its previous level of 17 % per cent. The fact remains that the present reduced tariff acts only as an incentive to import tires and as a disincentive to the Canadian industry and the workers directly and indirectly dependent on it.
Some will argue that an increased tariff would increase the price of tires. However, the reduction in the tariff has not reduced tire prices. I see no reason why an increased tariff should increase prices. The fact remains that United States and Canadian tire prices are similar, and claims that imported U.S. tires are cheaper are simply unfounded.
We in the New Democratic Party feel the government must protect Canadian industry and Canadian jobs. I ask that the minister take action to restore Canada's share of the tire market. Our working people have rights, and must not be left to the mercy of U.S. based multinationals. The Canadian tire industry must not be allowed to die.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that the government shares the hon. member's concern about the current employment situation in the rubber industry. The question is whether this is due to the increase in imports as such and, more particularly, to any increase which may have been occasioned by the reduction in the tariff, or whether it is a result of the general situation in the automotive industry.
Hon. members will be aware that this tariff reduction was one of a number of tariff cuts originally introduced in the budget of February, 1973, as part of the government's program for moderating inflation. The legislation gave the governor in council authority to restore the original rates of duty if circumstances warranted such action.
Following the introduction of the November budget the United Rubber Workers' Union requested the government to restore the 17 Vi per cent rate. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) directed his officials to carry out a full investigation of the situation and to report back to him.
Adjournment Debate
Officials of the Department of Finance and of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce met frequently with representatives of the United Rubber Workers. Officials of the two departments also sought the views of the major tire companies. The companies attributed the increase in imports to the decision of the automobile manufacturers to equip their new models with radials sooner than had been expected. This had taken place before planned expansion of radial tire production in Canada had come on stream. I am given to understand that some of these new plants will be in production shortly.
The union and the companies were asked to submit additional information concerning the outlook for employment and production in the industry. I understand that on the basis of this data a more detailed report has now been made to the Minister of Finance. It will, of course, be up to the minister to decide what further action may be necessary once he has studied the report. So, contrary to what the hon. member has said, there has been consultation, not only with the tire companies but with the union.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-GARRISON DIVERSION-SUGGESTION UNITED STATES BE ASKED FOR A MORATORIUM ON PROJECT
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, this is the second time within nine days that I have risen to ask the government to call for a moratorium to halt the Garrison diversion project in North Dakota. On May 20 I gave reasons why a moratorium should be sought. One of them was a statement made by Mr. Charles A. Vanik, the Ohio representative, that the Garrison project was "environmental and economic madness." Mr. Vanik added:
The Bureau of Reclamation has tried to do everything in its power to push the Garrison project ahead. Nothing can hide the fact, however, that it is an environmental disaster.
I presented new evidence to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) today and I propose to read a letter in just a moment or two. On May 20 the parliamentary secretary stated that the Canadian government would be sending a blunt note, along with the United States government, to the International Joint Commission, calling for another study. The last thing we want is another study into the Garrison diversion project. If time allowed, I could stand here for three hours quoting from studies showing why this project should not be proceeded with. It is unfortunate that the government is not looking at these studies because it would then know that it should be calling for a moratorium, not a further study.
What is also most disappointing is that the Schreyer government of Manitoba has gone along with this proposal that a note be sent to the IJC for another study. I note that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is here tonight, and I hope that he will use his influence to contact Premier Schreyer and ask him to get together with the federal government in calling for a moratorium.
Today I forwarded a letter to the Acting Prime Minister from William S. Moorhead, who is the chairman of the

May 29, 1975
Adjournment Debate
conservation, energy and natural resources sub-committee in the United States, to the Hon. Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State, dated March 19, 1975. The letter reads as follows:
Recently, the General Accounting Office and your department have concluded that "as presently proposed", the Garrison Diversion United in North Dakota, which the Interior Department is now constructing, "would likely result" in pollution of Canadian waters "in violation of Article IV of the Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada". Interior does not dispute this conclusion.
Despite this, Interior is continuing to construct the project as now planned. Indeed, in a February 28, 1975 letter to our subcommittee, Interior states that "adoption of significantly revised alternative plan of development" to avoid a treaty violation "would require new or amended legislative authority."
It has been suggested at recent joint U.S.-Canadian meetings that the matter be referred to the International Joint Commission (IJC). But in the meantime, the Interior Department is continuing to build the project which is now 18 per cent completed.
I do not object to such a referral. But I find it difficult to understand how the United States can justify continued construction of a project which is certain to result in a Treaty violation.
I hope the parliamentary secretary has some firm answer on this subject tonight, and will not simply say that we are just going to send off another little note to the IJC.
Assurances that the project will not be allowed to result in a treaty violation are empty since there is no indication any alternatives proposed by Interior will ever be acceptable to Canada or Congress. As more money is expended and more of the project completed, it will become increasingly difficult from a political point of view in the United States to halt the project if the IJC finds that no viable alternatives exist-
Mr. Moorhead went on to say:
I strongly share that doubt. I think it is time the United States face up to the fact that our treaty obligations with Canada require a moratorium on further contracting for this project until a viable alternative is developed. Such a moratorium should not result in any costs to the United States. I urge that you take the lead in establishing such a moratorium.
That is very strong language, Madam Speaker, and we cannot ignore it. In another letter from the United States Department of the Interior Commissioner of Reclamation to the deputy under secretary, it is stated, among other things, that the United States will have to do studies into field data for potential pumping plant sites, damsites, canal alignments, desalting plants and brine disposal sites, some in Manitoba, with considerable assistance from outside agencies. The letter goes on:
The March 11, 1975, memorandum from the Assistant Secretary- Land and Water Resources to you recommended that the studies be "informal" and not made available to "local interests nor to the Canadians."
So they are suppressing information from us. This is reason enough to call for this moratorium, and not just send some silly note off to the IJC.
It further states:
Further study of the alternatives at a level below feasibility grade, but sufficient to provide a closer look at the viability of the alternatives in sufficient time to properly consider the request for funding on the construction of the Velva Canal, can be completed by June 1976
In a press release issued yesterday by the Prairie Environmental Defence League Inc. it is stated:
U.S. Officials Conspire to keep Canadians in dark over Garrison project.

Desalinization plants and brine disposal fields are in store for Manitobans because of the Garrison Diversion project in North Dakota, according to George Heshka, chairman of the Prairie Environmental Defence League. The desalinization plants and brine disposal fields, a U.S. compromise to pollution of the Souris River, were named as alternatives by Gilbert Stamms, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, in a memo to the deputy under secretary of the department of the interior (attached). In the memo, Stamms said some of the brine disposal fields would be located in Manitoba.
Heshka charged the bureau with "deceit and secrecy" in not reporting the possibility of brine disposal fields to Manitobans and Canadians. Stamms said, "he concurred that studies (concerning desalinization plants and brine disposal fields) should be informal and not made available to local interests nor to the Canadians-"


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member keeps insisting on what he calls a moratorium. To start with, I will just quote what I said on May 20, as recorded at page 5955 of Hansard:
In February, 1974, the United States government gave assurances that the United States would honour its obligations under the treaty-
I was referring to the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. I went on to state:
-the United States would honour its obligation under the treaty and pledged that no project construction potentially affecting waters flowing into Canada would be undertaken unless it were clear that these United States obligations under the treaty would be met.
We have no reason to believe that the United States will not honour its commitment after giving us assurances that it would.
In view of our concern over the potential adverse effects of the Garrison project, as currently envisaged, we are of course pleased to learn, if the press reports are accurate as to the contents of this document, that the Bureau of Reclamation is examining alternatives to the current project. However, I would note that our ongoing discussions with the United States are being conducted at gov-ernment-to-government level, and not at the level of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am confident that no significant information relevant to the Garrison project as it affects Canada will be withheld by either side, in keeping with the traditional candour and frankness which characterizes our exchanges with the United States.
The United States has assured us that no decision on construction involving any diversion of water into the Souris Basin would be undertaken prior to 1978. United States officials have further stated that, under the present timetable, construction of the Velva Canal is not scheduled to begin until 1980, and construction on the Souris River is not to begin until 1981. In this regard we are confident that the United States will honour its long standing pledge that no project construction potentially affecting waters flowing into Canada would be undertaken unless it were clear that the United States could meet its obligation under Article IV of the Boundary Waters Treaty not to pollute water crossing the boundary "to the injury of health or property" in Canada. We are, of course, in continuing consultation with the United States government on the question of project schedules as they might affect Canada. We shall, however, seek official re-affirma-
May 29, 1975

tion from the U.S. government that our understanding of the construction schedules is correct.
Canada's discussions with the United States about possible reference to the IJC are at a preliminary stage and we have not yet received a U.S. draft. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) stated recently to the House committee on external affairs, to agree to a
Adjournment Debate
joint reference we would, of course, on our side have to get language that would be acceptable to Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

May 29, 1975


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
On account of continued increase of cost of living it has been decided to escalate CN pensions effective January 1, 1975 on the following basis:
Retirement in Pensioners monthly Widows monthly flat rate increase flat rate increase
[Stage Direction]
1967 or prior
[Stage Direction]
$12.00
[Stage Direction]
$6.00
[Stage Direction]
1968
[Stage Direction]
$11.00
[Stage Direction]
$5.50
[Stage Direction]
1969
[Stage Direction]
$10.00
[Stage Direction]
$5.00
[Stage Direction]
1970
[Stage Direction]
$ 9.00
[Stage Direction]
$4.50
[Stage Direction]
1971
[Stage Direction]
$ 8.00
[Stage Direction]
$4.00
[Stage Direction]
1972
[Stage Direction]
$ 7.00
[Stage Direction]
$3.50
[Stage Direction]
This approach gives pensioners and widows who retired before the benefits became payable under the Canada/Que-bec Pension Plan, the largest increase (6%) tapering each
year as benefits under these plans increased. No increase is being granted to pensioners who retired in 1973 and 1974, since they have benefited substantially from the improvements in the CN pension plan effective January 1, 1973.
The cost of escalating on this basis has been estimated by our acturaries at $2,230,400.00 per annum over an amortization of 17 years, 9 months in accordance with the pension benefits standards act.
Advice of the new increases will be sent to recipient with their June pension cheques and the increase including arrears to January 1, 1975 will be reflected in their pension cheques as soon as possible thereafter.
At the end of 1973 we had increased contributory pension on account of the cost of living by 2% for all years back to 1935. The latest increase applicable to all pensioners in payment on December 31, 1973 was 4% effective January 1, 1974.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 30, 1975