1978-03-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. On February 27 last, the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) told Michael Duffy, of the CBC, in an interview regarding the taping of the then solicitor general by Warren Hart:
The recording was made known to the handler after it was done and collective action was taken immediately at that time.
In response to Mr. Duffy's next question as to whether the handler received the tape, the Solicitor General said:
The tape was received and destroyed.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Solicitor General, on motions, in connection with the affair of Warren Hart, state the name of the handler to whom he referred, identify the collective action mentioned, reveal who authorized the destruction of the tape, when this was done, by whom, and where.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NOVA SCOTIA-GOVERNMENT URGED TO INITIATE COAL MINING OPERATIONS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the announcement made by the Cape Breton Development Corporation last week on the matter of changing operations at the Prince Mine which will mean, among other things, that some 1,000 applicants for jobs in the coal mines now
listed with Devco from the New Waterford area will be affected, in view of the fact that there are still 1,600 applicants from the Glace Bay area, since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), in a recent meeting with the premiers, urged as part of the national energy policy that a new coal mine in the Donkin area of Cape Breton be started as soon as possible, and in view of the offshore coal drilling program which was begun but not completed last year in Cape Breton, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this government commence the construction part of the new Donkin mine by April of this year and, also, finish the offshore drilling program during the summer months in order to lay the basis for a secure coal operation in that area of Nova Scotia for at least another generation.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate is possible, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The commissioned report of a consulting firm headed by Mr. Rod Bryden, to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), rejected an inland grain terminal for Yorkton, Saskatchewan and dismissed, as a consequence, any expansion of the port of Churchill. In view of the fact that this report flies in the face of recommendations of the Hall commission on grain handling and was prepared by a firm with a well known bias against improvement and expansion of grain handling and port facilities relating to the port of Churchill, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the minister be directed by this House to make a statement on motions at the next opportunity repudiating the conclusions of the Bryden report and to announce the retention of new consultants for the suggested Yorkton terminal in tune with western concerns.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 6, 1978


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the constant tourist deficit in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That the government demand the launching of a publicity campaign to promote tourism and encourage Canadians to travel and spend their holidays in Canada so that tourism becomes more thriving and profitable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering the recommendation of the federal Environmental Assessment panel on February 28 against the location of the proposed Eldorado Nuclear Limited uranium refinery for Ontario being located in Port Granby, southern Ontario, and the need for jobs in the Algoma district of northern Ontario where most of the uranium for Canada is mined, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That this House urges the government to direct Eldorado Nuclear to locate its new uranium refinery for Ontario in the Blind River-Elliot Lake area of northern Ontario where the plant is wanted, the jobs are needed and where the company should have planned to locate it in the first place.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on this day when we hope to be discussing equal rights for women, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to introduce without delay an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to provide for the spouse's allowance to be replaced by an equivalent allowance to be paid to all persons between the ages of 60 and 65, provided they are out of the labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance: It relates to the most recent report of lay-offs reported by Canada employment centres. I should point out that they are reporting lay-offs only of 50 or more persons. They indicate that in the month of February this year, almost 13,000 Canadians were laid off, the great bulk of those in the province of Ontario which is supposed to be one of the healthy provinces in this confederation.
Given the fact that the Chrysler plant, which suffered some 6,800 of these lay-offs in Windsor, has reported that car sales in the first two months of this year are down 22 per cent, and given the large scale of lay-offs generally, I wonder if the Minister of Finance will not accept that these figures are an indication that the mild stimulus he presented in his minibudget statement last fall has not worked and that there is need for more permanent stimulus. Will he now reconsider accepting the proposal of this party to bring in permanent tax cuts paid for by a freeze in public service hiring and other cuts in government spending?
[DOT] (MI7)


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is too early to come to the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing in terms of what I would call a double-barrelled proposition to cut taxes by S2 billion and to cut expenditures by $2 billion. I would like to see a list of these expenditures cut. I have looked at that proposition and it does not match at all. He has put forward very few suggestions to
March 6, 1978

that effect. I suggest that he speak to his almost-seatmate from Grenville-Carleton and explain to the people of Ottawa that 20,000 positions in the public service would be lost in the next three years in Ottawa alone.


CALL FOR BUDGET TO IMPROVE SITUATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister of Finance refuses to address himself to his responsibility of trying to generate jobs and growth in this economy. In the face of these new statistics which indicate at least another 13,000 Canadians out of work last year because of the policies of this government, it is very clear that it is far too late to simply sit back and do nothing.
Will the minister reconsider, and give us a clear commitment, now, that he will bring in a new budget quickly? If he will not accept my proposal, he should at least try to understand it instead of misrepresent it. Will the minister at least consider reducing the federal manufacturing sales tax as a means of specific stimulus to the Canadian manufacturing sector, where most of the lay-offs are occurring?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the reduction of sales tax, I discussed that proposition with the provinces in the fall. I urged the provinces to again look into that matter when we had our meeting in January. The provinces did not accept a cut in sales tax. One problem with cutting the federal sales tax is that we cannot be sure that the reduction in cost would be passed on to the consumer. That is why we decided on another type of incentive when we introduced our tax incentives last October 20. We have cut taxes in the Canadian economy to the tune of $2 billion since January 1, 1978.


Charles Joseph Clark: The October tax incentive is gone: it obviously has not worked. The new figures indicate that, on the narrow reporting base, another 13,000 Canadians are out of work because of this government. If the minister will not act on a tax cut and reduce the federal sales tax, what does he propose to do to stop this continuing decline in the Canadian economy and give jobs to Canadians who have a right to expect jobs in an economy like ours?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the best thing we can do is to ensure that Canadian products are more competitive than before. It is evident that the policies we are following are working toward that end. We have increased our trade surplus in foreign trade by more than $2 billion, and the competitive position in Canada is improving every month. That is the way to bring back stability and prosperity in this land.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance continues to try to play hocus-pocus with the real figures of the Canadian economy. I ask the Minister of Finance, or any other minister competent to answer, why Canadian Manpower statistics which normally, up until this month, were reporting lay-offs of 20 or more, are now reporting only lay-offs of 50 or more, so that the aggregate figures will look smaller and the
Oral Questions
impact of creating unemployment by this government will look less.
Why has there been a change in the reporting base of the Canada employment centres across the country? Is it simply to hide from Canadians the reality of the harm being done to the Canadian economy by this government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. Is he now accusing Statistics Canada of not issuing statistics that are relevant to Canada whereas a few days ago, when I was not in total agreement with the statistics, he was urging me to accept them even before the possible revision? I for one am not sure if he is accusing Statistics Canada, but I think he would be very ill advised to do so. At any rate, I will ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to give further explanations to the Leader of the Opposition if possible.


REASON ONTARIO HAS SUFFERED HEAVY LAY-OFFS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Faced with the worst lay-off report ever published by Canada Manpower-this was referred to by my leader-and bearing in mind that 87 per cent of the lay-offs reported in February were in the province of Ontario, would the minister indicate, First, whether he was aware of the impact on Ontario of these lay-offs and, second, can he suggest to the House and the people of Canada any reason why Ontario, in particular, should have suffered such heavy lay-offs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have discussed the economic problems of Ontario many times with the Treasurer of Ontario. He will be disclosing his budget tomorrow, I believe, in his own House. We have tried to co-ordinate our economic policies, and following suggestions they have made to me, I have made a proposition to help the provinces to cut the sales tax in order to stimulate demand. But the other provinces have never accepted that proposition. Tomorrow we shall see what Mr. McKeough intends to propose specifically for Ontario. As far as present economic policies are concerned, we debated them with the ministers concerned and at the first ministers' conference and there was no pressure upon us to change them.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TARIFF REDUCTIONS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Speaking about coordination, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in his "Report from Parliament Hill" appearing in the Hanna Herald on February 15 of this year, stated:
It now seems that the European Community, the United States and Canada will strive for a 40 per cent cut in tariffs.

March 6, 1978
Oral Questions
Would the minister indicate, in the context of the February lay-offs, if it is Canadian policy to cut tariffs by 40 per cent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are presently engaged at Geneva in tariff negotiations with other nations to make sure that international trade increases rather than diminishes. At this moment we have not decided what the final position of the government will be. I think it is very important that all the nations of the world make sure that there is a better climate for trading in the world, across the board, so that everyone will benefit, as opposed to going to extreme protectionist policies. What we should like to know is whether the opposition parties have any position between the free trade sympathies of the west and the protectionism of Ontario.


IMPACT OF FOOD PRICES ON CPI
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A few days ago, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated that the impact of food prices on the calculation of the consumer price index will be revised starting in early summer. He further stated that the food component, which presently accounts for about 28 per cent of the consumer price index, is likely to drop to 20 per cent. Will the hon. gentleman tell the House why the government has decided to mislead the public-I can only think of it in those terms-into believing a reduction in the cost of living will take place in the early summer by manipulating the consumer price index statistics in this obvious fashion?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government's policy consists in giving orders to Statistics Canada. That organization of the Canadian government has been working in a scientific and very professional way for many years. Nobody but the organization itself decides which base is best for the establishment of statistics relating to Canada's economic performance and traditionally, the government has never intervened in these matters. When I was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I defended on many occasions in the House the integrity, the sincerity and the competence of Statistics Canada and if the organization is now bringing changes in this field, a matter I am not aware of, I am sure that it proceeds this way for reasons of a purely scientific nature.


John Edward Broadbent: A number of countries, including the United States, use a variety of indexes to measure the cost of living. Will the minister not agree that the announced intention to change the statistical basis and reduce the weight of the food component, which has increased by more than 15 per cent in the last year, will likely have the effect of showing at least a decline in the rate of increase of the index, and that this change, particularly for pensioners and other low income people, could distort reality because these people spend a much

higher proportion of their income on food than do upper income Canadians?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I explained earlier that it is up to Statistics Canada to make those judgments in terms of their conscience and of trying to find out exactly what are the components in increases in the price of food in Canada. It could be that they have decided, because of realities, that Canadians are spending less of their income on food; I do not know, and I do not want to pass judgment. I would rather let Statistics Canada-an institution with a great reputation for making professional and scientific decisions-make that judgment, rather than myself pass judgment on the quality of work Statistics Canada is doing not for the government but for Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that there have been studies on the possibility, for example, of a separate index for pensioners, as well as for other groups. The minister knows that the government can make a recommendation to Statistics Canada to publish a comparable, different set of figures showing what is really happening in the economy. Does the minister think that changing the procedures which are likely going to show a decline in the cost of living precisely at the time of the next election is a mere coincidence?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I know of no instruction from the government on that matter. It is up to Statistics Canada to prepare the statistics the way they think is the fairest way for the people of Canada to be informed. We do not give instructions to Statistics Canada. I do not know of any such instruction. If Statistics Canada is changing its procedures, I suppose it is because they have a good, professional reason for doing so.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, to give the Minister of Finance a chance to catch his breath, I shall put my question to the Minister of National Revenue.
I apologize to the minister for not having had time to send him my question but it is rather special.
Keeping in mind that when a citizen borrows money to build rental housing units he is allowed to deduct from his income part of the interest on the loan, can the minister tell us whether such a loan has to go through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? And how can such a loan be refused which does not go through the corporation?
March 6, 1978


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: I should like to take the hon. member's question as notice and answer it tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I know he is just filled with information today, and I want to see if I can find out what it is. First, has any charge been made, or information sworn to, against the hon. member for Leeds, or has one been prepared and is dependent on the events of today?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, there has not been any charge laid and none has been prepared. I am awaiting with anticipation, as is the right hon. gentleman, the announcement that will be made by the hon. member at three o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: I am very happy to notice a change of attitude, on the part of the minister, from one of vengeance and vindictiveness. I should like to ask him a further question. If no charge has been laid or information prepared, on what basis and under what authority have the police been harassing the hon. member for Leeds and his wife during the last several days, following him here, there and everywhere? What is the basis for that action? What is the justification for it?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to the right hon. gentleman that if he looks at the record he will see that I have never exhibited any vindictiveness nor any vengeance. I say this simply to put the record straight. Second, I gave express directions to the security service, to the RCMP, not to carry out any surveillance of any nature on the hon. member for Leeds.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister now want the House and the country to believe that the police have been acting without the inspiration of the vindictiveness he has shown up to the present time?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, all I want the right hon. gentleman to know is that, indeed, if there has been the harassment which the hon. member alleges, I would ask him to provide me with any details or any information he has relating to that. I have every confidence that the RCMP have acted in accordance with my express directions and instructions.


An hon. Member:: Yes, your directions.
Oral Questions


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, my express direction was that there be no surveillance of Mr. Cossitt, and I am sure they complied with that express direction.


REPORTED GOVERNMENT KNOWLEDGE OF SOVIET INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General and relates to a news story, with which I am sure he is familiar, which appeared in the Toronto Sun of yesterday, written by Mr. Robert MacDonald. I would ask the minister about the investigations that presumably are taking place into the sources which formed the basis of that story-the information and documentary material. Can the Solicitor General tell us at what stage the investigations are now and, if completed, what steps does he propose to take as a result of those investigations?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, without appearing to give any indication of any attention I may give to that reporter's story, I would ask the hon. gentleman to be more specific in terms of the story to which he is referring. There have been a number of stories over the weekend.


William Herbert Jarvis: I will do that, Mr. Speaker. At least one part of that story contains the serious allegation that the cabinet committee on security, a committee chaired by the Prime Minister, was warned at least two years ago regarding Soviet intelligence activities in Canada, of much greater spying and subversive attack on Canada than ever before. Can the Solicitor General confirm or deny that, in fact, the cabinet committee was warned at least two years ago of the stepped-up attack by the Soviets against our country, and why was nothing done in the last two years about it?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that particular story. I would like to review the facts the hon. gentleman maintains are alleged in the story. I would indicate, however, that after checking those facts there may be information contained in it that has been made available to me but which I cannot make available to the hon. gentleman.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General of Canada about a case under the Official Secrets Act concerning which questions were asked in this House. It is the case of Alexander Peter True. According to information I have-and I attempted to get more from the special assistant to the deputy minister of justice before coming in here-a bench warrant was issued for the appearance of Alexander Peter True when he did not appear for sentencing pursuant to the case under the Official Secrets Act which was tried in Montreal last December. His

March 6, 1978
Oral Questions
Honour Judge Trudel allegedly put down February 24 for sentencing.
I understand from the special assistant in the office of the Minister of Justice that no such judgment or sentencing has ever taken place. I wonder whether the Attorney General of Canada, in view of the prominence of the Official Secrets Act and what appears to be strange handling and delay here, could give the House and the country any information about how this particular case under the Official Secrets Act is being handled?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, all I know at the present time is that the evidence has been put in both by the Crown and by the defence and that a decision on sentencing was reserved. Whether or not a bench warrant has been issued, I am not in possession of that information.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, could the Attorney General of Canada, in view of the fact that the Official Secrets Act is receiving such emphasis lately, indicate whether there are any special circumstances, negotiations or matters that are in any way out of the ordinary, about which the House and the country ought to know in order to explain, first of all, the issuance of a bench warrant and, secondly, what appears to be a very strange delay in carrying out what would appear to be an important sentence in an important case under the Official Secrets Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there are no special circumstances that my counsel has felt compelled to advise me of, but I will inquire into the facts in question.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General: it relates to confirmation by him about recent allegations which include a specific charge that Cuban arms have been smuggled into Canada for the purpose of arming subversives in this country. Will the Solicitor General tell this House, now, why the government did not take diplomatic action in response to this very serious and hostile action by Cuba against our national security?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I have never confirmed that fact.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Wooliiams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to and along the
[Mr. MacKay.)
lines of those asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot and the hon. member for Central Nova. Section 12 of the Official Secrets Act provides:
A prosecution for an offence under this act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General-
In light of the answer given the right hon. member for Prince Albert by the Solicitor General, has the Attorney General of Canada been approached to give his consent to the laying of any charges against any persons or any newspapers during the last ten days?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, no such request has been made of me and, obviously, no concurrence has been granted.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me go one step further. Under that act a charge may be laid without the consent of the Attorney General, but before any proceeding :an be proceeded with he must give his consent. Has he given consent of any kind, shape or colour, in reference to charges already pending, consenting that they proceed under due process of law against newspapers, against persons or anything else?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, and the normal practice is that those wishing to lay charges under the Official Secrets Act are to consult the law officers so that the charges, fiat or concurrence are issued at the same time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter and we have not really got the answer. Have the law officers of tht Crown been consulted with reference to getting consent for the laying of any charges or proceeding with any charges that have already been laid? Will the minister answer "Yes" or "No"? Have they been consulted: let's have it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to the hon. member, I think I have been very full in my answers. He is asking whether I have been requested to concur in the laying of charges or whether I have concurred in the laying of charges, and the answer to both those questions is "No".


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Belgrade Conference on European Security and Co-operation is now drawing to a close, in view of Canada's vigorous efforts there for over five months in following up the principle of family reunification, and knowing the anxiety of many Canadians with members of their families in the Soviet Union and eastern European countries to have them come to Canada, does the minister have plans to follow up this matter with the foreign ministers of European nations so as to
March 6, 1978

Oral Questions NATIONAL SECURITY
facilitate family visits and reunification in the spirit of the Helsinki Agreement?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is a good deal of disappointment, not only on the part of Canada but of other western countries, that the meetings in Belgrade did not achieve more substantial results. Our aim had been to put family reunification virtually at the top of the list. We will now, as a result of what appears to be the failure of Belgrade to really come to grips with this question, continue to pursue our efforts with individual governments and also, of course, continue the monitoring process that has been established as a result of the Helsinki documents and to work through all the various means open to us in this regard.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am sure the minister is aware of the strike by cattle producers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. One reason for that strike, of course, is that cattle are selling at below the cost of production. In view of the fact that the latest CPI figures showed that the price of beef in this country had gone up by 33 per cent, January over January, while the price to the producer had gone up by only 19 per cent-and I assume his department has looked into the price spread-can the minister tell the House the reason for the tremendous price spread between the producer and the consumer?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the situation of the beef boycott in western Canada and are watching it carefully. We are pleased in the sense that it has only been scheduled for a two-week period. I will obtain further information with particular respect to the question the hon. member has just put to me.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: : Mr. Speaker, my question really concerned the price spread. To give the minister an example, a 1,000-pound steer, this year over last year, netted the farmer an extra $80, while it sold to the consumer for an extra $180. I should like to ask the minister where that spread is going. Is it the intention of his department to investigate that price spread and perhaps even establish a commission to look into it?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in that price spread as well. I do not have that information in the briefing material I have on the beef boycott. I am extremely interested in knowing the reasons for the spread. I will find out and let the House know.


SMUGGLING OF CUBAN ARMS INTO CANADA-USE THEREOF BY SUBVERSIVES
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Before putting it, may I remind him that soon after assuming the portfolio he now holds, I asked a series of questions in the House with respect to the infiltration of Indian organizations. I followed that up with a letter to him. At the time, he indicated that he would be replying to me. I am still waiting. My specific question with respect to Cuban arms is: Were arms illegally imported into Canada on Cuban vessels? If so, was it done with the knowledge and the participation of the Cuban government? To the knowledge of the government, were any of these weapons used by subversives in Canada for the purposes of disrupting our society?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, those are very, very specific questions indeed. As the hon. member well recognizes, the import of those questions is considerable in terms of our national security situation.


Miss MacDonald:: Right on.


Jean-Jacques Blais: In view of the circumstances we are facing, evidently relating to the document or documents which are presently at issue, I hope the hon. member will accept my taking that question as notice and I will see if a response can be provided to him at a later time.


INQUIRY WHETHER MEMBER OF PRESS GALLERY AGENT OF KGB
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Solicitor General. I should like to indicate, in the most friendly fashion I can, that I am grossly unhappy with the non-answer of the minister to that question. Can he confirm that Alexander Palladin, Novosti press, a representative in the press gallery, is in fact a KGB agent? If so, is the government now taking action to expel this individual?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, this is in the nature of the previous question which was asked. It refers directly to some of the allegations made by the hon. member for Leeds. I suggest at this time that I take the question as notice.	,


TRANSPORT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport: it relates to a rather disturbing report of a study presented to him by a firm of consultants headed by Mr. Rod Bryden. This study was commissioned in response to a Hall commission recommenda-

March 6, 1978
Oral Questions
tion concerning the construction of an inland terminal at Yorkton, Saskatchewan, to augment shipment of precleaned grain to the port of Churchill. The findings of the report fly in the face of the recommendations of the Hall commission. Has the minister received this report? Has he repudiated the essence of it and the recommendations, or will he subscribe to the report as presented by Mr. Bryden?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is completely wrong in his statement as to the conclusions of the report. It was a report into the question of the cost of developing either a single terminal elevator in the Yorkton area, or several in that region. It analyses those costs and indicates very significant costs indeed. That may be done either way, particularly if a large terminal is used as a feeder for the Churchill terminal which is available for only a very short season; therefore, the gathering of grain has to be concentrated in a short period.
That is what the report covered; it did not include the entire question, by any means. It was a necessary consultants' study about the complications of a terminal. It was prepared by the Bryden group, which had also been very much involved in the development of the feasibility studies for the Weyburn terminal and therefore had experience in that regard. Before any final conclusion can be drawn, we have to analyse the total rail handling costs from that area into Churchill, alternative methods of gathering grain for Churchill, and also the question of the advantage in Churchill to the Wheat Board of having grain for sale there. As I indicated to the 42 or so farm and prairie organizations with whom I met to discuss this matter a few months ago, there is no doubt further work will continue, and no conclusions have been reached at this point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this report came down on the side of no further expansion: it suggested no further expansion or improvement of the facilities at Churchill. Why would the minister take it upon himself to engage a consultant who had a very well known bias against the port of Churchill and who, in fact, did a study just two years ago for the Dominion Marine Association, which is pro-St. Lawrence Seaway, that recommended virtually the same situation; that the port of Churchill should not be expanded or improved? Why would the minister engage someone with an obvious bias?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement is really extraordinary. As a lawyer, he should know that a case may be taken for one side of a problem by a lawyer, and later on a case may be taken on the other side. Consultants operate in the same way. It is quite wrong for the hon. member to allege any kind of bias in the House on the part of any consultants. The fact of the matter is that in their work in relation to Churchill and in relation to inland terminals, they were knowledgeable about the entire situation.
As I said at the beginning, the hon. member is quite wrong in saying that this determined in some way that there was no future, or a dim future for Churchill. In fact, at this very moment we are continuing our programs of expansion for

Churchill. Lighting systems are being installed to allow longer hours of work at Churchill. This year we are likely to set again, for the third year in a row, a record for the number of bushels handled at Churchill. That is the record of this government. I do not know why the hon. member wants to be cynical about it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the port of Churchill has been downgraded by the removal of the head of that particular port, and in other ways, that the Hudson Bay Route Association and other people have said that Mr. Bryden went outside his terms of reference and were altogether very critical, and that these associations wanted to have somebody looking at this matter who would be in tune with western concerns, I ask the minister: in view of these observations and actions which have taken place in the past, why did he engage Mr. Bryden at all?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there were no complaints about the engagement of the consultant while the studies were ongoing. If anyone accused them of anything, I suppose it might have been that they were pro-terminal because of the work they had done on the Weyburn terminal. They might have been just as easily accused of that. I have very close working relationships with the Hudson Bay Route Association and those interested in the development of that port. They know we are going ahead with our plans for work there. They know that in our rail rehabilitation program we have included major works for the expansion of the Herchmer subdivision on the way to Churchill. Thus, all these positive acts by the government fly in the face of the cynicism and the skepticism of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. I wish he would recognize the three-year record that we have in Churchill and the fact that we will continue to develop it.


Mr. Hees:: Whose campaign manager was he, Otto?


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Under section 27.7 of the National Housing Act, funding for the Neighbourhood Improvement Program will cease on March 31, 1978. On December 1, 1977, before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, the minister said: "I would like to be in a position to bring in an amendment that will extend NIP". Considering the usefulness of this self-help activity, and the problems caused by interruption of the program, can the minister inform the House what measures he plans to introduce to overcome the March 31 deadline?
March 6, 1978


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is discussing this matter, will he consider a change so we can talk about rural NIP and urban NIP, so that this program can be more effective?


Mr. Ouellet:: Both programs, Mr. Speaker, will be discussed at those meetings this week.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Given the age of the aircraft, the need for regular checks and retrofits, the heavy workload and the growing number of demands on their time, does the minister intend to expand the number of Boeing 707s currently used by 737 Squadron based at the Canadian Forces Base, Trenton?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is no immediate intention to expand that fleet. We recognize that these aircraft are heavily taxed, but there are no definite plans for expansion at this time.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister confirm if in the past few months there have been foreign aircraft with troop-carrying capability going through Dorval without the usual registration numbers and state demarcations?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no such information. I will be glad to check and inform the hon. member.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the large number of Russian, Cuban, Polish and Czech airliners using Mirabel and Dorval to carry commercial freight and passengers, will Air
Oral Questions
Canada be resuming its flights to Moscow and Prague? These flights were cancelled last year due to lack of passengers and freight.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention on the part of Air Canada to do so at this time. Flights were discontinued because the very low level of seat occupancy meant that Air Canada was incurring losses. Those losses had to be borne by Air Canada in its other operations and that did not seem to us to be sensible. Air Canada stands ready to resume those services when there is a clear indication that the number of seats occupied will be higher.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. As I understand it, very extensive investigations by the security service, and perhaps the RCMP, are going on right now. I understand that persons and/or corporations are being investigated regarding the subject with which we are now dealing. Can the minister advise how many persons are involved, and whether this investigation has come to a close? How extensive is it?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like the hon. member to be a little more precise with regard to the particular investigation he is referring to.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about an investigation regarding the Official Secrets Act. We are talking about only one investigation at this time regarding the Official Secrets Act. We are talking about the involvement of the hon. member for Leeds. 1 indicated to the Solicitor General that there are some very extensive investigations going on, including investigations of persons, corporations and, particularly, members of the press. How many people have been investigated, and is the investigation complete?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman has read, interviews were conducted over the weekend by the security service. Interviews were conducted with members of the press and other individuals who might shed light on some of the declarations which have been made from time to time by the hon. member for Leeds relating to the matter at issue. The investigation is being conducted with the usual practices which are followed by the security service. I am sure the investigation is being conducted competently and that the number of personnel involved is sufficient to carry out the responsibilities with which these personnel are charged.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the minister's answer that the investigation is very extensive. As a result of the investigation, have any notices been issued in the past two or three days for the production of documents or material? In
3468

March 6, 1978
Oral Questions
other words, as a result of this investigation, has anything come to the minister's attention so that he can determine now that notices demanding the production of documents have been issued?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, as investigations are being proceeded with, it would be unusual for me to comment. It has been the practice not to comment until such time as action is taken.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am very much aware of that. As a result of the investigations, and as a result of information before the minister, is he about to issue a notice demanding that documents be produced?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Not at this moment, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the issue of $720 million in Canadian bonds on the United States market announced by the Minister of Finance to sustain the Canadian dollar did not produce any effect and that Friday last our floating dollar was more like a sinking dollar, what does the minister intend to do about it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat once more that our dollar is floating on the market at the present time and that its level is determined by the market. Of course we have borrowed $750 million as I have indicated because we have a deficit in our current account balance of payments and because Canadians do not borrow enough on foreign markets but we do not intend to change our policy with regard to the dollar and when a currency is floating it can go up or down as the dollar has been doing for the last year and half.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, considering that the dollar is having trouble staying afloat-indeed it is drowning-and that the minister's decision to issue some $750 million worth of bonds has failed to sustain the dollar, what other step is the minister contemplating now, or would he rather wait, before taking any action, until the value of the dollar drops as low as 5 cents?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the dollar was worth about 90.13 cents over a month ago, and its value has not dropped very much since January. During February, we faced a reserve problem, but it has now stabilized. The value of the dollar is floating now and will continue to float, and in reply to the question from the hon. member opposite, I feel I can say that a

floating dollar greatly favours Ontario industries which export to foreign markets.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I want to address my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I read the minister's answer to a question put to him on Friday by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. However, I want the minister to recognize that although it is apparently true that, as he says, there are no lay-offs, there is going to be a change in that mine. People are going to move to other mines. That would drastically affect people who have applied for jobs, for example, at Lingan.
I would like the minister to give us an assurance in this respect. I have spoken to coal consultants and others, who have said that they think the construction period could be pushed forward as far as the Donkin mine is concerned. This would reduce the general unemployment level in that area. As the minister knows, 3,500 people are still looking for jobs in coal mines in the area.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, it is obvious that following the decision to stop temporarily the operations as such of Prince mine, there will be readjustments among workers who will be assigned to other tasks in other places, always within Devco operations. But as for the hon. member's suggestion to hasten the possible construction of a new coal mine in the Donkin deposit, I must say to the hon. member that the study which is necessary before making this decision is not completed, and I think it would be a little premature and incautious to set immediately to build a mine before being sure about all its implications, in order not to be in a difficult situation, such as the one which we have now with the Prince mine. So I hope that the hon. member will go on supporting the efforts we are making, and we hope that in the next few months we shall be in a position to make decisions likely to please as many people as possible.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I agree in part with what the minister said, but I repeat that there is the possibility, according to coal consultants who have studied this question in the past and with whom I consulted before I asked the question, that the feasibility study as far as Donkin is concerned can be pushed ahead without doing any damage. I realize it is partly lack of planning that got this mine into trouble. I ask the minister if Treasury Board intends to grant
March 6, 1978

the additional funds needed to continue next summer the offshore drilling which was not completed last year.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that under the agreement offshore drilling is to continue next year. But as for the consultants, I would like to tell the hon. member that Devco has also hired some, and that during the next few months we will probably have the opportunity to hire another consultant firm which will establish if we should encourage this new mine, based on its cost effectiveness and feasibility. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to announce, in the coming weeks if not the coming months, the decisions taken in this matter.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pertaining to a letter dated March 3, 1978, which I received from the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Blais) and a reply thereto which I now would request a parliamentary page to come forward to deliver to the Solicitor General across the floor of the House at this time.
While it is being delivered might I just say this: I confirm the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), made earlier in this question period, that I was under surveillance this past week end, beginning noticeably on Thursday evening, and also the fact that approximately 30 members of the press gallery have been interrogated since Thursday.
Over this past week end I have been conferring with my solicitors and certain members of parliament. Naturally I would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues in the Conservative caucus and to my solicitors, namely, from Brock-ville, the firm of Stewart, Corbett, Musclow and Barr, and my senior counsel here in Ottawa. I hope I may also be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to thank the hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast who have been communicating with me over the week end by telephone and telegram, agreeing with the stand that I have taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I also feel that I should add, Mr. Speaker, before I read the reply to the House that I have given to the Solicitor General, that this whole incident has been extremely curious, and I consider it has been a breach of my parliamentary privilege.
It is an acknowledged fact that there are a number of members of this House who, at various times, have openly stated that they possess, or are quoting from so-called secret material, or from information given to them verbally. To my
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
knowledge none of these members has been threatened with possible arrest. None of these members has been threatened with the issuance of search warrants. As a consequence, the question in my case I think is obvious-why have I been singled out by this government for the treatment I have received?
The conclusion is, 1 believe, just as obvious. I have never been exactly known as one who approves of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) methods of running the country, and it would appear that the whole thing has become a form of some vindictive persecution on his part as evidenced by the threats made upon me last week in my office, without notice of any kind, by General Dare and the Solicitor General, on instructions that were apparently handed to the Solicitor General by the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has said that the interests of the country are at stake-as if I had damaged the interests of the country-but in reality I believe it is the interests of the government that are at stake in view of the fact that revelations made by a number of members in this House, including myself, have shown time and again the failure of the government to act decisively in the interests of national security.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The Prime Minister spoke of dangers to the country in the things he alleges are in my possession, and he has displayed less interest in stopping the activities of the KGB and other subversive elements in Canada and far more interest in destroying Tom Cossitt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Finally, I wish to assure this House that 1 have never acted in any manner which I consider prejudicial to the security of this country, nor will I ever do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Since coming here in 1972 I believe I have acted in the best interests of Canada and in the best interests of my constituents who elected me to this place.
It is not for me at this time to cite precedents of the British parliament which would indicate that, if they were to be applied here, they would show that I have not acted in any way detrimental to Canada. I wish to emphasize, as I have said many times, Mr. Speaker, that I feel it is my absolute duty to protect the identity of such persons who in any way communicate to me, as a member of the opposition, information that indicates the government is acting wrongly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to read to the House the letter dated March 3, 1978, delivered to me on that date at approximately 1.15 p.m. in the parliamentary dining room by a representative of the Solicitor General, along with my reply thereto.
80033-71/2

March 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
The letter from the Solicitor General reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am satisfied that on the basis of statements made by you, both in and out of Parliament, that you are in possession of a document dated 24th March 1976, classified as 'Top Secret', entitled 'CANADIAN RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES' and published by the Intelligence Advisory Committee of the Government of Canada.
I am also satisfied that it would be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State for you to retain possession of that official document. In the circumstances I consider it my duty as Solicitor General presiding over the Department of the Solicitor General to direct you, pursuant to the paragraph 4(4)(a) of the Official Secrets Act, to forthwith return the document together with any copies of it or extracts from it which you may have in your possession or which may be in the possession of others on your behalf.
You may be assured that this letter is being sent to you as a Member of Parliament only after my having given the matter very careful consideration and on my being absolutely convinced that it is necessary to do so in the interests of Canada.
I can be reached at any time through Government local 6-0220 or 2-4211.
Yours sincerely,
J.-J. Blais Solicitor General
The reply I have sent the Solicitor General across the floor of the House, dated this day, March 6, reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Blais:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 3, 1978, which was delivered to me at approximately 1.15 p.m. on that date in the Parliamentary Dining Room shortly before my departure to my home in Brockville.
In response to your said letter I have to advise you that I am not in possession of a document dated March 24, 1976, classified as 'TOP SECRET', entitled 'CANADIAN RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES'.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Cossitt
In other words, or in effect, to summarize the wordiness of both letters, the Solicitor General has requested me to return forthwith a document classified as top secret and entitled "Canadian Related Activities of the Russian Intelligence Services" and I have replied to him that I am not in possession of such a document.
In conclusion I should advise the House that I have maintained my undertaking completely that any materials in my possession would remain in safe custody, that I would reveal to nobody and in no way tamper with or destroy, etc. until such time as I complete the statement that I have now just made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) a question for clarification in order to short circuit any long debate on this issue. The hon. member rose on a point of privilege and I would like him to intimate whether he indicated in his closing sentence that he would be returning all top secret documents he may have in his possession.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: The sentence speaks for itself.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) can read what I said in Hansard.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. gentleman, first of all with reference to his opening remarks that perhaps during the weekend he might have been under surveillance in some way, I would want him to provide me with all the information. I will reiterate the comment I made to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that there were indeed expressed directions given by me that no surveillance of any sort be effected on the hon. member for Leeds, commencing Thursday.
With reference to the point the hon. gentleman had raised, I ask the hon. gentlemen not to limit their analysis of this situation, merely to the request that was sent on Friday over my signature dated March 3, because the question was raised on Thursday related to the possession by the hon. gentleman for Leeds of documents-


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A document.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -top secret documents, Mr. Speaker. It is true that the letter he read speaks of one identified document. I call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that that letter also speaks of extracts from that document.
We are not dealing with matters of passing importance; we are dealing with questions involving national security. When I spoke to the hon. gentleman from Leeds on Thursday morning it was in order to secure the return of a document that we felt he had in his possession. He indicated to me at the time that he had two documents-one document he had two copies of, and another he had extracts from.
The case is quite clear that the hon. gentleman himself has admitted, and I cite from the Citizen of February 22 where it states on page 8:
Outside the House, the Tory MP showed reporters the original photostat of the RCMP document he was referring to. It was headed "For Canadian Eyes Only" and was stamped "Secret".
The document listed the following numbers in the Soviet diplomatic establishment in Canada by year with the number of "Soviet intelligence officers" in brackets:
In 1970, 60 (30); 1971, 60 (27); 1972, 59 (30); 1973, 54 (24); 1974, 59 (24); 1975,59 (24); and 1976,61 (28).
Again in the same article by Citizen staff writer Ian Hunter he stated that he was basing his allegations relating to certain matters involving the Soviet Union's diplomatic personnel in Canada on:
-secret RCMP documents passed on to him by a member of the force's security branch.
In part that information was the justification for my attending upon the hon. member for Leeds in order to secure the return of the documents. Now the hon. gentleman is attempting to pass a red herring across the trail, Mr. Speaker, by indicating that indeed the request we made, and the obligation he has, is limited only to a reply to the request that we made
March 6, 1978

last Friday. Surely that is not the only responsibility that he has.


Charles Joseph Clark: If it was a red herring, you would give it a travel visa!


Jean-Jacques Blais: He has a responsibility to comply with the Official Secrets Act, as has any other member of this House. The hon. gentleman knows that when I attended his office on Thursday morning I had sufficient information in order to request the issuance of a search warrant. The purpose of attending at his office was to obviate any sort of legal recourse and to seek and solicit his own co-operation by the return of the documents.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: You acknowledged you have been bugging my telephone.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, that is silliness. There was never any acknowledgement of that nature. All I am saying to the hon. gentleman is that he cannot today, as a result of this question of privilege, extract himself from the necessity of his being here and being dictated by the terms of the Official Secrets Act. That is exactly what he is attempting to do.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You told him what you wanted.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am sure that a number of arguments will be raised perhaps by some of his colleagues relating to the fact that, as a member of parliament, he ought to be provided with some exceptional privilege. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you there is no such authority. Once documents have been established and admitted by him as being top secret documents, matters that were leaked to him from a source within the RCMP, I have yet to read any authority to allow his refusal to hand over those documents. And I would suggest, without passing any further comment than that, that he ought to seek counsel again in order to ascertain whether that is not a very visible and patent breach of the Official Secrets Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have a notice from the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on a separate question of privilege.
To set this matter in its proper context, it was raised on Thursday and discussed further on Friday. When it was raised on Thursday it was raised as a result of a meeting that took place in the office of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) when the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) attended there in company with General Dare. At that time a conversation was held between the parties relating to documents that were allegedly in the possession of the hon. member for Leeds. At that time there was some indication that official action of some sort might be necessary by the Solicitor General.
When the point was raised by the hon. member for Leeds he brought to the attention of the House his request that he be permitted to consult counsel over the course of the weekend to determine what position he would take in respect to whatever documents about which he gave an undertaking. He gave an
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
undertaking that any documents in his possession which would be of a certain nature would be held in safekeeping over the weekend by him. That was his undertaking. In response to this undertaking the matter was argued extensively Thursday afternoon. On Friday morning I spoke with both parties and it was agreed that the matter would stand over until Monday. That would not inhibit the serving of an official notice upon the hon. member for Leeds by the Solicitor General.
In respect therefore to one of such documents a notice was served. The response of the hon. member for Leeds this afternoon is that he is not in possession of the document described in that official notice. This disposes in a complete way of the question relating to that particular document and the hon. member's response to the notice served. It may leave open questions about other documents which might have been discussed on Thursday afternoon about which the hon. member for Leeds gave an undertaking of safekeeping during the weekend. I do not know. I have no information about the number of documents that are in his possession. However, it seems to me that the matter, having stood over in respect to any other documents at this time, cannot go any further in terms of procedural action by the Chair unless and until some other action is taken by one side or the other.
At this point, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) has raised by way of a question of privilege what is in effect his response to a specific notice under the Official Secrets Act, that is, a response to an official notice that the document is not in his possession. That may finalize that matter. It may also leave open the matters from Thursday with respect to other documents.
At the moment there is no procedural matter before the Chair for decision, and certainly no matter which has been formulated by the hon. member by way of a question of privilege that the Chair could deal with at this point. Whether or not that might arise in response to further action, now that this response by him has been made, is an open question. However, it is quite clear there is no action from a procedural point of view that the Chair can take at this moment.


MR. NIELSEN-APPLICABILITY OF OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a separate question of privilege of which I have given Your Honour notice. I do so because of my increasing concern as an individual member of this House, which concern is shared generally by all members of the opposition, if not indeed by some on the other side of the House as well. It has to do with the coming into possession, the receiving of information in any form which might be classified as secret information under the Official Secrets Act.
Over the course of my years here I have come into possession of all sorts of that kind of information which could be so classified. It is quite obvious that other members on this side have as well. I know that I cannot get into the merits of my

March 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
motion now, but I am just explaining what gives rise to my very deep concern about the extent to which that act is going to negate the responsibilities of members of parliament, particularly those in the opposition.
If that act were to be applied literally, we would have to place the telephone back in its cradle each time we made an assessment as to whether information we were hearing was classified.
Because of the importance of this question and the applicability of the Official Secrets Act to members of parliament, and because there has been a precedent set in the Mother of Parliaments in 1939 by way of a decision of a select committee, I believe it is urgently timely for this matter to be brought current in this place so that members of parliament, in their freedom of speech and their freedom to act in what they feel to be in the best interests of the state, for after all there are some of us who believe that the interests of the state and those of the government are not necessarily synonymous-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Because of the urgent need to have this matter updated so that we can all feel free from arrest, free from search, and feel that we are fulfilling what are our responsibilities in this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), and these words are taken from the English precedent which is found in Beauchesne commencing at page 417:
That the applicability of the Official Secrets Act to members of the House in the discharge of their parliamentary duties, having regard to the undoubted privileges of the House as confirmed in Section 4 of the Senate of the House of Commons Act, Section 18 of the British North America Act and the ruling of Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada made on December 5, 1977 commencing at page 1539 of Hansard of that date and referring to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton commencing at page 935 of Hansard of November 16, 1977, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and to report back to this House within 30 days.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member gave the Chair notice of his question of privilege and now follows it with a substantive motion. I would, in an initial way, have a very grave reservation about any attempt to raise by way of a question of privilege a general proposition which is not founded on a particular case. Particularly do I say so in respect to a situation which appears to parallel another event that appears, at least for the moment, not to have reached its final conclusion.
In addition, I would want to remark to the House that a committee was established, under my chairmanship, of which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was very much the inspiration, as a special committee of the House on the question of the rights and immunities of members. It has made one report to the House and it has taken under consideration a number of equally important matters.
I want to give some consideration overnight to whether or not the proper resolution of this would be to refer, or at least request that committee, since it has already the authority of the House to study a number of matters affecting rights and

immunities, to priorize this subject as its next report to the House, if at all possible within the time available, and to take into account events that are unfolding at the present time as well as all of the items referred to here.
That would, I hope, accomplish the same thing in an equally effective way and would not offend the proposition that the matter is really of too general a nature to found a question of privilege on the basis of the precedents, but it is certainly an important enough matter to be given immediate attention. After some reflection, that would be a general intention. However, I will give the matter 24 hours' reflection to see whether there is any difficulty with that.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make two very brief comments. I hope Your Honour will hear submissions with regard to the validity of the question of privilege.
I might inform you, sir, I had originally drafted my motion to refer this matter to the special committee. It was because of my concern that it might somehow affect or compromise the Chair's position, because after all you are the chairman of that committee, that I avoided that. However, I would be perfectly happy to amend my motion to refer to that committee should that be the general consensus.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to the effect that he would hope that submissions might be made tomorrow on the matter of his motion, presumably to prove that his motion raises a prima facie case of privilege, I want to say at this point that I vigorously submit that this motion does not present a prima facie case of privilege in any way, shape, or form.
It could be a substantive motion that the hon. member could put on the order paper and have dealt with in that way. However, it is worth recalling to the House that Your Honour has already ruled that whatever question of privilege or alleged question of privilege has been raised by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), either on Thursday or today, has been discharged. To put it another way, it has not been put forward in any way that it could constitute a proceeding of the House. I therefore take it that that episode, in so far as privilege is concerned, is closed in the way that it has been dealt with today.
The hon. member for Yukon is raising the very general question of the relationship of the Official Secrets Act to members of parliament. It is a very general proposition that is of great academic interest. However, it is not related to any question of privilege or any grievance, breach or complaint put forward by any member of parliament, not even the hon. member for Yukon. The hon. member for Yukon has not said that he has been imperilled or held back in the discharge of his duties because of the operation of the Official Secrets Act.
Having said that with regard to the motion, it seems to me that the suggestion Your Honour has made is an eminently sensible one, to have the committee which has already constituted itself regard this as an appropriate matter for priority
March 6, 1978

treatment. It would certainly have my support and the support of members on this side of the House if it were dealt with on a basis of priority with no motion or further action required on the part of the House.
I believe it is essential that we deal with this matter so that we can go on to the allotted day and deal with the matter standing before the House in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the statements made by the government House leader with respect to the necessity of proceeding with the allotted day. However, I must say I am very heartened to hear two things.
The first is the importance which Your Honour attaches to the question of the relationship of the rights of a member of parliament and the Official Secrets Act, particularly with regard to the way in which a member of parliament can perform his duties and what limitations there may be on him. I am very pleased with the suggestion you have made and the idea of priorizing that in the Committee on Rights and Immunities which is chaired by Your Honour. That makes it even more important. I was very pleased to hear that suggestion.
I was particularly pleased to hear the approbation and endorsation of the suggestion by the government House leader. This is a matter of extreme importance, one with which all of us should be concerned. I want to thank the hon. member for that suggestion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lend my support to the idea which has been put forward by yourself and endorsed by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and, now, by the official opposition as well. However, in resolving the matter at this point by a reference to the Committee on Rights and Immunities, under Your Honour's chairmanship, we should be clear in our minds about what the committee would be looking into.
As I see it, this is a matter which not only affects the rights and privileges of members of parliament and the security of the country as they relate to the Official Secrets Act but also a specifically related question, which is the limits, if any, which should be placed on the right of a member not to divulge his source of information. This is a fundamental question and one which has concerned members on both sides in this unfortunate circumstance-if I may use that adjective to describe it- the rather heavy-handed action taken by the government before the week end, an action which was justified, in the view of the administration, not on the assumption that it was necessary to obtain the information in the document or documents alleged to be in the hands of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) but because the obtaining of that document or documents would be an important step in getting to the source of the leak. It was this-the question of sources which I took to be the essence of the government's interest at the time, and
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
I also took it to be the essence of the interest of the hon. member for Leeds.
There is involved here a fundamental dilemma in a parliamentary democracy-the right of an hon. member on either side of the House to protect his or her sources of information. I need not only draw attention to the case dealt with in Great Britain, to which reference was made early this afternoon; a similar matter was before the Ontario legislature in recent months.
The committee over which Your Honour presides is particularly suited to deal with such a matter, not only because of the nature of the subject matter but in terms of its composition- its members are admirably suited to deal with such a reference. They include the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). These members have shown by their past interest in such matters that they are admirably suited to deal with this question. They have shown an understanding of what is at the root of the problem, namely, the rights of members of parliament as opposed to, or in comparison with, the rights and responsibilities of the executive branch.
What is so perturbing is that the heavy-handed action of the government just prior to the week end revealed that the government-I am inclined to say this would apply to any government of the day, including one from my own party-is inclined to define national security in terms of its own party policy. If you hold power it is almost inescapable that, in national security matters, you will identify the security of the state with the policy of your own government. When such a situation arises and power is exercised in terms of a set of options, including the possibility of arrest, being presented to a member of parliament, serious questions are raised about the propriety of the executive branch of the government making a judgment in its own case, a judgment which possibly impinges upon the rights of that member. We find the government interpreting and applying the Official Secrets Act and saying, with regard to its own case, "This is a threat to the security of the state," and so on.
In this case the difficulty is compounded by the role which has been actively played by the hon. member for Leeds. To no one's surprise, and, many will think to his credit, he has zeroed in on the activities of the Prime Minister of the day (Mr. Trudeau). I am not passing judgment on that, but he certainly has done so. So when the government, through its power as the executive branch, decides to bring down the law of the state on a member, we have to keep in mind that in this instance we are not talking about an academic or hypothetical situation but about a very real one. The government, defining its own defence policy from a set of regulations, has equated it with the national interest, and the situation is not made easier by the fact that many of the activities of the hon. member concerned have been directed against the Prime Minister.

March 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
However, what is involved fundamentally in this issue is not the obtaining of documents for their own sake but getting to the source of the leak. This brings up the question of the rights of members of parliament. It is not the case, as was said by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), that an hon. member has the same rights and privileges as any other citizen of Canada, and no more. We have added rights and privileges. For example, we can say things here in this chamber which, if said outside it, would be in violation of the law of libel. We have freedom here to criticize the government to an extent which, outside the House, would be described as licence.
To my mind the basic question is this: if we are to exercise our rights as members of parliament to express ourselves freely, to be vigorous critics of the government, if we are in opposition, or vigorous backbench members on the other side, it is of the highest importance that we protect our sources of information, especially when such information is frequently volunteered. I might say it is inevitable that it should be volunteered in a free society. This being the case, the question to be considered by the committee is: when that right to protect sources of information is weighed against the security of the state, where does one come down? Because 1 do not believe the executive branch is the authority which should decide that question, I support the proposal to refer the matter to the consideration of a committee of this House, the committee chaired by Your Honour. The committee would look at this possible conflict of rights or obligations, and weigh a member's right to information, and right to protect his sources, against the right of the state to maintain security.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 would simply like to say to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the leader of the NDP, that he attributed to me quite incorrectly the notion that members do not have more privileges than citizens outside this House. If the hon. member will check the record, he will see that I made the point that more privileges had already been extended to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). What I was making clear was that in arguing from outside the House the doctrine which the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has about the right to counsel, and so on, he was arguing from outside the House principles of justice, but he was demanding in the House much more for members. The point I made was that when the hon. member for Leeds, as member of parliament, purports that he can break the law, I think that is an extraordinary doctrine indeed.


Mr. Paproski:: He did not say that; you say that.


Walter David Baker: That is a shameful statement for a lawyer to make.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not intend at this time that the House should launch into an argument on the merits of the case. I indicated that I had grave reservations about the procedural regularity of establishing a general proposition of this sort as a question of privilege. I indicated that I would take 24 hours in

an effort to determine whether or not I could get the concurrence of the Committee on Rights and Immunities to examine the matter on a priority basis. If I can, this may be an agreeable solution to the House and one that would solve the problem. If I cannot, I will undertake to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to give him and other members tomorrow an opportunity to defend the procedural regularity of the motion, but I do not want to allow any further discussion at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I say with great respect that no matter is more important than the rights of members of parliament, and for Your Honour to say, "I have made a certain decision dependent on events ahead" after the discussion that has taken place, and to deny members of the House who have some experience-and I am one in that position-the opportunity to place views before the House and the country, would be, I say with great deference, a denial of our rights in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: If the right hon. member insists, I will ask him to argue now the merits of the motion, and if I have to rule it out of order on the basis of strict procedural grounds, I am afraid I will have to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important to members of parliament and to freedom itself than the maintenance of the basic principle that members of parliament do not have to reveal the source of their information. The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) has dealt with that and I want to deal with it on the basis of experience.
Having been Prime Minister I know that matters arise that are prejudicial to government. Governments are human, and when matters like that arise, naturally they find a variety of opinions in order to offset the right of parliament. I will now quote the Sandys case. I know Sandys very well. He is today a member of the House of Lords, the son-in-law of Sir Winston Churchill. The view that he expressed on parliamentary privilege is as clear today as when he uttered these words. He relied, among other things, on expressions in the Economist of July 2, 1938, in the following passage:
It is imperative even in a democracy that certain facts which might be helpful to a possible enemy should be kept secret. The government must be accorded adequate powers to ensure that, in such cases, this secrecy is safeguarded. But it is equally essential, both for the safety of the state and for the preservation of liberty, that the House of Commons and the press should not be hampered in exercising their traditional right-which is also their duty-of criticism. This function can only be effectively performed if members of parliament and journalists are well informed; hence it is part of their day-to-day business to secure information from all possible sources.
I do not place members of the press on the same level as members of parliament, nor do they themselves, but the fact remains that when governments do not want information to be made available to the people that may be prejudicial to them, often they assert it is prejudicial to the state. That is the danger, and once it is accepted that a government can say that a member of parliament shall reveal his sources of informa-
March 6, 1978

tion, freedom ends, because no one could communicate, no matter how serious the allegation the individual has in mind, if he realizes it would be revealed. It cannot be, it dare not be. We in this parliament accept that principle.
If the individual should be named and the information given so that all who read the information may understand who it was, parliament might as well close down. Information is received over and over again; it has to be checked to ascertain whether it is well based. Often the information that is sent in is allegedly reputable and dependable, but it turns out not to be such. What has happened in the present case is that the Government of Canada, through the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), would place members of parliament in a position of being in pawn to them. That cannot be accepted by parliament if this institution is to be preserved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I mentioned my own experience. On one occasion it was said that it was a breach of the Official Secrets Act, to which I said, "Possibly, technically, and maybe", but the principle of the independence of parliament does not permit any government to say to any member, "You shall only speak what we want to accept, and you shall only speak what we believe is within the provisions of the Official Secrets Act".
Mr. Speaker, you have a tremendous responsibility in this. The determination of the course to be followed is one that rests with you. The preservation of our prerogative rights, the maintenance of the principles on which parliament is founded now rest with you in view of the acceptance today of the authority which you are prepared to accept, and I ask you, in the interests of this parliament, of this generation, and of generations to come, that you do not follow the request of the Government of Canada which, in effect, would place members of parliament in the position of being subservient to them, permitting the government to determine what is or is not within the regulations on the defence of Canada.
I do not want to belabour the point unnecessarily, but let me say that not since John Wilkes took his stand, and Duncan Sandys took his stand in 1938, as I have already mentioned, has any speaker in Canada been placed in the position in which Your Honour finds yourself, as the custodian and protector of the rights of the parliament of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated earlier during this discussion of the question raised by the hon. member for Yukon, I will give it 24 hours' reflection to see if there is a way of dealing with it as I have suggested.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in my original comments on the question I took a very narrow view of what was before the House. Since then, two very substantive statements have been made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It seems to me essential that I should reply at
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
this point, particularly to the comments that have been made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. If the opportunity is available tomorrow, then I will take advantage of it, but I do not believe that the substantive comments which have been made with respect to the motivation of the government in this case can be left unchallenged, and I will abide by your discretion as to whether you will permit me to make these comments today or tomorrow. Your Honour, may I say that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At the moment the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has made a contribution to the question of privilege, which has taken on much larger proportions since it began. I had indicated earlier that I would explore the possibility of developing some term of reference for the special Committee on Rights and Immunities that might be satisfactory.
The matter which was raised here now seems to have been dealt with in rather expanded terms in respect of sources of information and matters of that kind. It may be that some subject matter can be agreed upon for priorized treatment by the committee. If a satisfactory subject matter cannot be agreed to, it seems to me I have left open the subject of the merits of the question of privilege and, therefore, I would return to that point and provide some opportunity for argument tomorrow, but today I do not think I can permit a second intervention by any member unless I am prepared to do so all around the chamber.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to co-operate with you, but if the conclusion is, as a result of activity between this moment and tomorrow, that the committee already in being should deal with the subject matter of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Yukon, then there will be no opportunity to reply to the substantive allegations made by the hon. member for Prince Albert, namely, to the effect that this issue has been raised by the government in an effort to silence an hon. member on the opposition benches.
In respect of the suggestion that there is no security issue here, and that this is a matter of vindictiveness in respect of which the government, because it is in peril, as is argued by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), is moving with the force of law against that hon. member, let me say this. The right hon. member for Prince Albert, who always tells us about the role of the RCMP in our society,and who always praises them up-


John George Diefenbaker: And I always have.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He always extolls them, but that hon. member for Prince Albert ought to be told today that it is on the advice of the security service and the chief of that security service of the RCMP that this particular action is being taken by the Government of Canada. If this matter goes before the committee in the way that may be possible, the right hon. member can go and question the Commissioner of the RCM Police and General Dare, who told the hon. member for Leeds that the document alleged to be in the possession of that hon.
3476

March 6, 1978
Committee Report
member, if further disclosed, would constitute a grave threat to the national security of Canada.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert may not believe the government, and I do not complain about that, but he will then have the opportunity to listen to the Commissioner of the RCMP and the chief of the security service who went to explain to the hon. member for Leeds that the document, if further disclosed, would be a threat to the national security of Canada because it contained descriptions of the activities of foreign agents in this country; material which, if made available would be valuable to the security services of other nations, and that every step ought to be taken immediately to get that document back and to ensure that its contents would not be further disclosed.
The fundamental priority is the security of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: The security of this government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is still a fundamental priority to ensure that top secret documents are returned.


John George Diefenbaker: To the Prime Minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Returned to the security service of Canada. I want to make it very clear, based upon the case the hon. member has cited, the Sandys case, it is very clear that, quite aside from whatever parliamentary action may be taken, and I have agreed to a certain type of parliamentary action, that is no substitute for the authority the statute gives the Attorney General of Canada, and in no case can any parliamentary action or agreement for parliamentary action be construed as a concurrence by the government that such parliamentary action is a substitute for further action that might be taken by the Attorney General of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane) moved: that the first report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the National Capital Region, presented on Wednesday, March 1, 1978, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 686, 828, 1,150, 1,154, 1,173, 1,180, 1,191 and 1,192. I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount did the government spend on research in fields related to laser beams?


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: In so far as Health and Welfare Canada is concerned: $30,000.
In so far as the National Research Council is concerned: $3,644,000.
In so far as the Department of National Defence and Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. are concerned: $3,162,000.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1975, what amount was paid by the government to Bowmar Canada Ltd. for research and development?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: $31,783.
In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: $220,000.
Nil replies have been submitted by the following departments and agency: Communications; Science and Technology; National Research Council.


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What percentage of the Department of National Health and Welfare funds were allotted to alcoholic prevention programmes in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974
(d)	1975 (e) 1976 (f) 1977?
2.	Were federal funds put aside for rehabilitation and prevention programmes for elderly alcoholics and drug abusers and, if so, in what amount?
3.	Were funds allotted to elderly alcoholic rehabilitation programmes conducted by Addiction Centres in the provinces and, if so (a) to which programmes (b) in each case, what was the amount?
4.	Does the government intend to continue its participation in provincial elderly alcoholic rehabilitation programmes and, if so, to what extent?


Hon.   Monique@: Percentage of Non-Medical Use of Drugs' grant and contribution fund allotted to Alcoholic Prevention Programmes. 1. (a) 1971/72, 5.2 per cent; (b) 1972/73, 2.4 per cent; (c) 1973/74, 17.7 per cent; (d) 1974/75, 19.8 per cent;
(e)	1975/76,31.8 per cent; (0 1976/77, 52.4 per cent.
March 6, 1978

2.	Federal funds have not been put aside specifically for programmes directed to elderly alcoholic or drug abusers. The thrust of prevention programmes has been aimed at Canadians in general. Rehabilitation programmes are the responsibility of the provinces.
3.	(a) In 1976/77 the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate funded a research project, through the Canadian Addictions Foundation, to determine the extent of alcohol-related problems of the elderly in Ottawa, (b) The project was funded through a contribution of $5,000.
4.	The provinces are responsible for rehabilitation programmes. However, the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate is planning, in conjuction with the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario, to hold a workshop in March of this year to explore more fully the problems of the elderly and alcohol. The purpose of the workshop will be to increase awareness of the problems of the elderly and alcohol, leading to earlier identification and intervention in alcohol-related problems.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Is the average processing time for applications to the Canadian Pension Commission 171 days?
2.	What is the cost of processing a claim?
3.	(a) What is the number of backlog claims now on hand at the Commission (b) what is the breakdown of the numbers under (i) World War I (ii) World War II (iii) Korean War (c) what is the breakdown as to the length of time they have been on hand?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1.	As at January 31, 1978, the average processing time for First Applications for disability pensions was 207 days. For Survivor Benefits (widow's pensions) in those cases where the veteran had not been in receipt of pension at the rate of 48 per cent or more, the average processing time was 97 days.
2.	Because of the many variable factors in the processing of a claim, a realistic average cost per claim cannot be determined. A claim may be related to more than one condition and be processed through several medical advisers. Medical examination by specialist consultants, special test, admittance to hospital may or may not be required. In addition a claim may be processed through the appeal system. In comparing the total administrative costs with the total pension expenditure, the administrative costs are 2.28 per cent of the pension expenditure.
3.	(a) As at January 31, 1978, 3,800 claims were pending adjudication by the Commission, (b) and (c) Canadian Pension Commission records of pending claims are not kept on the basis of periods of service.


Mr. Andre: 1.	What is the Crown's precise financial interest in Opcan as administered by the Treasury Board and on what date was such interest acquired, at what cost and for what reason?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What was the book value of the Crown's equity on the date of acquisition and what is its latest estimated book value?
3.	To date, what is the Crown's total investment, including equity costs, contributions to operating funds, debt forgiveness and what is the Crown's total realized profit from such investment?
4.	In what manner is the Crown's interest represented (a) on the Board of Directors (b) in its senior management?
5.	Did the government make a policy decision in regard to the future disposition of its interest?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	None. The Crown has entered into an agreement with Opcan under which the Crown will make a contribution of up to $10 million to Opcan for the administration, management and operation of a pilot-project volunteer youth programme called Katimavik. The agreement with Opcan was signed July 15, 1977.
2.	Opcan is a private, non-profit corporation incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act without share capital. The Crown has no equity in Opcan.
3.	As of January 23, 1978, the Crown has made a contribution of $4,770 million to Opcan. Opcan does not realize any profit from its operation thus the Crown does not realize any profit.
4.	(a) An official of the Treasury Board is one of the 21 directors of Opcan. (b) The Crown is not represented by Opcan's senior management.
5.	No. A decision on the future support of Opcan will be made by the Government after an evaluation of the pilot project volunteer youth programme is completed during the fall of 1978.


Mr. Andre: 1.	What is the Crown's precise financial interest in the Custodian of Enemy Property as administered by the Department of Supply and Services and on what date was such interest acquired, at what cost and for what reason?
2.	What was the book value of the Crown's equity on the date of acquisition and what is its latest estimated book value?
3.	To date, what is the Crown's total investment, including equity costs, contributions to operating funds, debt forgiveness and what is the Crown's total realized profit from such investment?
4.	In what manner is the Crown's interest represented (a) on the Board of Directors (b) in its senior management?
5.	Did the government make a policy decision in regard to the future disposition of its interest?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The Custodian of Enemy Property is not a corporate type entity and the questions as phrased do not apply. The Custodian was appointed, pursuant to the Regulations respecting Trading with the Enemy established during World War II, to receive, hold, manage, release, dispose of and otherwise deal with all property that was reported to him, received or controlled by him or vested in him by virtue of the Regulations. These Regulations were continued in force by the Trading
80033 -8V2

March 6, 1978
Order Paper Questions
with the Enemy (Transitional Powers) Act, chapter 24, Statutes of Canada, 1947. The Minister of Supply and Services administers this Act and is the Custodian. At the present time, the office is practically dormant and there are no full-time staff assigned. It requires only occasional activity by senior members of the Government of Canada Accounting Branch. However, in the past, the costs of administration have been fully paid out of earnings on property vested in the Custodian and from charges levied as a fee for services rendered to former owners.


Mr. Andre: 1.	What is the Crown's precise financial interest in Canadian Patents and Development Limited as administered by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and on what date was such interest acquired, at what cost and for what reason?
2.	What was the book value of the Crown's equity on the date of acquisition and what is its latest estimated book value?
3.	To date, what is the Crown's total investment, including equity costs, contributions to operating funds, debt forgiveness and what is the Crown's total realized profit from such investment?
4.	In what manner is the Crown's interest represented (a) on the Board of Directors (b) in its senior management?
5.	Did the government make a policy decision in regard to the future disposition of its interest?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as CPDL is concerned: 1. Original capital $100,000, March 31, 1977 capital-$296,199. CPDL is a Crown Corporation incorporated in 1947 under Part I of the Companies Act by the National Research Council of Canada pursuant to Section 17 of its Act to exploit patentable material of the Council and other government-financed research. The passage of the Public Servants Inventions Act in 1954 made CPDL the prime patenting and licensing agency for public servant inventions which by that Act, belong to the Canadian Government.
2.	March 31, 1977-$999,120.
3.	To March 31, 1977 (a) Total Crown investment-$296,199; (b) Total contributions to operating funds-$400,000; (c) Surplus-$166,471.
4.	The directors hold their single shares in trust for Her Majesty in right of Canada and are appointed by the shareholders. All personnel, including senior management are employed by NRC and seconded to CPDL.
5.	When Bill C-26 is proclaimed, the shares of CPDL now held by NRC will be transferred to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
(Mr. Goyer.]


Mr. Andre: 1.	What is the Crown's precise financial interest in the Director of Soldier Settlement as administered by the Department of Veteran's Affairs and on what date was such interest acquired, at what cost and for what reason?
2.	What was the book value of the Crown's equity on the date of acquisition and what is its latest estimated book value?
3.	To date, what is the Crown's total investment, including equity costs, contributions to operating funds, debt forgiveness and what is the Crown's total realized profit from such investment?
4.	In what manner is the Crown's interest represented (a) on the Board of Directors (b) in its senior management?
5.	Did the government make a policy decision in regard to the future disposition of its interest?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1.	The Soldier Settlement Act was a post World War I rehabilitation measure. At the present time the Director of Soldier Settlement holds title to only one remaining property on which the Crown's investment has been completely recovered. Title to this property will be released when the estate has settled.
2.	No equity was acquired by the Soldier Settlement Board.
3.	The information requested is not readily available. An extensive and costly study would be required to provide a complete answer to the question.
4.	(a) There is no Board of Directors, (b) The Director Soldier Settlement is an Order in Council appointee.
5.	There are no remaining interests.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the remaining questions shall be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Edward Broadbent: That this House asserts that the women of Canada ought to have fully equal rights in participating in the Canadian economy, and in relation thereto condemns the government for its discriminatory policies and statements regarding Canadian women in the labour force.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as leader of the New Democratic Party I have spoken many times about unemployment and its effects on the economy of our country and on every working as well as non-working Canadian. I have tried, particularly over the last two years, to get the Liberal government to provide economic opportunities for Canadians to work. Canadians
March 6, 1978

want the opportunity to work, they do not want to go on collecting handouts of one kind or another.
The opportunity to work is not only important because of its relationship to human dignity and what it means to be a human being, but also in terms of its net effect on the economy. When you have more than 1 million unemployed we lose millions of tax dollars that would otherwise be collected, and we lose the production of millions of dollars worth of goods and services that are not being produced. We also pay out, as we are now paying, some $4 billion a year in unemployment insurance. Unemployment, in short, is a major problem for both human and economic reasons.
As I have said, until today I have talked in the House of Commons about unemployment in general terms. Today I want to talk about what I call the forgotten victims of our unemployment, and I refer to the Canadian women. All of us in and outside this House at this point in our history are aware of such recent economic happenings as the lay-off of men by Inco in Sudbury, and at Thompson, Manitoba, and the shutdown by Alcan of its operations at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland. A few days ago in the House of Commons we learned of another shutdown of a mining operation in Stewart, British Columbia.
Few members of parliament are aware that Canadian women are greater victims of unemployment and the resultant poor economic situation than are men. 1 regret to say that most members of parliament still tend to think of men as being the only breadwinners in our society. That happens to be a reality in terms of the perceptions of most hon. members. Like so many beliefs about our economy and unemployment, this is a myth. It is a myth to believe that men are the only breadwinners in our present economy. I say that because more and more Canadian families require two incomes to survive in 1978, with the cost of living rising month after month, year after year.
Canadian women, who are the subject of this debate, work in the main for the same reasons as Canadian men. They work to buy groceries, to pay fuel bills, to buy clothes for their children, and to pay the mortgages on their homes. They work for the same reasons that their husbands work: to meet the necessities of life in Canada. Approximately one half of married women who are working are doing so because otherwise their husbands, children, and families would be at the poverty level. That is the reality of working wives in 1978.
The women working in fish plants in St. John's or working as cab drivers in Ottawa, such as the ones I spoke with not long ago, are frequently putting in 8, 10, 12 or 14 hour days, rather than the normal eight hour day. This is the case with many women who are doing various ordinary jobs throughout the breadth of this country. They are putting in these long hours fo; the same reasons as men in similar situations. It is not to buy a fur coat, nor to have the advantage of an extra bit of material well-being. They are doing it to meet the necessity
Status of Women
of living from day to day in Canada. That is why they are working.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I am not referring just to married women. This debate has to be also concerned about the plight of single women. They are an important part of our society as well. And they are an important part of the Canadian economy today. In addition to the working wives, there are more than l'/2 million single women working to earn a living. Among that V/2 million, 200,000 women are the sole support of their families. I am referring to the single parent families, which are increasing in number. They are the widows, the divorced, and the deserted. That is what makes up the 200,000 single parent households in this country. I want to stress that most of these women are working at wages which are not equal to nor in excess of those of men. In most cases they are working at wages which are below the poverty level. That is the situation with which working single women are faced.
At the outset of my comments, I said that the majority of women who are unemployed in Canada have become the forgotten victims of unemployment. That is not simply a bit of self-indulgent rhetoric. 1 assert that because it is a statistical reality. If one includes in the statistical unemployment figures all the men and women who would take jobs if they were available and possible, instead of the almost one million unemployed Canadians which Statistics Canada indicates, the real figure is 1.6 million. That part of our labour market, which includes men and women who are no longer in the official statistics but want work, can be referred to as the hidden unemployed. Among that almost countless number, who are not referred to in the official statistics, more than 700,000 women would like to have jobs, need work, but cannot get it. If these are included the real rate of unemployment for last month for women was 17 per cent. A government which was at all sensitive to human issues would consider that to be a statistical scandal. Just as the government tried originally many months ago to deny the existence and significance of the category of hidden unemployed, now it is attempting to hide the reality of the women within that category, whom I call the forgotten unemployed.
Not merely is the government ignoring the myths which are still prevalent in some circles concerning working women in the economy, unbelievably the government and its ministers are perpetuating those myths. In its manpower retraining programs and unemployment insurance offices it is actively discriminating against women. At this point in the twentieth century, surely that should be totally unacceptable to a civilized government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 realize the minister responsible for the status of women will join in the debate this afternoon. Hon. members on this side of the House will listen with a great deal of interest. For the minister's benefit I should like to refer to some information that comes from the Advisory Council on

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
the Status of Women, which was responsible to his department. I refer to its annual report for 1976-1977 regarding the government's activities vis-a-vis women in government departments. Page 9 indicates that the last report revealed in the area of salaries that men were still far ahead of women, and that there had been a decrease in the number of women in senior executive positions.
In addition, the study noted that the concentration of women in certain job categories was even more marked. For example, more than three quarters of the administrative support positions are now filled by women, compared to only 68 per cent in 1974, which is the year the government launched its equal opportunities program. Those figures indicate the progress of that program. Under the category of appointments of women, over which the government and its ministers exercise complete authority, the report of that council is a very unhappy one. It indicates that the government has not lived up to the promises made some years ago in this regard. I will not quote at length from the report in that respect.
For the benefit of the minister, I should like to refer to the case of Miss Ritchie. I am sure all hon. members are aware of it. She served with distinction, skill, and indeed reforming zeal as vice-chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal for the past five years. When the position of chairman became vacant, it was not offered to her in recognition of the outstanding job she did. The position was given to a man. There are many examples within government agencies to which I could refer. I should like to refer to one other instance which took place in my constituency.
Last October a young woman in my riding wrote to me. She was a distinguished high school student. She wanted to become a pilot in the air force. She had contacted the appropriate depot in Toronto to apply. She was surprised to learn in 1977-that is when it occured-that she would not be eligible. Why? Because she was a woman. She knew at the time that in other countries progress had been made in this respect. She knew that there were Russian astronauts who were women. She knew that the Americans were admitting female cadets to West Point and that the Americans were training pilots who were not exclusively male but included women.
I wrote to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) in this regard. Just the other day I received in reply a three-page single spaced letter. I knew why it was so long. I knew he was weasling his way to the conclusion of the letter and that at the end of the letter the minister would say that this young woman from my constituency would not be admitted to train as a pilot. Sure enough, that was the conclusion. There were a number of reasons given, most of them bad, but the one which offended me most was the assertion that the Americans were conducting experiments in this area. So, said the Minister of National Defence in reply to me, and the implication is clear: we will see what happens with the American experience, and if it turns out all right, it will be good enough for Canada. Surely that is not good enough. Are there

not some areas in which a Liberal government can have enough courage and show enough imagination to lead instead of following American examples?
In terms of his department's obligations the Minister of National Defence is by no means alone in discriminating against women. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is in a category all by himself in this respect. Both he and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have been reported, not once but several times, as blaming youth and women for high unemployment rates in Canada. Specifically, a couple of weeks ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration said that the government, along with Liberal backbenchers, should explain unemployment away in 1978 with this little piece of euphemistic nonsense from a statement prepared by him:
Unemployment no longer means what it used to-loss of all family income. Close to two thirds of the unemployed are in families with at least one other wage earner. In fact, over half the beneficiaries are secondary or tertiary wage earners.
That is from the gospel according to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. That is myth No. 1 which the government is trying not to correct but to perpetuate. The myth is that unemployment among married women does not really matter because they are secondary earners. Another interpretation of the same quotation is that if a husband loses his job, that too does not matter because his working partner can still be there to bring home the bacon. That is classic twisted and deceptive Liberal logic.
The reality is that 4 million working women today make up 40 per cent of the work force in Canada. They are not some marginal part of the Canadian economy. They are a major part, 40 per cent. The reality is that almost one half of them are not secondary wage earners at all but are the sole providers either for themselves or their families.
Of the 200,000 single parents with dependent children for whom we had statistics in 1975-and they are the most recent statistics-one half had incomes of less than $5,000, which is less than the poverty level. However, what about the married woman, the secondary earner to whom the Minister of Employment and Immigration callously refers? As I asked rhetorically earlier, is she working to get a holiday in some southern climate, to buy a fur coat, or to buy a new sports car? Of course not. As I pointed out earlier, she is working to buy essential requirements for her family. The $5,000 to $6,000 working wives typically earn in no way can be construed as mere pin money. These people are not buying frills. They are buying the essentials of human life.
I want to deal now with myth No. 20. We hear it not only in conversations around this chamber; we also hear it, I regret to say, from time to time in all our constituencies in all parts of Canada. The myth is that women are causing unemployment among men. Both the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Prime Minister have referred a number of times to the allegation that increasing participation of women in the labour force has caused a recent growth in unemployment.
March 6, 1978

What are the facts? Between 1967 and 1977 the participation rate for women increased by 25 per cent, but the unemployment rate for men and women during the same period of time increased by 100 per cent. Even a Liberal economist should be able to understand the meaning of those figures. The meaning is that women coming onto the labour market are not creating unemployment among men. It is not only nonsense but cruel nonsense to blame women for doing so. However, the most alarming statistic in this regard is that for the past decade, while the participation rate for women increased by 25 per cent, their unemployment level went from 3.7 per cent to 9.5 per cent, an increase of 300 per cent over that period of time. That is a much greater increase than the increase in the rate of unemployment for men. No, Mr. Speaker, women have not been taking jobs away from men. I hope the minister who replies will deal with these issues.
Let us consider the occupations of most women in our country. The reality is that two thirds of women workers are in clerical, sales or service jobs. What is particularly significant about these jobs in the context of the argument that women are taking employment away from men? Almost all of them were rejected a long time ago by men, principally for the reason that the wages are lower than men consider to be acceptable. Those are the kinds of jobs most women still have in our society. I want to give some figures in that regard because they are important, and they are part of our attempt to document this problem. They are drawn from 1975 statistics again.
The average wage level in service occupations was $4,711. The average wage in sales occupations was $5,545. For clerical work the average wage was $7,157. The reality is that women are not stealing men's jobs at all. The reality is that they are still being held down to the lowest paying jobs in our society which, by and large, men have rejected. To twist this reality inside out by accusing women of taking men's jobs is simply to heap cruelty upon injustice. I say that to the government in all seriousness.
In the debate this afternoon I have used a number of statistics. More could have been brought forward to deepen the criticism of the government, but I will not do that. Other contributors to this debate will have an opportunity to add to that. I have used these statistics to portray through this forum to the people of Canada the picture of the economic reality for Canadian women.
I have attempted to present statistical hard core information which I hope will go some way to correct the myths which the government not only has allowed to persist but has perpetuated by its action, on the one hand, and by its inaction on the other.
I do not normally like to use personal examples in debate but, like many members of this House, I have both a son and a daughter. I have a son who is 18 years old and a daughter who has just turned five. What is so important to me is that my daughter as well as my son should have the opportunity and the expectation of not only a decent home, a decent retirement pension plan, but also a decent job. As a woman she should have that right.
Status of Women
So, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that it is time the government came to grips in general with the problem of unemployment for all the 1.6 million who are unemployed but, most specifically today, I say that in addressing ourselves at long last in parliament to the problems of unemployment, we should keep in mind that the dreams of Canadian women have a full and equal place in the scheme of things with the dreams of Canadian men.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am indeed very happy to have the opportunity of participating in this debate and to have, finally, the occasion to discuss the question of the status of women in this House. May I say also how astonished, yet pleased, I am that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has at last discovered status of women issues.
The opposition appears to have asked more questions on the status of women during the past few weeks than during the last three years put together. I do not know whether there is any relationship between this new found interest on the part of the opposition and the possibility of some other event taking place during this year. When I see that even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is showing an interest in this matter and wants to participate in debate, I am forced to conclude that some things are happening.
Several members on this side will have the opportunity to participate in the debate during the day, so we will be able to put on record what this government has done over the last few years and what remains to be done in this regard.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party made some very derogatory comments about the government. I can understand that. He likes to consider himself a man of the left. Recently I had an opportunity to read a book by Franqoise Giroud entitled "La Comedie du Pouvoir". She had many things to say about men of the left in France. She said:

The left has certain home tyrants and important misogynists .. . Indeed we just have to look at what goes on at party and union headquarters.

I would not go as far as Franfoise Giroud did about the politicians of the left in France when she wrote this, but I think it shows the importance of distinguishing between empty rhetoric and true action.


John Edward Broadbent: You are a specialist in that.


Marc Lalonde: When the hon. member was speaking I heard interruptions from his own back bench referring to empty talk.


An hon. Member:: What?


Marc Lalonde: I was going to suggest to the hon. member that if he had that much concern about the status of women- and I listened to some of the cases he mentioned-he might do

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
something about this and start looking at his own office where, according to my analysis, I have found eight women working-for which I congratulate him-but as far as I can see, they are all secretaries. There is not one key woman staffer in his office.


John Edward Broadbent: Wrong. Dead wrong!


Marc Lalonde: I am glad if I am wrong, but it must be a recent development because the official list does not seem to indicate a woman in a staff position.
As far as this government and this party are concerned, when it came to debating this issue this afternoon we wondered whether we should have all women participate in the debate. As the hon. member knows, there are enough women on this side of the House to speak in this debate alone. As a matter of fact, we could have had all cabinet ministers who are women occupy the debate this afternoon. This is a choice that the hon. member's party-or the opposition, for all I know-could not entertain.


John Edward Broadbent: The debate is at a lofty level so far.


Marc Lalonde: I should like to put on the record in general terms some of the things done by this government in the last few years.

I would like to say that we, as a government, are proud of what we have done to improve the status of women in Canada in the last ten years. Long before governments of the western world started to concern themselves with this matter, the government of Canada, under the administration of the Hon. Lester B. Pearson, appointed an inquiry commission which gave us a blueprint under the basis of which we developed a comprehensive policy in this field, and we did not wait for International Women's Year to examine this question. Mr. Speaker, this royal commission submitted 122 recommendations to the federal government and the great majority, or about 98, have already been completely or partly implemented through legislative amendments or administrative changes.
Ours was also the first government of the western world to appoint a minister specifically responsible for the status of women in 1971. This was the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). Ours was the first government in Canada to create an independent advisory council on the status of women. Ours is the only government in the country to have established a responsibility center within the government, the Office of the Status of Women Coordinator. Moreover, much progress has been made to give women equal treatment before the law and to eliminate any discrimination, and I can give a few examples of this: the omnibus bill of 1975 to amend the Immigration Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Canadian Labour Code, the amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act, under which either parent can transmit citizenship and which were promulgated in February 1977, the 1976 amendments to the Criminal Code

which amended the procedure in case of rape and increased the protection of women's rights.
Finally, we amended the Canada Pension Plan to guarantee the equality of status of contributors and beneficiaries of both sexes in 1975. There is also the amendment that provides for the possibility of sharing non-adjusted gains of a contributor in the case of divorce or annulment of marriage which was adopted in 1978. We wanted to go further in this amendment to the Canada Pension Plan so as not to penalize any person who must leave the labour force to raise children, but the Ontario government refused to co-operate in this regard.
And last, we had recently the Human Rights Act forbidding discrimination based on sex and family situation and salary differences between men and women doing similar work. [English]
These are the steps that have been taken by this government in the last ten years. Just before that there was the creation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and out of the 122 recommendations the commission made, 98 were implemented entirely or partially.
This is the first government in the western world to appoint a minister especially responsible for the status of women. This is the first government in Canada to create an Advisory Council on the Status of Women. We have been presenting amending legislation to this House year after year to eliminate discrimination in all our legislation, making sure that legal equality is guaranteed to women as well as to men.
We have amended the Citizenship Act, the Canada Pensions Act and the Criminal Code with respect to the status of women. But we have also acted in the area of appointment. The Leader of the New Democratic Party made a passing reference to this. I would like to point out that under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) we are the first party to have elected eight women to parliament, in the last election.
We are the first government to have three outstanding women in the cabinet. We are the first government to have appointed a woman lieutenant governor, and we are the first government to have appointed a woman as an associate chief justice in this country.
The hon. member has referred to the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. I could refer him to the Tariff Board. In that instance we went outside to appoint a woman as president of that board over the head of a competent man who was a vice-chairman.


Charles Joseph Clark: Maybe you can tell us about Dr. Ritchie.


Marc Lalonde: It should be clear to the hon. member that he should not use a particular case and draw a wrong conclusion from it.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Why?


Marc Lalonde: Under this government during the last two years the appointment of women to boards and commissions
March 6, 1978

has risen by close to 50 per cent; and that includes several judges to the various supreme courts in the provinces.


An hon. Member:: From two to three.


Marc Lalonde: As well, the president of the Economic Council of Canada, two presidents of the National Gallery, the last two Speakers of the Senate have been women. The first women on the board of the Bank of Canada have been appointed. I could go on to name quite a few-the president of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and the two senior commissioners on the Human Rights Commission.
I think the record of this government, Mr. Speaker, in terms of action, not merely talk, with regard to women, stands very well and compares well to that of any other country in the world at the present time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Unbelievable. Incredible.


Marc Lalonde: We are not saying that everything has been done. On the contrary there is much that remains to be done. We must remind ourselves of things that can be done and should be done at the provincial level-for example, the equitable matrimonial property legislation. I regret in that respect that the Conservative government in Manitoba is reneging on progressive legislation in this area which was passed by the previous NDP government.


Charles Joseph Clark: You don't know what you are talking about again.


Marc Lalonde: At the federal level we are very anxious to remove the last remnant of discrimination based on sex and still found in the Indian Act. We are committed to ensuring that the views of all Indian women are considered in discussions we are having with the National Indian Brotherhood. We will be giving the Indian Rights for Indian Women group some funds to enable them to have some input into this process which is taking place.
We still need to look at divorce legislation, income tax legislation, sexual offences in the Criminal Code, the position of women in the Armed Forces, and further means of helping women in the labour force and those who remain at home.
In order to have a fresh look at these and other questions which are of interest to women we have decided to develop a plan of action or global policy on the status of women. This will detail both legislation and practice necessary to achieve concrete goals between now and 1985, the end of the international decade for women. We have had initial discussions with the provinces on this question and we hope that many of them will be reviewing their own policies and programs with a view to responding to the needs of their citizens.
As far as we are concerned, there are 25 government departments and about 100 officials who are involved in a complete review of all recommendations made to the government in all areas under its jurisdiction.
Under the motion, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has accused the government of "discriminatory policies and state-
Status of Women
ments regarding Canadian women in the labour force". In fact this was the theme of a speech which he gave in Toronto on February 19, 1978. He stated that the government was trying to hide the reality of unemployment among women and that "instead of doing the appropriate job of exploding myths, the government is perpetuating them".
Well, I would like to respond to the charge of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby by quoting from the text of a speech that I gave to the federal-provincial territorial meeting on the status of women in Ottawa on February 16, 1978, which was reported in the media. This is what I had to say:
The growing weight of evidence points to the fact that women are entering the labour force for the same reasons as men-out of a need for self-realization and in order to maintain themselves and their families. Close to half of the three million women in the work force support themselves or others. More than one third are single. Another 10 per cent are widowed, divorced or separated. Recent studies indicate that more and more families are basing their standard of living on two incomes. A Statistics Canada study on income inequality suggests that in the growing number of families with two wage earners, employed wives play a considerable role in alleviating financial hardship, and to a lesser extent, poverty. These facts explode the myth that all women are secondary wage earners.
Clearly the government is not trying to hide the problems that unemployment poses for women in the labour force. If anything we are trying to make Canadians aware of the reasons behind the entry of women into the work force. On this point my remarks obviously succeeded in raising the consciousness of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, since three days later he echoed them in his speech.
What is happening in the economy? The hon. member referred to it in some parts of his speech. Since 1966 the Canadian labour force has increased by 37 per cent due to population growth, immigration, and rising participation rates. There has been a steady increase in the labour force participation rates of women of all ages, and adult women in particular. In the period between 1966 and 1976 the Canadian labour force participation rate of women rose from roughly 34 per cent to 45 per cent with the greatest increase in that age group often termed "prime age", that is, the age group between 25 and 44. The participation rate of adult women alone increased by 59 per cent over the same period and contributed significantly to the over-all labour force increase. In aggregate terms the economy responded well to the demands of women for employment. Employment growth among adult women relative to their population as compared to that among youth and adult males increased strongly over the last ten years.
As I pointed out, women have been entering the labour force not just out of a need for self-fulfilment, which is valid in itself, but increasingly for economic reasons to support themselves and their families. Whereas in the past women tended to enter the labour force during good times and drop out during bad times, their persistent high participation rates suggest that women in the work force are a phenomenon that is here to stay. This clearly invalidates the concept that all women are working for frills, as if they all had a "prime age male" to support them. We did not invent the "secondary wage earner" concept that economists use to describe the presence of women in the work place, nor are we stuck to it. Women want to, need to and, most importantly, have a right to work, and I agreed

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby when he stated something similar a few minutes ago.
What is important to recall, however, is that this is not something that can be done by the federal government alone. The federal parliament has authority over about only 10 per cent of the work force in this country. That implies that the provincial governments have large responsibilities over the work force also, and in a free country there are various voluntary organizations that are involved. This obviously implies the participation and the responsibility of the provincial governments as well as the federal government. It also involves a large role for the unions. I would like to pay tribute here to the women leaders of the labour movement such as Shirley Clark and Grace Hartman.


Some hon. Members:: Carr.


Marc Lalonde: I am sorry, Shirley Carr.


Charles Joseph Clark: Clark is on your mind.


Marc Lalonde: They are very active in the labour movement and occupy very prominent positions. I also want to compliment a few of these prominent labour leaders in this regard.
Quite clearly, there are whole areas of action that are still required in the labour movement. Here I would refer my colleagues to a research paper made public in Winnipeg recently on the labour movement, particularly in the building trades and the difficulties that women have and meet in the area of apprenticeships with regard to entrance into building trades.
If the unions have a responsibility, the employers also have a large role to play. In this regard they have to be involved in order to ensure that equal employment opportunities and equal pay for women are available in their plants. There is clearly a large task to be completed in the area of institutional change and change of attitude. For example, this implies action in the school system. What about the lack of appreciation by the school system, particularly for girls, of the benefits of working in industry and the necessity for our educational system to give more attention and more importance to training of women for the types of jobs they may later be called upon to perform?
We have been trying to act at the level of the public service. This is an area for which we, as a government, are directly responsible. This covers a large number of employees. It is quite clear that a lot still remains to be done in this area, but I would like to stress that the government has taken steps within the law and within the limits provided by the Public Service Employment Act and the autority of the Public Service Commission to try to improve opportunities for women in the public service.

I should like indeed to bring to your attention measures taken in November 1975 for instance, when guidelines were issued by the cabinet and government departments were given

the main responsibility for developing action programs to reach the objectives of the government, and I quote:
That within a reasonable period of time, the distribution of men and women within the public service by department, occupational groups and levels be proportional to the number of available, interested and competent employees of both sexes.
And for fiscal year 1977-78, on top of their annual program, the various departments had to develop long term programs, that is five year programs and measurable objectives. A study of data contained in the annual reports of the Public Service Commission shows that the percentage of women is slowly increasing in all occupational groups except in the scientific and professional category, where it remains the same. It is in the administrative and external service category that we can note the higher increase concerning the representation as well as the global distribution of women.

Steps have been taken. In 1975 directives were issued to departments to ensure that they had clear plans with regard to the promotion of women. It was insisted that they provide a five year plan to Treasury Board, showing their plan of action vis-a-vis their promotion of women. These are two very important steps to ensure that women are provided real equality of opportunity in the public service.
These plans have begun to show some results. Obviously one cannot go as fast as one would like. We are dealing here with people occupying jobs, collective agreements, and a system in the public service which everyone supports, the merit system. Quite clearly one cannot expect dramatic changes from year to year. What is important is that the trend being established is a positive one. It is quite clearly established by the statistics that have been published and made available up until this time.
While we have dealt with the promotion of women in the public service and on boards and commissions, we have also taken into consideration, in areas other than legislation, the needs of women across this country. Specifically, we have made funds available to women's groups across this country so that they might be better organized and to enable them to participate more fully in Canada's economic development. We are the only government in this country that has set aside special funds for this purpose. Some provinces will fund certain services traditionally viewed as women's services such as day care centres. However, not one government gives funds to women's organizations.
To what kinds of projects am I referring? During International Women's Year we allocated $5 million to enable the women of Canada to become aware of and knowledgeable about all the issues of concern to them.
The Secretary of State's women's program has had $500,000 every year for the last three or four years to fund projects of interest to women across the country. In that same department $300,000 is set aside every year for the funding of native women's programs. As the minister responsible for the status of women, I have a small fund which has been increased this year from $75,000 to $90,000. It enables grants to be given to
March 6, 1978

national women's organizations for various activities that they might undertake. What have these been used for?
[ Translation]
The Quebec Women Federation for instance has organized seminars and meetings to make Quebec women more aware of the political decision making process and encourage them to get more involved in politics and stand as candidates in municipal, provincial or federal elections-the fluency of the minister in both official languages.

In British Columbia a conference on women and economic development was held in November, 1977. Women from 42 single industry resource communities met to study the impact of economic development on women. In several parts of the country, workshops have been held. Public education programs have been organized. Newsletters have been published and annual meetings have been organized. All this is thanks to the federal funds.
In conclusion, while this issue has finally been raised at this late stage of this parliament, I wish to remind hon. members opposite that while they may be just awakening to the problems of women in the labour force, women themselves have long been taking the initiative to overcome these problems.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women will be meeting in Ottawa in mid-March to discuss women and the economy. Women are also giving a great deal of attention to the choices girls of 12 and 13 make when they enter high school, for they know that all too often the choice of a commercial course will limit those girls to a lifetime of low-paid, clerical support work. Women themselves are addressing the fundamental questions, and have been doing so for well over the past decade.
Women know, only too well, that there are no short-cuts to gaining equality. We wish there were, but there are not. Women are not impressed by the new found lip service that members of the opposition are hatching in order to try to show their latter-day opportunistic concern for women.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I shall be very brief. Early in his comments the minister referred to my own office. He said he was pleased to note there were eight women in my office, but he did not mention that this number constitutes two thirds of my staff. He then went on to say that none of them were in senior positions. For his information, Mr. Speaker, I would tell him that of our senior positions on the staff, 50 per cent of them-two of them-are held by women. I also wish to tell him that of a research staff numbering eight, half of them are women. The director of organization of the NDP is a woman. The post of assistant federal secretary of our party, a senior administrative position, is filled by a woman. The media director for the coming election campaign is a woman. The assistant director of organization is a woman. Four provincial secretaries-major administrative positions in the New Democratic Party-are
Status of Women
women. The major administrative officers in Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia are women.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, I would suggest to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) that a dispute as to facts is not a question of privilege but, rather, a matter of debate.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the interjection by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) indicated that the minister responsible for the status of women was as much in control of his facts in his speech just concluded as he usually is-which is not at all.
I want to begin my remarks by commending the Leader of the New Democratic Party for taking the initiative in introducing this very important debate into the House of Commons. I think that commendation is particularly deserved when the stand he took is contrasted with the attitude shown by the minister who, sadly for women and other people in Canada, is responsible for the status of women in this country. I was frankly shocked that a minister who has been talking so long about his plan of action, when provided with an opportunity to spell out to the people and the Parliament of Canada exactly what that plan of action is, resorted instead to petty, partisan attacks. What he has done is to show that he is prepared to demean any principle and demean any case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I was struck by his observation that he was pleased the House of Commons finally had an opportunity to discuss these things. Well, as we know and as Canadians broadly should know, it is the Government of Canada which controls the agenda of the House of Commons, and if this government were really committed and really concerned about the status of women in this country it has had abundant opportunity to bring legislation before us-


Mrs. Holt:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Instead, this minister goes around repeating recycled speeches and doing very little indeed for the women of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In fact, I think the weakness of his case has been betrayed. We have had in this House for a long time the benefit of simultaneous translation. I have listened and have envied la facilite du ministre dans les deux langues officielles
du pays.
But I think this is the first time that the minister has risen in this House and has said exactly the same thing in English as he said in French. He was doing that when he was reading the list of accomplishments of the Government of Canada in the field of women. They have done so little that he had to repeat the list.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 6, 1978
Status of Women


Charles Joseph Clark: Even though the minister chose not to deal with the substance of the motion before us, I wish to do so. The two fundamental points made clear in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby are, first, that we continue to be a country where there is not equality in fact for the women of Canada and, second, that this condition becomes seriously and dangerously aggravated when we have serious economic problems such as we are facing at the present time. The women of Canada are the first to suffer when the economy is in decline; they are the first to suffer when unemployment is as acute as it is in this country now. Any government which refuses to recognize this fact, which refuses to take the opportunity to get the economy rolling, deserves the support of neither the women nor the men who comprise the electorate and citizenry of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I was amused to hear the minister talk about the degree to which women themselves are addressing the subject of the status of women. There has never been any question about that. We did not need the editorial comment of the minister to know about it. The sad fact is that while women have been addressing their problems and doing what they can, the one entity in Canada which has the power to change the laws of Canada is the Government of Canada and it has done very very little to help women in their task. That is the reason for this motion; that is the reason for the consistent concern of those of us who intend to form the next government in Canada to put on the agenda of this country and of this parliament some of the specific reforms which we want to act on very quickly. We want to see that women no longer have to put up with recycled speeches from that minister, but will instead have an agenda for action which we in my party propose, by an amendment later today, to introduce onto the floor of the House of Commons.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party and the minister referred to some of the very real problems which exist for Canadian women. I want to deal with two of the myths which I believe, regretfully, have been put forward by members of the government in trying to defend themselves for not taking action to stimulate the Canadian economy in an attempt to defend the indefensible.
More than a million Canadians are out of work. We are in an economy in which we do not know how many more people would enter the work force were there an active work force for them to enter. Particularly do I refer to women. But two very vicious myths are now in circulation. One of those is that working women take jobs which would otherwise be taken by men. Another is that many of the women who work in this country do so simply as a luxury, not because they need to do so but simply because they want to-as if that were not reason enough. I want to deal with those two aspects if I may, first, the myth that married women take jobs from married men who have families to support. The statistics are clear.
In 1977 there were 2,212,000 married women in the Canadian labour force. In 1977 212,000 married men were unem-
[Mr. Clark.l
ployed. The fact is clear from those two figures that if married women stopped working two million jobs would be unfilled.
One of the points is the types of jobs to which Canadian women are too often confined. Although the number of women in the Canadian labour force is increasing, the types of jobs that they are doing have changed very little. The kinds of jobs are traditionally those of secretaries, nurses, tellers, teachers or clerks. These remain basically unchanged, and this underlines the point that simply decreasing the number of women in the labour force will not significantly help the unemployment situation for men in Canada. The jobs which would be vacated by women getting out of the labour force are certainly not the jobs which men would fill. That is the first myth.
The second, and perhaps the more pernicious, is the idea that women work simply for luxuries. Again, if I may refer to figures for January 28 of this year, there were 4,015,000 women in the labour force of whom 391,000 were either divorced, widowed or separated, supporting themselves or their dependents. Another 1,167,000 were single women supporting themselves. These people were clearly not looking upon work as a luxury but as a necessity, and the right to enjoy equal access to jobs is of fundamental importance to them. Again, in relation to married women who are working, according to an economist for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, almost 45 per cent of the married women in the labour force belong to families which, but for their earnings, would be living well below the poverty line. It is these people who suffer most by the continual refusal of the government to accept its responsibilities and get the Canadian economy moving again.
I do not want to suggest that the problem is simply one the solution of which is at the feet of this government. I think there is no sector of society hat can be proud of its record in recognizing the modern reau.y that women in this country deserve the right to work as equals with men. If we look at industry, the statistics show that discrimination continues very severely in many industries in the country. In 1976, Labour Canada statistics show that of people in management and administrative categories in the country only 18.6 per cent are women. Similarly of Canadians working in engineering, research and mathematics, categories that can be seen as being executive or senior positions, only 9.6 per cent are women. We have no absolute data on the private sector but we have some startling statistics which have to do with government incursions, particularly the incursions of the Government of Canada into the private sector relating to Crown corporations.
It might be useful to the House, since the minister who is so proud of the record of his government is here, to review the role of women in senior management in some of the Crown corporations in this country. In Canadian National Railways, in senior management positions there are 1,014 men and 2 women; in Air Canada, in senior management positions there are 158 men and 1 woman; in the Bank of Canada in senior management positions there are 17 men and 1 woman; in the National Harbours Board in senior positions there are 55 men
March 6, 1978

and 3 women. That is an indication of the degree of commitment of this government to ensure that emanations of the Government of Canada reflect in reality equality for the women of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: How many women do you have in parliament?


Charles Joseph Clark: We will have a great many more from the Dollard constituency.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I invite you personally.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am very pleased the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) has returned from Africa. I am sure that if an issue arises relating to his department regarding which questions might be placed to him, he will get out of the country again.
In relation to organized labour and to labour unions, I think it is appropriate for the minister to pay tribute to some of the women leaders in union movements in the country who have played a prominent role. But it is also important for us to recognize that labour unions have not been active enough in trying to organize among Canadians in lower income groups where working women tend to predominate. That is a record of which the unions of the country cannot be proud, just as industries in the country cannot be proud of their record in terms of ensuring that there is an adequate role and a more nearly equal role for women in the direction of Canadian industry.
Certainly in relation to the Public Service of Canada 1 will say, without getting into this matter at any length at this time, that the statistics speak for themselves. To the end of December 31, 1977, there were 95,922 women in the public service, only 33.9 per cent of the total public service labour force. What is even more striking than that is what those people earn. Of that, nearly 100,000 women in the public service only 299 earn more than $30,000 a year. That indicates again that we have not made nearly enough progress in industry, in unions, and in the government in trying to ensure a more nearly equal opportunity for the women of this country.
Naturally we intend to support the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. It is a motion which deserves support and I hope it will receive it from all corners of the House. But I think that the danger with that motion, its weakness and limitation, are that it is not sufficiently specific, and I can understand the reason for it. Later on I will be submitting an amendment which 1 hope will add some specific proposals on which the Government and the Parliament of Canada may act immediately. Certainly, with regard to the general nature of that motion, it is important that we recognize in the country how badly served Canadian women are by the current economic situation.
The most recent figures available to us indicate-I am quoting now from the document called "Women in the Labour Force":
Status of Women
The average annual earnings of men employees who worked 50 to 52 weeks, increased $4,183 from 1969 to 1974 compared with $2,369 for women.
There is obviously a case of a double standard there. In the same publication we read:
The average annual earnings of women employees who worked 40 to 49 weeks were 34,293 in 1974, compared with $8,463 for men. The earnings of men exceeded those of women by 97.1 per cent.
The publication goes on to state:
Averaged across the country, average hourly industrial wage rates for men exceeded those of women in all similarly described occupations for which data were available in 1975.
Those are not new statistics. That is precisely the problem. That situation has been in existence for far too long, and this is the government which has mounted a campaign of public relations in place of action. It should have accepted its obligation to change those statistics which continue to condemn women to a secondary position in the life of Canada.
As I said, the motion of my friend, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, is clearly accurate in its generality, but it is important that we specify some of the individual reforms on which we can act now and on which the government can act now, given its control of the agenda, and could introduce quickly in the House, if it actually wanted to give priority to these matters.
We have to bear in mind that even though the problems of women are aggravated by the serious economic problems of this country, even in good times there will continue to be a double standard which is discriminatory against women in this country, unless the government in Ottawa is prepared to accept more reforms, to be bolder and to honor its commitments and act, instead of talking, in direct contrast to the way this government has proceeded.
There are some reforms that are directly within the control of the government. One of them relates to the discriminatory practices of federal government agencies. Clearly one of them is the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In the comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance program in Canada women are referred to as "secondary income earners with unstable employment patterns", thus leaving the reader that strong impression that their salaries are not an essential part of the family income. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women indicates that it has received a number of complaints from women who have been discriminated against when applying for and receiving unemployment insurance benefits. One could go on at some length quoting from that record, but the fact is that we need to eliminate those discriminatory practices. We need new training and job placement assistance for unemployed women in Canada, and that should be acted upon by this government as a priority.
We have seriously discriminatory laws which could be changed with little trouble in this country. Colleagues of mine will be speaking at greater length later. One of the problems has to do with the tax situation of unincorporated small businesses and farms. It is not permitted now to extend salaries to working wives. My colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) will, I am sure, elaborate

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
on the problem that this causes for Canadian women. A second discriminatory law, which will be again a matter raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, has to do with the pension situation in this country. There are a number of matters that have to be changed there, but we want to give parliament an opportunity to address itself to the most unfair single instance of discrimination in the matter of pensions, that is, the instance of female spouses who receive spouse's allowance because their husbands are eligible by age for pensions. In this country, with a government which claims to care about women, that allowance is cut off when the spouse who receives the pension dies. This means that in the case of too many women across the country we have a situation where they are left without a spouse and without a pension at the same time. Clearly that must be changed, and any government which was prepared to honour its commitment truly to women would be acting on that change immediately and would receive quick support from this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Within the direct responsibility of the government there are a number of programs where the government, instead of repeating old speeches, can set an example of equality. I think of the career assignment program. I understand that even though this program is designed to develop the individual for advancement into senior levels of the civil service, at present the maximum quota for women is 10 per cent. That is a clear discrimination established by the government itself.
Again, there should be changes in the approach to the administrative trainee program. In 1976 less than one per cent of those people eligible to participate in this program actually participated. This is a statistic from the annual report of the Public Service Commission. The reason given for this is that the very low participation by women can be accounted for by the fact that the program is not at all widely promoted, and people at that level are support people who are considered to be too valuable in their present capacities to be allowed the time to improve their qualifications.
With all that in mind, and those changes that can be introduced on behalf of and in the interests of the women in Canada, in approving of the general direction of the motion introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following words: and consequently directs the government immediately to act to end such discrimination and ensure equality for women particularly by developing policies:
(1)	to eliminate discriminatory manpower and unemployment insurance commission practices and implement new training and job placement assistance for unemployed women;
(2)	to encourage women's participation in unincorporated family farms and businesses by allowing the deduction of salaries paid to spouses;
(3)	to ensure that women are not deprived of spouse's security pension benefits upon their husband's death; and,

(4)	to accelerate the promotion of women to an equitable share of senior public service positions by guaranteeing their access to executive training such as the Career Advancement Program.
In his remarks the minister admitted that not everything has been done. What we have done in this amendment is spell out four areas in which the government could act immediately. This amendment gives the Government of Canada an opportunity to take action today on a real agenda of reformation for the women of Canada. It is a place to start in making this a country of equal opportunity for Canadian women. I hope the minister and the government will remember the reality of their claim of interest in the women of Canada by supporting these specific recommendations for action on behalf of women, action that can be taken now if the Government of Canada chooses to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I trust the House will bear with me by allowing me to consider the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). It does contain proposals that are perhaps extensions to the main motion. I should like to consider the motion between now and eight o'clock in order to make a decision. In the meantime I will recognize the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first I would want to commend the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) for putting to the House this motion that women ought to have the same rights as men, on a social level as well as in all economic sectors, and we want to condemn the present government, as well as all its predecessors, for its discriminatory policies regarding Canadian women.
This is not the first time we ask the government to table legislation which will free women from past myths and allow them to live freely in all spheres of this century of change. Quoting numerous pieces of legislation passed by the House, I stated that almost 75 per cent of our so-called social legislation is in fact anti-social legislation, from the oldest and most archaic to the most recent. The government tables an impeccable bill, which at first sight we would tend to approve, but further study reveals that it is only eyewash, although many hon. members fall for it.
The laws governing our economy were written for one purpose only, that of protecting the strong while crushing the weak; and when the weak are too poor, too much in debt, then the government acts the good Samaritan and comes to their help with a pittance to keep them from starving to death. That is the very basis of our beautiful capitalistic economy. Let us add to that the conviction that our society is made up of the stronger sex and the weaker one, and the picture is complete. Speaking of the weaker sex, Mr. Speaker, by which term we still designate today's woman, the newspapers told us the best one yet a few weeks ago by relaying some statistics. In Canada, country of traditions, the large majority of husbands
March 6, 1978

still beat their wives, while in the United States we have proof that more wives beat their husbands than vice versa. We can therefore say the United States beat us to the punch on that one. Will we see the day when women will become the stronger sex? Everything is possible with modern techniques!
In revising our few statutes on women, we are surprised to discover that some of them seem unalterable. Since I have been sitting in this House, and especially during the six election campaigns in which I have taken part, how many people have I heard plead the case against the secular discrimination which has been the lot of women? Men as well as women MP's have begged parliament to do justice to the women who work and the women who have chidren. And we will hear more of them even today but will that change anything? Not much if we go by past interventions. We had the Year of the Woman and no law of substance was passed; that is to say that we still hang on to the traditional laws that go back to Canada's beginnings, or were even transmitted directly to us from their countries of origin where women had no legal rights though they participated personally and to a large extent in the economy of the country.
Perhaps some will say that I am exaggerating and that today's woman is a first class member of our society. Let us rather consider the case of a legally wedded couple and let us suppose that both spouses are working outside and that they decide to buy a house. Do you know that legally speaking the husband alone can sign the contract? If the representative of the law invites the wife to sign it is merely a gesture of courtesy on his part for her signature has only a symbolic value. The true owner of the building is the husband even if his wife pays for two-thirds of it. Yet no one among our great legal wizards who are ruling us has the courage to rid our society of this backward tradition which is so humiliating for working women.
The same system applies to the rights regarding children. Although it is the mother who bears the child and gives him birth it is the father who exercises the basic rights. However, only the mother can confirm who is the father of a child for in our funny society, one has to realize that if the husband can fool his wife the opposite may also be true. So there is a risk of granting to the man rights which he never had on the child in the first place.
When the supporter of this motion blames the government for its discriminatory wage policy toward women in the labour force I concede that perhaps the government should have acted more rapidly. However one must not forget that it is the industrial sector which opened its doors to women first, and given the fact that after the thirties the big industries were the masters in the field of employment, since the unions had not yet started to organize the workers, you can conclude that it was not for humanitarian considerations that these same com-
Status of Women
panies called on women workers but rather to get cheap labour.
In spite of tremendous hardships and obstacles, women, as well as men, have slowly organized to improve their working conditions. Some will ask why the governments of the time did not react. It was just impossible. Just as it is not yet possible today for the good reason that no one can serve two masters at a time. The governments have always been dependent on financiers. This is the main reason, although unavowed, why the government can not act directly to end discrimination against female workers in Canada.
We have always advocated equal pay for equal work. We will continue to say that a woman deserves equal retribution in relation with her work in any area of the economy. As so well stated the other day by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), we will continue to fight to obtain an income for the mother at home.
Mr. Speaker, we consider that if there is an an individual who takes part in the Canadian economy it is the mother who devotes every minute of her time to her home to protect the necessary human assets for the survival of Canada. As for myself, I feel that the part of the mother working at home to educate her children and take care of them is much superior to that of a social or industrial worker. This is why they deserve more from this country. In fact, we are dealing with discrimination against women in Canada, but the worst kind of discrimination involving the greatest number of women in Canada is the one faced by homemakers. For the most part they accepted their role of their free will and accord. They are accused of having chosen the ghetto. But shopwork would have condemned them to feeding machines, a 100 times more enslaving type of occupation. At least, they have no bosses, they are self-employed. And they perform the most marvelous, the most needed type of function in the country, to which that of senior bureaucrats is no match. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I had the sad surprise of reading in Hansard for February 27, 1978 the statements by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). She could not sit here and listen to this kind of tokenism, perpetuation of role locking a woman into the role of homemaker a place in life she may not choose. Utterly ridiculous, indeed utterly false. She even added, for the benefit of husbands, if you want to pay your wife, pay her yourself; the country should not have to pay the cost. As if the freely and consciously married woman were her husband's slave. I object to that suggestion.
Mr. Speaker, how could the husband pay his wife when he gets the same salary as a bachelor, and still he has one or two or three children to support on top of that? The hon. member no doubt will say, as did the minister this afternoon, that the husband has an income tax deduction for his wife and children. Do you believe a deduction will pay for the clothes and apparel needed by his wife? Family allowances will not even pay for children's food, let alone clothes and the cost of

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
education. Who would suggest this could balance the family budget? It is financially impossible. This financial aspect is responsible for the worst kind of discrimination at home, and the homemaker is the first victim because she will not be able to afford help for well deserved holidays. She will even have to do without things needed in order to ensure her children's future. This prompts us to urge homemakers' salaries.
As I said, I object to the comments by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. First, because outside work does not necessarily free women, and second, because homemakers, just like their husbands are committed to the care of their children the human stock needed by every country. Unless the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway feels human stock is less important than the stock of money, I cannot find an explanation to her reaction to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Bellechasse.
I see no discrimination in the fact that a mother would choose to stay home to take care of her children, since this would not be for her a ghetto, but a liberation, and a freely chosen liberation. Moreover, I do not believe that a mother who takes care exclusively of her family has been forced into it. This is not true! If the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway were to communicate with several of the charwomen who work at night in the Parliament buildings, perhaps she would change her mind because I contacted them myself and I know that 75 per cent of them would be very happy to stay home if they had a guaranteed income.
In reading the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I wondered if she had ever met happy families, and I mean by this a man, a woman and children. There still are households where there is no discrimination, where the father and mother are partners who live in harmony with the children because there is a dialogue based on mutual trust. We do not hear about those families, perhaps because, as the song says, happy people have no story while the unfortunate proclaim their misfortune. This is why they seem to outnumber happy people. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway came to my constituency, I could show her families with two, three, four and even five children who would tell her: We are happy. We are not millionnaires, but we have love and basic security. Of course, it is always necessary to improve the financial situation, but the social situation is healthy and this is the most important. Of course, the husband works hard in the fields, in the plant or thousands of feet under ground in the mines for 20 or 25 years, and I can assure you that he has no time for outside amusement like the hon. member suggests.
During all those years, the housewife has a marvellous role to play and she participates voluntarily in our Canadian economy. To this woman, I would say: You deserve more credit than all social workers, all women at work in industry, all secretaries and even many members of Parliament. If we honour the soldier who gives his life for his country, how should we reward the housewife who gives several lives to her

country? When we speak about discrimination, we should be very careful, because we can often provoke it unknowningly, just like we are most often the cause of our own misfortune, because we often want too much when happiness is quite near. We must never forget that happiness is a state of mind in that those who look for it exclusively elsewhere expose themselves to terrible deceptions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) in a moment. I have examined the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Instead of waiting until eight o'clock to announce a decision, I will make my ruling now. I feel that the amendment does not add any matter which is foreign to the basic proposal contained in the motion of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I admit that the amendment does single out specific alternatives, but it would achieve the same objective. I think it just adds to the first proposal. I am therefore putting now to the House the amendment proposed earlier by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I am usually careful not to attribute motives to speakers, but I really wonder what we are all doing here today. I once said to a reporter that I felt we in Ottawa were living in a fishbowl. If that is true, I think today's fishbowl is full of red herrings.
The mover of this motion, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), has been around this House for ten years. According to Hansard, in those ten years he has spent a grand total of 29 minutes speaking about the status of women. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has been in this parliament seven years, and he has spent the grand total of five minutes speaking about the status of women. At first a woman might think it is great that some people are really interested in our status, in our predicament and in our well being, and she might wonder what will come of all this, but the speakers who have given us their gems of wisdom so far have been highly selective with the statistics they have been using.
They have been even more selective with the types of women they would like to help. Members of the NDP discuss only working women. The motion before us today states the following:
That this House asserts that the women of Canada ought to have fully equal rights in participating in the Canadian economy . ..
What a statement! Is that to say that up until now the women of Canada have had no participation in the Canadian economy? Shame! If it had not been for the women of Canada we would not have an economy at all, and hon. members should get that into their heads. The motion presumes that women have had nothing to do with the economy and have been so downtrodden that they have not done anything. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby forgets that the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada is a woman. Who appointed her? It was not the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby-he
March 6, 1978

could not do that-but this government, which is now being soundly chastised for not having done its job with regard to women.
Is it not interesting that the member now speaking also happens to be a woman? I was not elected because I was a woman. I did not want that. I was elected because the people of York South thought I would be a good representative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: I said I would try to overlook motives, even though there is something asking me whether this is really real or something phony like a $3 bill.
On December 14 we were discussing the Canada Labour Code in this House. As vice-chairman of the committee discussing the Canada Labour Code, Bill C-8-and I have been around all the time-I can say that one particular clause recognizes not only the importance of women but also the needs of women. One of those needs is maternity leave. One would think that the opposition parties, which are so concerned about us poor things, would welcome maternity leave. Not on your sweet life! On December 14 the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) said the following:
Turning to the Canada Labour Code, I would like to point out that section 59(4) of the code currently prohibits the dismissal of pregnant employees ...
Let me just stop there. In an effort to give us equal status hon. members have to find words other than "women". Let me point out that only women can be pregnant. In order to avoir being called sexist or something, he calls us "pregnant employees". Good for him. He went on:
... prohibits the dismissal of pregnant employees only if they have compiled twelve consecutive months of continuous employment. That condition-
The condition of employment, not of pregnancy.
-is now to be removed altogether, but I suggest the problem with regard to pregnancy is not solved that easily ...
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) obviously knows that pregnancy is a very serious problem and it is not easy to solve. He continued:
I suppose legislators feel that being pregnant should not be a job disqualification under any circumstances.
I am trying hard not to laugh, Mr. Speaker.
However, with certain people pregnancy is almost incapacitating. As long as pregnant employees can do their usual work, no one complains;-
Isn't that nice!
-but in certain circumstances pregnant employees are often just 'around' and are not in a physical condition to contribute their usual work output. In some instances, this amounts to wages without any work being performed. The matter of pregnancy should be studied further.
I agree.
Pregnancy cannot be treated as a nonevent, and a pregnant person-
We are getting better, Mr. Speaker; now it is a "pregnant person".
-should not automatically receive the usual work benefits.
Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, is this the kind of view that would come from a person who is genuinely interested in the status of women? He could not even bring himself to say it is a woman who has a baby. If he does not understand the fundamental point it is rather superfluous to continue from there. I am not saying that his thinking is typical of the Tory party, heaven forbid! I could not bring myself to say that. 1 might think it on several occasions but I will never say it. This is the kind of thing that the women of Canada are faced with.
Hon. members opposite cannot even talk properly. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition was trying not to laugh. Frankly, I think he was trying not to gag and it was his nervousness that made him seem as if he were trying not to laugh. Why are people so hung up? I can tell you why, Mr. Speaker, and this is what is at the bottom of the problems of women in Canada and in the world. People use rhetoric and phrases like "equal rights", "equal pay". The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) said "equal pay for equal work." If that is what he is looking for I think we are going to be in trouble not for the next ten years but for the next ten centuries.
What I want for the women of Canada is equality of status-to know that we are exactly the same, that we have the same dignity whether we choose to work outside the home or inside the home. If people are going to get hung up on big rhetorical sentences like "equal pay" and "equal job opportunities," that will be absolutely devastating to the women of Canada. Those who prefer to stay at home and mind their children-and God bless them, they are the foundation of our society-would get a complex. Must they go out and produce for the gross national product? That is a kind of thing they are being pushed into and they resent it. We must stop these pious utterances and get down to an understanding of where we are. If hon. members do not have that understanding they should have the humility to ask.
I listened to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and thought that as a socialist he sounded terribly snobbish. He graded jobs and spoke of those that could be rejected by men. The jobs he rejected, the ones that he gave the impression he thought were a little bit below human dignity, were clerical jobs and sales jobs. What is the matter with any job at all as long as it is done by a person who enjoys doing it? The person who does the secretarial job or any other kind should never be told that he or she is inferior by reason of the job. That has nothing to do with human dignity. To tell a person that she or he is "down" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they want to move from jobs they should be encouraged.
How can this be done? Let us consider the work force again, and ask why most women have problems entering it. One reason is lack of education, and that it can be formal education. But more than, that it is attitude. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby spoke of his children, a boy of 18, and a girl of five. The girl is only five, Mr. Speaker, but he was worried about whether she would get a good job. If my child were still five I would be worried about whether she would be a happy human being. That is all there is to it. Does she want a job, or

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
does she want to stay home? If she decides to stay home, will she be given the same dignity as if she had a Ph.D. in sociology or something else? Will she be given opportunities not because she is a girl but because she is a person? That is what we want in this country-equality of status; we want all to be treated the same, whether male or female. I do not know if that is happening, Mr. Speaker.
I hope I heard the hon. member for Roberval correctly-or maybe it would be better if I had not heard him correctly. I think he told us that in Canada we have a very large percentage of battered wives. That is true and it is a terrible tragedy for society. Then he said things were better in the United States because they had battered husbands and maybe one day we would catch up to them. I want to tell the hon. member that if he thinks that getting equality of status for women means that Canadian women can batter their husbands, he should forget it. We do not want that kind of equality.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to make myself clear because I have not said a great percentage. I wanted to make a joke, but she did not even understand the joke. How can she make herself understood?


An hon. Member:: That's a good joke you have just made! [English]


Ursula Appolloni: I suggest he add that to the record, Mr. Speaker-joke, joke, joke. I was not amused but that is another point.
I hope that when speaking in this debate hon. members will try not to patronize; there is nothing we want less than a patronizing attitude, attitudes such as "Sure we will help you, little DP", as I have sometimes been called. We do not want a pat on the rear or any other part of the anatomy. We want help when we ask for it, and constructive help, not the patronizing help that we have had for so long, though not from this government.
Now I come back to motives, Mr. Speaker. I think the real cause of our problems is attitudes. We all know that attitudes cannot be legislated but they can be influenced by legislation. I have to say that this government does just that. Bill C-8 is a classic example of what the government is trying to do. Apart from the maternity leave clause, there is nothing in the bill that puts women lower than their male counterparts, and for that I am grateful.
The Leader of the Opposition said that his party is concerned about UIC. Maybe he did not know he was talking to a person who was chairman of the board of referees of the UIC. As hon. members can see, I happen to be female. But I did not get that job because I was female, I got it because I was a damned good chairman. That is what we should have all the

time. Do not put us in just because we are female. You are not doing any good to any person by setting up society, Mr. Speaker. Put us in because you take the trouble to listen to what we are saying, and then act upon it.
I remember that in 1974, like every other candidate, I had to sign my nomination form in the returning officer's office. One part of the form asked for my occupation. I could have said I was a musician, which is true. I could have said I am a writer, which is also true. I could have said I am a social worker, which is also true. But I did not say I was any of those. I put down the occupation which has given me the most satisfaction in my life, that is, the rearing of my children. I could not say "child rearer" because they would have thought I was peculiar, so I put down "housewife". Mr. Speaker, you have no idea of the kind of reaction I have had to that since and during my campaign-"You, a housewife!"
I must say that this attitude, this negativeness, did not come only from men. I remember I was canvassing in one particularly rich, affluent part of my riding which contained beautiful big houses. I knocked at the door and this beautifully coiffured woman came to the door. Her nails were manicured. It had been raining that day and I had been canvassing. I probably looked like a drowned dog. I said: "Hi, I am your candidate". Behind her I could see a woman who was scrubbing the floors very hard. This woman at the door said: "I cannot vote for you, you are only a housewife, just like me".
I was not like her at all because I had no one at home scrubbing my floors and I did not have time to have my hair done or my nails manicured. The whole point was her attitude of putting me down. I could have argued and said that I am this and that, which was all true, but I decided that as a matter of privilege and principle I would not do that. I may have lost her vote, but quite frankly I do not think I was going to get it in the first place. This is the kind of attitude that we must get rid of. It is the kind of attitude that women face in the labour force everywhere. A woman applies for a job and first of all she is looked up and down. They wonder when she will become pregnant or if she will become pregnant. Whether a woman is married or not has nothing to do with that; we have got beyond that stage, thank heaven. That is the first thought, the biological one.
Then they wonder if the woman will become emotional in any given situation. Since when have women had the monopoly on emotion? This is the kind of stereotype which we have been prone to all our lives. Things are getting better, they are improving. Let us keep it like that.
I would ask members of the opposition, indeed members of all three parties, if they are sincere in their efforts, to do something concrete. But please do not give women any more platitudes. Do not patronize them. If hon. members want to find the real culprit, make sure they point the finger at the right person. It is not the government of Canada.
March 6, 1978


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the two interventions this afternoon from the government benches I realized with sorrow just how far women have to go to attain equality in this country. May I call it six o'clock at this time, sir?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, March 8, this Wednesday, has been declared International Women's Day by the United Nations. Whether it is appropriate or not that in this day and age a day must be set aside for the recognition of the rights of half the world's population is debatable in itself, but surely it is less than appropriate, in fact downright degrading, that in the Canadian House of Commons in 1978 it should be necessary to discuss the discrimination and inequities against women in the labour force. We should long ago have arrived at the point where equality of women in the work force is a matter of fact and not a matter of debate. That this issue must still be debated, that the necessity for it exists, is a sad reflection on Canadian society.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) this afternoon clearly stated where the Progressive Conservative party stands and the concerns that we have on the motion presented in the House today. However, I would like to pay tribute to one of the continuing advocates of women's rights in this House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Consistently over the years he has spoken out on behalf of women, especially with regard to their woefully inadequate pension situation. I, along with thousands of Canadians, was appalled at the recent unkind and unnecessary reference by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the hon. member as a left-over from the depression days. I cannot emphasize enough that the country and certainly the government can do with much more of the concern and compassion shown by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That concern and compassion are rooted in his memories of the depression and the setback and resulting inequities that that depression caused the women in the labour force. The Prime Minister and his colleagues, who cannot or will not remember those injustices, seem only too willing to let them happen again
Status of Women
now at a time when our economy is once more being hit by high prices and high unemployment.
In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the World Plan of Action as a guideline for the international decade for women, 1976-1985. The minister seemed to have heard about it for the first time this afternoon. Well, Canada supported that program. It supported the plan of action. One of the steps recommended at that time was set out in these terms:
Governments should formulate policies and action programs, directed toward equality of opportunity and treatment for women workers, to guarantee their right to equal pay.
Further, to ensure that declaration, it recommended:
Special efforts are needed to foster positive attitudes among employers, workers, men and women in society and to eliminate obstacles based on sex-typed divisions of labour.
When it comes to special efforts to foster positive attitudes, as the United Nations agreement recommended, this government's lack of concern and inaction are laid bare, because any special efforts that the government has undertaken in recent months seem to have been designed to foster negative, not positive, attitudes.
Why do I say that? At times of high unemployment, there is, unfortunately, tragically still a backlash against women in the work force. It has happened before and it is happening again now. Anyone who is aware of the social development and the changes of the twenties and thirties will be quick to see the comparison with today. In the twenties, women made great inroads into the labour force, but the lack of jobs in the thirties created social pressures on them and the result was that many women left the labour market.
Again in the sixties and seventies we saw women making inroads into the job market. But now at a time of high unemployment the old, socially ingrained assumptions about the status of women, assumptions which are being fostered by the government, are reappearing and serve to build up a guilt complex about whether women have the right to be full members of the labour force. Did the government fulfil its commitment to foster positive attitudes? No. Instead, the government has led the way in subtly applying pressure on women by equating the high unemployment figures with the increased participation of women in the work force.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) did this directly. In his speech in Toronto on January 16, he said:
In the next year, unemployment will again depend to a considerable extent on the participation rate, especially among women and young people.
Then on February 16, the minister responsible for the status of women pointed to the rise in the participation of both women and youth in the labour force and said:
This suggests a degree of competition for jobs between youth and women over 25, a hypothesis which tends to be supported by the fact that employment of young people and adult women is concentrated in similar industrial sectors.
On the surface these statements may not appear to be terribly damnable. Evidently the government does not think so.

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
The minister responsible for the status of women says such statements simply reflect reality. In response to a question I put to him on this matter, he replied:
I rejoice, as does this government, in the fact that women are joining the work force in greater numbers but obviously one should not ignore this phenomenon in terms of its impact on unemployment.
In my view, these statements, which are so characteristic of the government, are damnable and they are doubly so. First, they encourage negative attitudes about women in the work force, creating social pressures on women to get out of the labour market and inciting fear in others that their jobs might be threatened.
In the second place, those statements are not true. They are myths masquerading as excuses for the government's lack of solutions to the country's economic ills. They are not borne out by the facts. Women are not taking jobs from men. Regrettable though it is, there is still job segregation in this country. Women are still filling, for the most part, clerical and service positions. They are stenographers, typists or receptionists, cooks, waitresses, hairdressers, teachers. Three quarters of all working women are employed in only five occupational categories-clerical, services, sales, nursing and teaching. The labour force is "ghettoized". Women hold the jobs that men have traditionally turned away from. Not only that, but the jobs in which the women in the work force are slotted are the lower paid ones. Women are locked into a system which pays them less when they work and less when they retire.
When I questioned the basis of that ministerial statement linking high unemployment to the participation of women in the work force, I did so with good reason. In what sectors are the highest pockets of male unemployment to be found? One immediately thinks of construction, forestry and logging, mining, fishing and trapping. We saw recently that 3,000 miners were laid off in Sudbury and Thompson. It was not women marching into the mines that put those men out of work. Adult women are not competing with young engineers or young graduates, or young welders and woodworkers. If there is, in fact, any competition going on for jobs between women and men, it is that because of the bad employment situation men are moving into areas which have traditionally been filled by women. This would be laudable if it reflected a change in attitude, if it really did mean desegregation of the job market rather than a mere reflection of the shortage of jobs. The Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario tells us that the traditional female occupation of elementary teaching has seen an increase of 10 per cent in the number of men and a drop of 5 per cent in the number of women in the past five years. Now I ask: Who is taking jobs from whom in this situation?
A second myth, one which goes hand in hand with the first, is that women are second wage earners and that their jobs are a luxury. This is simply not true. Over a million and a half are working women who are either single, widowed, separated or divorced. They do not have a husband's salary to fall back on. Many of these are single parents with just as many financial commitments as their male colleagues, perhaps more.

The worst myth of all, and the one that lurks behind the other two, is that women who work in the home and who are dependent on their husband's incomes are automatically taken care of for life. None of the myths about women fly so directly into the face of reality as does this one.
Let me tell the House something about these women, the ones who worked at home for husband, family and community and who are now widowed or divorced. Some of them are in the position in which they find themselves today because they gave in to the social pressures of the thirties and left the work force. The recent report of the Canadian Council on Social Development states, with regard to women and pensions, that the rate of poverty among the female elderly is shocking. Using the poverty line established by the Senate Committee on Poverty, $3,988 for a single person based on 1975 data, we find that almost two thirds of women aged between 65 and 70 and three-quarters of women aged 70 and over are poor; they do not receive an income of $3,988.
That is the situation of women over 65. The plight of women between 60 and 65 who are widowed, divorced or single is simply appalling. They are not entitled to the old age pension or to the guaranteed income supplement. They are not supported by a husband and they are often unable to get work because of their age. After years of faithful service to their homes and society, these women are at the mercy of the welfare rolls.
Let me read just one letter from one of these women, a widow who can no longer work and who lives on $1,850 a year. This woman was left a widow in 1953. She had three young children to look after. She writes:
I went back to school . .. and looking after my children was all I could manage. My parents looked after my 3 while I was away at school for the few hours ... when my oldest daughter turned 14 she went to work at Xmas, Easter and summer holidays. The same with the younger two. They all had no holidays including me. We all had to work to make ends meet.
Now, ill and elderly, her reward for her hard labour both at home and in the work force is a life of poverty.
Anyone who has been similarly following the reports of the hearings of the Ontario Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions will be only too familiar with the plight of the elderly, many of whom are as badly off as the one example of the 63-year old Toronto woman who is an unemployed stenographer. She is too young for the basic old age pension and says she lives on rhubarb and rice in the summer and onions and rice in the winter. This woman has worked steadily for 30 years and feels, quite rightly, that she is entitled to her pension now. "If they wait much longer", she says, "I'll be dead before I can collect it."
The situation about which I have been speaking is one in which women are losers whichever way they turn. If they work only in the home during their lifetime, our present pension laws do not favour them. In fact, it discriminates against them and, unless a benevolent husband has seen to their needs, they are not adequately provided for in old age.
March 6, 1978

Even the women who work outside the home get the short end of the pension stick. The Toronto woman to whom I just referred had been in the labour force for some 30 years, probably without any pension benefits. Whether or not private or public pension schemes actually discriminate against women, the fact remains that since women are disqualified from full and equal participation in the work force they are disadvantaged from the outset with regard to pensions. Their low paying jobs, their requirement to move in and out of the work force to care for children, the obstacles in their way to make it to the top of the career ladder; all of these factors work against women who seek financial independence both in their work and in their retirement. The deck is stacked against them.
Surely this government can and should be helping women to get out of this rut of dependence, this frustration of dependency. First of all, quite contrary to what the minister was talking about this afternoon, it can foster positive attitudes towards women in the work force by ceasing to equate the influx of women into the work force with the high unemployment rate. This is essential to women taking their rightful place in the economic life of the country and would work toward allowing them to better prepare themselves for their retirement, just as men are able to do.
Secondly, the government should allow women who choose to work at home to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and to have pensions in their own right. Until the work of women in the home is recognized as a legitimate contribution to society and their need for retirement pay recognized equally with that of men, elderly women will continue to live in poverty.
I have spoken before in the House on this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but her allotted time has expired. However, she may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Thank you, sir, and I thank the House for that courtesy.
I have spoken in the House before on this subject of housewives and pensions. I have heard the arguments of the government against such an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan, and while there may be difficulties in implementing voluntary contributions for housewives, I suggest that the difficulties can be overcome if there is a will to do so. Both Germany and France have been able to accommodate voluntary contributions from housewives in their national pension schemes. Can we in Canada not find a way as well?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the government can act now to alleviate the plight of single, divorced and widowed women in the 60 to 65 age bracket. So many of these women are living on less than $2,000 a year, most of it from welfare. The first step in this direction, and one that would cost the federal treasury less than $400,000 a year, would be to cease the Scrooge-like
Status of Women
practice of withdrawing the spouse's allowance upon the death of one marriage partner.
What kind of a double standard do we have on the part of the government when it comes to making expenditures of its funds? We saw only last week that it allows a payment of some $2 million in fees to a sales agent for nuclear reactors without any work having been done, or any expected, and there is no effort to be made to retrieve that money, yet at the same time the government peremptorily cuts off the payment of less than half a million dollars in total to some 2,500 spouses who have worked hard all their lives in the interests of this country.
This heartless practice which causes tremendous hardship among those who least deserve it, and which represents such a paltry saving to the national budget, should be discontinued immediately. The surviving spouse should be allowed to keep her spouse's allowance.
I emphasize that this is just a preliminary step toward easing the financial burden of this particular group of people. It covers only widows and does not cover separated, divorced or single women living on inadequate incomes. It creates inequities, but it is a step in the right direction and would indicate a more positive attitude toward the needs and the rights of elderly women who have worked long and hard in the home.
If the present discrimination against women in the work force is allowed to continue, then we will still be dealing with these problems of pension discrimination in 50 years' time. Our society will be judged by how it eliminates discriminatory practices. 1 say to you, sir, that if that judgment were to be rendered now it would not be a favourable one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has pointed out, it is a sad commentary on our times that it is necessary to put down a motion in the House of Commons calling for recognition of equal rights for the women of Canada; yet the fact is that such a motion is necessary, and in my view the House should support the motion tonight in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).
We also welcome the amendment moved by the Official Opposition. We shall be voting for it when the time comes, and we hope the House as a whole will recognize the validity of the amendment as well as of the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The two speakers from the government side who took part in the debate this afternoon but are not here tonight tried to make something of the allegation that the interest in the well-being of women from this side of the House was something new. I noticed that the charge was not levelled in my direction. It so happens that during the first year I was in this House, which is now more than 35 years ago, I raised questions about the pensions or non-pensions of widows of veterans of the first world war. I

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
raised questions as to the inadequate pensions of the widows of civil servants; and I raised matters having to do with the low pay of the women doing the menial work in this building. In other words, I have been at this for a long time.
I also recall, and I checked the record this afternoon to make sure of it, that it was in 1950, 28 years ago, that I started the campaign for the establishment of a women's bureau within the Department of Labour. It was a five year battle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was supported by Miss Sybil Bennett and Mrs. Ellen Fairclough who gave tremendous help to that cause. Finally, in 1950, we got the government to establish a women's bureau. There have been some very distinguished women who have filled the position as directors of that bureau, and I think it was from then on that we began to get more interest in and concern for the welfare of the women of Canada.
In more recent years, when the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was tabled it was this party that back in that year devoted one of its opposition days to the implementation of the recommendations in that report. I point out now that, in this session of the thirtieth parliament, we as the third party have only one opposition day that we can have with a vote, and we are giving that one day to this issue.
To go back two or three years, when the Anti-Inflation Board was established it was the leader of this party who directed one of his earliest criticisms at the failure of the regulations of that body to require arrangements to be made for a catch-up where the pay of women workers was deficient. Add to this the hundreds of times that some of us have argued for a better deal in terms of pensions for the women of this country and I think the record is a lot more clear than the government would like to recognize.
What I have said and what the speaker just before me has said underlines what I feel to be one of the areas in which discrimination against women is most severe. I feel that the time to correct discrimination is not in the next century, not 50 years from now, but right now. 1 am prepared to listen to speeches on the recommendations in the Florence Bird report which have been implemented, but I am more concerned about those that have not been touched; and I am particularly concerned about the unfairness and inequality that women suffer in their older years.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out that in terms of women by themselves, two-thirds of them between the ages of 65 and 70 are living at or below the poverty line and three-quarters of those over the age of 70 are living below the poverty line. That flows from certain definite causes. One is the fact that in the labour force they have fewer opportunities to get decent jobs with good pay, and so it follows that their pension income in later years is behind that of men.
It also follows from three or four situations that are built into our laws respecting pensions, and I want to spell out three or four of them and to insist that there should be no further delay in correcting these unfairnesses. First of all, the law and regulations regarding the spouse's allowance is about as cruel a law as there is on our statute books. The government makes out that there is something wonderfully equal about the spouse's allowance because it does not matter whether the spouse who gets that allowance is male or female; the younger husband can get it just as can the younger wife. But the statistics show that of the married couples in Canada between the ages of 60 and 65, in five out of six cases the husband is the older one; only in one case out of six is the husband the younger one. I suggest that in most of those cases where the husband is the younger member of the married couple he is able to keep working. So for all practical purposes, the spouse's allowance is a special provision for women.
Let us not get carried away with talk about the law in this respect being equal-it is a special provision for women. Look at what that legislation does to women. It does not give them a pension because they are women, because they are persons; it gives them a pension or allowance in relation to their attachment to a man. The woman does not stand on her own feet. She does not get something because she is entitled to it, because she needs it or has a right to it. She gets it only if she is attached to a man, only if she has a spouse 65 years of age or over. How can you justify a piece of legislation which, as I say, in practical terms is for women between the ages of 60 and 65 and then turn around and draw the line between those who have an older spouse and those who are single, divorced or separated?
The hon. member who preceded me and the wording of the amendment which has been proposed concentrate on a particular evil, namely the fact that if a woman in the age bracket of 60 to 65 loses her husband, she loses the spouse's allowance and she has nothing until the age of 65. That is so cruel that one wonders how it ever got enacted. We complained about this when it was brought in, but I say it is just as cruel to the woman who starts in her sixties as a widow or to the woman who is a spinster in her sixties. This whole piece of legislation is so fraught with unfairness and cruelty that in my view it should be taken back to the drawing boards and rewritten right away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) made an impassioned plea this afternoon for women to be recognized as persons of equal status. I must say to her credit that when we had this legislation before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs she did not like its provisions. But she also said this afternoon that we should not blame the government for these things but rather blame the attitude of society.
I do blame the government for a piece of legislation which discriminates against women in the way that the spouse's allowance does. As I say, the government tries to make out

March 6, 1978

that the regulation is equal because the situation is the same for a man as it is for a woman. That is a piece of nonsense. As a matter of fact, the government tries to carry this through by refusing to give us statistics on how many recipients of the spouse's allowance are male and how many are female. It even goes a step further. When a woman loses her husband, it could be the same as a man losing his wife, although I interject to say that I get letters on this every month and every letter I have had since this provision came into effect has been from a woman. I have never had a man between the ages of 60 and 65 write to me: "My old woman died and I lost my pension". No, it is women who suffer. The letter sent out from the department is one of those he/she letters: "Dear sir/madam, we are sorry that you lost your wife/husband", and so on down the line. It is completely heartless and the excuse for that is that the government does not like to keep statistics in terms of sex. This is the day of unisex. This is the day of equality. The result of this apparent attempt at equality is that women suffer in that respect, and suffer seriously.
I move on to the Canada Pension Plan, and here again I am completely in accord with the position taken by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the position that I have been taking since the days back in 1964 and 1965 when we were putting that legislation through. No matter how much you try to say that the Canada Pension Plan is based on earnings from employment and therefore you cannot enrol housewives in it, Mr. Speaker, you are still denying the very thing that the Liberal member for York South wanted this afternoon, and that is the recognition of women as persons because of what they do, whether out in the work force or at home raising a family. If we are going to believe in that principle, if it is going to be asserted even, as I say, from the Liberal side of the House, it is time that we found a way to meet that situation.
I know all the arguments about the way it is set up in terms of a contribution based on income from employment, and maybe it has to be worked out in some other ways. When I make motions about this under Standing Order 43, I call for the equivalent of the Canada Pension Plan entitlement to be made available to women who are in the home. Certainly that should be done, or motions like this will have to be made year after year. The kind of speeches which were made this afternoon by the hon. Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) and the hon. member for York South do not get away from this sort of situation. The Canada Pension Plan denial of any benefit to women who stay home and raise their families is a complete setting aside of all the fine words we heard this afternoon from the minister responsible for the status of women or from the hon. member for York South. I contend that is an area where improvements must be made right away.
I remind the House of my emphasis at the start, along with the statistics given earlier. We are concerned about the large majority of women who are at the poverty line in their retirement years. The reasons that happens are several, includ-
Status of Women
ing the kinds of things I have already talked about-the unfairness of the spouse's allowance and, particularly, the unfairness of the Canada Pension Plan in its denial of recognition that women in the home are contributing to our society just as much as women out in the work force.
This afternoon the hon. member for York South did not like the leader of my party placing so much emphasis on the right of women to have jobs. She wants women to be free to make their choice: to go out in the work force or stay at home. It is fine to have that choice, but if choosing to go out in the work force means a pension and some protection for old age, and staying at home means no adequate pension in old age, then certainly it is not a free choice at all. I contend the Canada Pension Plan needs to be improved in that respect without delay.
The minister responsible for the status of women this afternoon boasted about the amendments made to the Canada Pension Plan a year or so ago, under which at marriage breakdown the assets the two parties have accumulated can be split 50-50. In other words, they have to die or break up their marriages to receive the benefit. What about women having rights as women, rights as persons, rights as half the people of our population?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is another area where we have been grossly unfair to women. It runs through our society. It has been in existence for years and years. That does not make it right, just because society has accepted it. I am referring to the stupid arrangement under the public service superannuation plan, and most private pension plans, which works as follows. A man and a woman live together, build their home, assets and all the rest of it. They reach retirement and go on pension. He was not the only one to earn it. He and she earned it together. If she dies, his pension is 100 per cent; but if he dies first, her pension is 50 per cent. In any place where people believe in common sense, how can that arrangement be justified? It was a nice concession! We were doing something for the poor widows by giving them 50 per cent of their husbands' pensions! But it is not just, and it accounts for these ghastly statistics showing that two-thirds of our women between ages 65 and 70 and three-quarters of the women over 70 are in this situation. The place to correct that is in the public service superannuation plan. The reason it should be started there is to give the lead to private plans.
We have done a little better for the widows of members of parliament. Our pension plan is better in all respects than other pension plans. We provide 60 per cent for our widows. Why should it not be 75 or 80 per cent for all widows? Why should it not be 80 or 90 per cent for the wife if she survives, and 80 or 90 per cent for the man if he survives? The idea of 100 per cent for the man and 50 per cent for the woman, or even 100 per cent for the member of parliament and 60 per cent for the widow of a member of parliament, just does not stand up. It cannot be justified at all. As long as that kind of

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
arrangement exists in public service pensions, of course it will exist in the plans of the private world as well. The Canadian National Railways pension plan and the Canadian Pacific Railway pension plan operate in that manner as well. As a matter of fact, there are still pension plans which do not make all provisions for women and those which provide different conditions for women than for men.
A few nights ago that excellent documentary on the life of Nellie McClung was replayed. Those who watched it will remember the horror which was expressed by Nellie McClung when it was discovered that disability policies sold in those days provided a benefit in the case of death for a man or a woman, but there was no benefit for a woman in the case of disability, only for a man. The argument was that if women knew they could receive a benefit for disability, they might disfigure themselves or do something like that. In the documentary Mr. McClung was transferred to Alberta, because he was in the insurance business and his company could not stand the complaints his wife was making about that discriminatory provision.
That was in the dark ages which some of us remember, but it is still true that provisions exist in pension plans out in the private world which are unfair to women, and there are women who still do not receive the same benefits as men. It was not long ago that there were more inequalities in the public service system. Some of them have been ironed out, but the basic fact is still there: we provide better pensions for men than we do for women. When the death of one partner or the other occurs, it is the man who receives the gravy and it is the woman who receives only one-half of her rights.
With regard to the veterans' legislation, the same is true. That legislation is being improved. It is becoming pretty good compared with what it was a few years ago. But the widows of veterans still receive their pension rights only in terms of what the men's rights were. The woman who was a wife and looked after a veteran on a pension of 50 per cent or more upon his death receives the full widow's pension; but the wife who looked after a veteran on a pension of 45 or 47 per cent upon his death receives nothing. It is not what she may need, nor what she has done, which entitles her to a certain pension. It is what her attachment was to a man.
I would like to agree with the statements made by the hon. member for York South tonight concerning the desire that women be treated as persons and not because of their relationship to men, but I challenge her statement that the government is not to be blamed for this. These elements of discrimination are running through government legislation. We have been pressing for these improvements for a long time. As my leader pointed out this afternoon, we are concerned about the employment situation as well as the rights of native women. We have supported their moves and their organizations, as we have supported women in all of their efforts.
If your Honour will permit me another 30 seconds, I should like to indicate that discrimination is at its worst at the time of retirement where it ought not to be at all. We want these pension inequalities corrected. This can be brought about by

passing both the amendment and the motion now before the House.


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have only one reproach for the members of the opposition who have started in the House today a debate on the status of women and it is that they should have done so earlier. That is what the minister responsible for the status of women said on February 17 last in response to questions asked by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) whom he was congratulating for his sudden interest in the status of women, reminding him that as the new Human Rights Commission was about to begin its operations two of the three commissioners were women.
Mr. Speaker, the fate of the Canadian woman attracts the envy of women the world over; this is news to nobody in the House. It is clear that the situation can and must be considerably improved, but if we look at what the situation is in other countries, we see that we have numerous reasons to be proud and to look forward to future improvements. As a matter of fact, in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I would like to point out today what has happened not only within the commission but for the benefit of the population as a whole through various manpower and unemployment insurance services. But I will preface my remarks with a brief outlook of the situation of women within the labour force. The minister in charge of the status of women has dwelt at quite some length on this matter, so I will limit myself to the main facts.
In 1966, 34 per cent of women participated in the paid labour force. In 1977, this rate of participation reached 46 per cent. Most of this increase originated in the 24 to 44 age group whose participation rate has gone up 59 per cent during the last decade. As mentioned before, unfortunately the rate of unemployment among women has also increased rapidly. In 1977, there were more women within the idle work force, at 45 per cent, than in the whole labour force, at 37 per cent. It has been suggested at times that female unemployment is not really alarming since their work contributes more to make up the family revenue and can serve at best to make some ready money or to allow for some luxuries. Statistics on the rate of employment and family income easily refute those allegations. Of the 4,022,000 women who worked in 1977, 30.1 per cent were single and 8.5 per cent were separated, widowed or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that those women have to work, strictly from an economic point of view, has never been doubted. Still, the work of women as second wage-earners in the family has at times been met with skepticism. That attitude does not take economic realities into account. In 1975, 70 per cent of all families in which women worked for pay had an income of less than $15,000 from the husband while the average family income was $16,113. In other words, the family
March 6, 1978

income would have been lower than the average income had the woman not worked. It is also sometimes said that women take over men's jobs. Mr. Speaker, the truth is entirely different. As the minister in charge of the status of women pointed out, women unfortunately still hold jobs that are generally considered as women's jobs, and are still generally nowhere to be seen in job areas traditionally reserved for men. We know, for instance, that if all the women in professional jobs were to leave the labour force tomorrow, without registering for unemployment insurance, the rate of unemployment would not go down by .5 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I hurry to add that the existence of ghettos in the field of employment seems most regrettable to us, and we spare no effort to remedy that situation. One must come to the conclusion that, in the future, men and women will increasingly perform the same type of work. We are nevertheless convinced that, to be prosperous, our economy will need all its resources.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with what the employment and immigration commission could do to improve the lot of women in the labour force. As far as favouring equal job opportunities is concerned, it should actively promote the expansion of the labour market which makes full use of womanpower potential and help workers seeking more rewarding and self-fulfilling jobs find them.
Mr. Speaker, this main objective can be divided into five sub-objectives: one, help women get the necessary knowledge and experience to join or rejoin the labour force; two, help women find jobs in line with their qualifications and abilities; three, help women make a more sophisticated choice in the whole spectrum of trades and professions which are in demand on the Canadian labour market; four, help employers identify and eliminate impediments to the hiring and promotion of women; five, encourage women to apply for work in industries for better paid jobs in the fields where they have traditionally been under-represented.
Mr. Speaker, my intention here is not to give a detailed account of the steps we are taking to fight discriminatory practices in the labour market, nor of the steps taken to counterbalance the effects of discriminatory practices which have affected women at the economic level. I would rather give some precise facts. In 1975-76, 33.9 per cent of successful applicants for the Canada manpower training program were women. However we must point out that the distribution of these women varied very much according to the type of training. They represented 53 per cent of trainees in the basic training for skill development, generally called upgrading course, 38.5 per cent in the vocational training program but only 2.8 per cent in the apprenticeship training program.
This problem is particularly difficult to solve since it is in the industry's new ventures that most openings will be found. The Foothills project, which has been referred to earlier today,
Status of Women
is a good example of our future ventures. It becomes essential that women receive a formation that will help them benefit from this evolution. To help women acquire these skills, the commission has greatly increased the number of courses given for their benefit. In one of these courses, women interested in trades traditionally reserved for men can gain practical experience in those trades. I want to mention two examples of this type of course: the basic trade courses for women given in Manitoba, and the introductory courses to so-called "non feminine" professions given in several centers in Ontario and Manitoba. There are also some vocational guidance courses directed to older women interested in joining the labour force for the first time or in returning to it.
Here is an example: the vocational guidance course for women given at Fredericton, New Brunswick. There is a similar program in Quebec, which is financed under the Canada manpower development program. Its goal is to develop and test various training instruments and programs that would help women better benefit from the training they have received under the Canada manpower development program, in view of their future return to the labour force.
Mr. Speaker, we ask our various manpower centers to establish a quota for female participation in the vocational guidance program, in a number of areas that are generally men's strongholds. We hope the provinces will do the same for their apprenticeship programs. Until the established quota is reached, women will be given priority for enrollment in these courses. A general information campaign will be set up accordingly.
As for the industrial manpower training program, we point out in our regional offices those trades where women are under-represented. We have asked each employment centre to designate one adviser charged with the promotion of industrial training programs among women. Objectives are chosen according to the number of women that have real chances of finding a job in those trades.
The community employment strategy is also used to encourage women to participate in training programs in various areas, including the contemporaneous program for woman heads of families in Regina, the native women's co-operative and also a program in Nova Scotia for women heads of families. The latter program has been in existence for some time. It includes workshops for women wishing to rejoin the work force, job training courses on housing renovation, employer-employee workshops on barriers to employment, and a co-operative training program in co-operation with the city of Halifax. While progress is made in our training programs, there remains an area where numerous efforts are still needed, namely apprenticeship as I mentioned earlier. Although apprenticeship is entirely under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government makes substantial financial contributions toward it. Mr. Speaker, we hope that the provinces will take the necessary steps to eliminate the discriminatory practices
3500

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
that are traditionally taking place against women in that kind of programs. We asked all our regional officers to appoint a senior officer responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the various regional apprenticeship programs to promote women's participation in those programs. Business leaders and unions must also change their practices in this area.
Let us now turn to counselling. Our employment offices have often been blamed for not providing an adequate service to women. The Employment and Immigration Commission is taking the necessary measures to correct the situation. A special training section on the problems of women will be included in the counsellors' vocational extension program. That section will be operational this spring. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention on several new and important facts that took place in recent months which will enable us to help women fully develop their potential in the labour market.
That program is Affirmative Action which can now be implemented at the federal level as well as in most provinces as a result of the passage of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Affirmative Action concept which comes from the United States is now being considered in Canada as the only effective way of dealing with systems, attitudes and behaviour promoting inequities between men and women in the labour market. This approach or methodology is not restricted to women and could be used by other groups which could come under systematic discrimination. It is also intended to remove discrimination in hiring consisting in excluding certain groups or people when this is not warranted by any practical imperative, whether it be at the business level or the job to be filled. In other words, Affirmative Action deals with the roots rather than the symptoms of the problem.
Even if we do not know yet which body will finally be charged with carrying out federal activity in that regard, it is obvious that the commission will have a leading role to play and it is already getting prepared with tune-up operations. The Minister asked the commission to set up an Affirmative Action division to polarize the efforts of the commission in that respect.
It should also be pointed out that the status of working women is also being considered in the more important studies being made on unemployment. The studies examine among other things employment and unemployment statistics for women, their effort as the main breadwinner as well as the social and institutional barriers impeding their full participation in the labour market.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to speak for a few moments about the efforts of the employment and immigration commission as an employer in terms of what is being done to improve opportunities for female employees.

The commission's equal opportunities for women program began in 1972 and progress was slow but steady in increasing female representation. Nevertheless, the commission was anxious to achieve even greater results and therefore in 1977, in order to speed up the process, it developed a five-year equal opportunities for women plan. This plan was based on the rationale that female representation in all categories, groups and levels should reflect women's representation in the national and provincial full-time labour forces. In fact, this rationale became the official policy of the organization concerning its work force. In other words, we are aiming for a work force which is in similar proportion to that of the labour force.
Using the rationale as described, goals were set for each of the major occupational groups in the commission. Our plan is ambitious but the minister and senior management of the commission are determined that concentrated effort can make it successful. Already, we see encouraging results. For example, there has been a gradual shift in the distribution of women throughout the organization. Last year at this time approximately 75 per cent of all female employees were in the administrative support category-the category which is often described as the ghetto category. This year we find that this distribution has dropped to 75 per cent, and we also find that women are at the higher levels of the category in increasing proportions.
Another example is the administrative and foreign service category, generally perceived as the middle management category. Last year women comprised only 26 per cent of its total. This has now risen to 28 per cent.
As well we find that, within the category itself, women have considerably improved their standing in every major group. To give but two examples, in the program administration group and the personnel administration group particularly women have been appointed for the first time at the highest levels.
There is also abundant evidence that women are improving their career mobility opportunities through mechanisms such as staff training programs. These vehicles are assisting substantial numbers of women in moving from the so-called ghetto category to the officer levels.
Concerning the senior executive category, the commission is aiming to have 10 per cent of that category represented by women by 1982. At this point there are only three women in the category but I am confident the goal will be reached.
The sample results which I have just described have not come about by accident. Rather, they are the culmination of efforts to build the concerns of women directly into the overall management system. I am proud to say that the commission is creating a personnel system, the mechanisms of which ensure that equal opportunities for women are taken into account in all its ensuing policies, practices and procedures. As well, I might mention that there are active programs in every region which support our objectives. Individual managers are responsible for the improved representation of women and are being held accountable for their results.
March 6, 1978

Without further elaboration I would only add that, as an employer, the department and commission have concrete plans to improve the position of women, that it is vigorously implementing those plans, and that it is experiencing very positive results. We believe that we can display methodology and results to both public and private sector employers as an example to be followed.
In conclusion, I would leave the House with two clear messages: first, the employment and immigration commission will continue its efforts to improve the situation of women in the labour force; second, it shall continue to create within the commission an environment in which women will be encouraged to realize their full potential.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly want to identify at the outset with the remarks made by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) as well as those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when they both mentioned it was the height of irony that we should need a special debate to deal with more than 50 per cent of the population of this country who still continue to suffer from some real discrimination in the area of economic matters.
I must admit when I listened this afternoon to the minister responsible for women, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde), that my first reaction was one of anger, then one of amazement and finally one of sadness. For any minister to present such a pathetic diatribe on such a vital issue is really a shocking case of irresponsibility. In view of the problems that many thousands of women are faced with today both in the private sector and in the public service respecting employment, that kind of a speech does them a disservice.
For the minister to try and extricate himself by making cheap political shots at members on this side of the House or anywhere is nothing short of amazing. I find his response both shallow and hollow to a great degree, more than I would have expected from him. I am sorry the minister is not here to hear me say this this evening. Quite frankly, I would have had more respect for this minister had he not made that kind of presentation today.
I make no apologies for taking part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, nor for the interest I have shown in recent weeks with respect to the problems which women are encountering, particularly in the public service. Members may know that it was some time last fall when I assumed responsibility as the opposition spokensman for the status of women, taking over that assignment from my colleague for the former hon. member for Fundy-Royal, Mr. Gordon Fairweather. He now chairs, in a very distinguished way, the new Human Rights Commission. I hope I follow him in the line of his particular interest and commitment in terms of trying to deal responsibly and rationally with a major problem that confronts us in society today.
Status of Women
When the minister begins to use statistics, as he did this afternoon, and talks about a 50 per cent improvement with respect to government appointments through orders in council, I find this is about the most meaningless kind of endeavour he could engage in. He is not even being consistent with himself. Earlier through a quarterly newsletter he claimed that figures show 115 per cent more women appointed in 1976. Perhaps he is becoming more cautious in the use of these meaningless statistics. As we all know, statistics can say anything you want them to.
Nothing has been more the focus of attention in recent weeks that appointments to senior levels of the public service, the SX category. In a letter that I received dated October 17, 1977 from the research and analysis officer of the Public Service Commission, these statistics were stated. As I say, statistics can be used any way you want. In 1973 in the senior executive category of the Public Service Commission we had 859 men and nine women. In 1974 there were 1,053 men and 18 women. In 1975 there were 1,165 men and 21 women; and in 1976, 1,238 men and 30 women. You could, of course, mention that between 1973 and 1974, the year the minister took office, there was a 100 per cent increase in women in the SX category; the figure went from nine to 18. The fact that the number only increased from 18 to 21 women from 1974 to 1975 means the percentage increase was 16% per cent. In 1976 the increase from 21 to 30 women meant there was a 45 per cent increase over 1975. In other words, in that time period in 1974 there was an increase of 194 men in the SX category and nine women, in 1975, 112 men and 12 women, and in 1976, 173 men and women. One thing is abundantly clear from those statistics: there is no great plan of action on the part of this government to remove discrimination at senior levels of the public service.
When the minister wants to score Brownie points by attacking members on this side for discovering a latent interest in the status of women, I suppose we have to accept that. That is the nature of political warfare. But what I am more concerned with is the situation that forces a number of female public servants to issue the kind of anonymous report which ironically enough I released the same day the minister was exposing his great "plan of action" for documenting, through the use of the statistics of the Public Service Commission itself, not only the present discrimination that exists with respect to public service employment but the increasing discrimination that is taking place at middle and upper level of management.
There is no way in the world that the minister responsible for the status of women, or any other minister in this House, can explain those statistics away unless they are prepared to be a good deal more forthright than they have been to date. I mentioned that the minister has now released his latest plan of action which is to take us to 1985 with respect to equal opportunities. But the minister has in no way indicated what all these various experts and task forces are actually going to do by way of any clear cut goals, strategy or any methods of implementation. Even more, he has not had the courtesy to issue the kind of report that he himself said would be necessary
80033-9%

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
some years ago. The report of the advisory council on the status of women dated June, 1977, in documenting the situation of women in the public service, concludes:
Publication of the Advisory Council's first study on Women in the Public Service in the fall of 1975 prompted the Minister responsible for the Status of Women to say publicly "it is quite apparent that a more explicit and aggressive policy is required which will involve the active commitment of departments to accelerate the desegregation of the Public Service work force." The special measures announced by the Minister in October 1975 included an annual review of the progress achieved by each department.
Where are those annual reviews? Where is the public accounting that was to take place that the minister publicly endorsed and said would take place in succeedings years in 1976 and 1977? What we have is the minister hoping, by some kind of subterfuge, by some new announcement of more experts and more task forces, to indicate that at some time, perhaps in 1985, we will have a clear accounting as to the actual situation of women in the public service. There are thousands and thousands of women in the public service who will not wait that long. As proven by this report, they are already acknowledging that there are signs of increasing discrimination against women workers.
It is a fallacy that women are the cause of the high unemployment rate today. My colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I think very effectively and eloquently in her speech exposed the kind of damaging myth that is fostered when that kind of attribution is made. Certainly the Minister for Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have furthered the mythology that in some way or other women are the cause of the present unemployment difficulties that this country is faced with and with which the government is failing to deal adequately.
In a recent publication from Statistics Canada it was clearly shown that, contrary to what the minister responsible for the status of women has said, the entrance rate into the work force has declined in recent years simply because women are faced, as everyone is, with increasing difficulty in finding any kind of meaningful employment. Where are women finding employment? They are finding it at less than adequate wages and they do the kinds of servile tasks that for the most part men are simply not willing to do.
My colleague from Kingston and the Islands has also mentioned the particularly acute problem faced by women over the age of 60 and the failure of this government to deal adequately with that problem. I suppose if there is any one tragic aspect to the minister's speech this afternoon, from my point of view as well as that of all members of this House it was that the minister missed a golden opportunity. It is generally acknowledged, except by the most blind, that there are particular problems today in the work force both in the private sector and in the public sector with respect to the employment of women. It would have been a service in his capacity as minister responsible to have identified those pressures, those myths referred to by my colleague, the problems making it more difficult at the present time to implement equal opportunity programs. Instead, what did the minister do? He ran through

a shopping list that, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said, was so barren that he had to repeat it in both official languages.
The minister did not even take the opportunity to identify some of the key pressure points and problems today for women in the work force. He at no time tried to identify what the specific goals must be of a society really trying to achieve some kind of economic justice. There was no clear accounting as to his role since 1974 when he was appointed to this important post, and no indication of the particular problems we are faced with today. I do not know whether the government still does not know or whether it just does not care, but certainly it is very clear it is not acting. In not acting, it is contributing to the situation, certainly to a very great misunderstanding.
I sent a copy of the report that I released on February 16 to the minister. That is about two and a half weeks ago. To my knowledge, he has in no way attempted to respond to that report. The only response that I have seen in fact came from no minister at all but from somebody speaking for the chairman of the Public Service Commission, Johanna Hickey, director of the Office of Equal Opportunity. She said that this report was full of distortion, blatant error and emotionalism. I wonder when we will get the facts to document those kinds of charges, either from Ms. Hickey or anyone else who speaks for the Public Service Commission.
Within a few days of that comment, on February 22, these public servants, again through me, issued a further comment in response to that criticism. I quote one part of it:
Well, as we said, we have nothing to hide so here are the facts: as of December 1976, there were 2,927 persons in the Personnel Administration (PE) group in the federal public service of Canada. Of these, 778 were women (nearly 27 per cent). The PE group has seven levels, with PE 1 being the lowest level. In most departments, the Director of Personnel would be a PE 7 or an SX, but in some smaller organizations, he or she (we couldn't find a "she"!) might be a PE 6. The breakdown for the PE group is as follows. Again the information is from the Public Service Staff Relations Board Pay Research Bureau Report.
What we Find is that in levels one through four the participation is very heavily loaded toward women; but as it increases through levels five, six and seven we notice a rapidly dropping percentage of women and a rapidly increasing one for men. That is within the public service itself. I am waiting anxiously to find out what kind of report we are going to get on that statistic from the minister or from somebody who will speak on behalf of the Public Service Commission.
Just today I received some further information with regard to the post office. I am sorry the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) is not here this evening; he was here for a while this afternoon. The post office seems to be one of the most blatant areas in terms of discrimination against women in the work force.
In the earlier report that was released, in the listing of senior employees at the SX level it will be noticed that the post office is the largest employing department in the federal government, employing some 55,000 people, 20 per cent of whom are
March 6, 1978

women. There are 43 people at the SX category, but to my knowledge there is still not one woman.
I want to read a few observations that have been made with regard to the situation in the post office at the present time. For women at the PE or 04 level and above, for 1973 and 1977 there is almost no change. In fact, in that four year period the increase has been something like .91 per cent. That means that perhaps the number has gone from something like three women in 1973 to something like nine in 1977.
In most samples of this size-that is, a group of over 500- this would be called negligible. In fact, an increase of 1 per cent is really not worth anything. That is the situation that prevails in the post office, an area where there has been literally no act of representation or equal opportunity program at work. The other interesting comment as a result of this later document came from the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who I am sorry is not here tonight. He took the opportunity of issuing a press release, again with a number of self-serving and partial percentages, on March 2 and took serious issue with some of the things said in the two earlier reports and releases.
I will not take the time of the House this evening to review the kind of misleading data that the Minister of Employment and Immigration put on the record. The information in the press release does in his own case. On the second page of his press release, which deals with the administrative support category representation, he talks about the CR 5. It is interesting to note-and this is obviously not a major management and decision making area-that whereas in 1976 there were 30.1 per cent males and 69.9 per cent females, in 1977 the figure for males had dropped to 28.6 per cent and the figure for females had increased to 71.4 per cent. That is an obvious female ghetto if ever there was one!
This is the kind of misleading information that the government to this date is putting on the record with regard to its stewardship in terms of equal opportunity programs for women in the public service. What we obviously need, and what I thought we would get when I saw the motion put down last week by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent), is a frank accounting of the government's responsibility in this area for at least the period that this government, and particularly this minister, have been responsible for the status of women, which is about three and a half years. But what did we get? We got a pathetic political diatribe and nothing else.
No other minister has taken part in this debate. We had a speech from one parliamentary secretary. Perhaps we will have another. We have certainly had nothing substantial from the members of the government who carry responsibility in this area.


Mr. Crouse:: There is not a minister in the House.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That further amplifies their disinterest or disdain for this topic. Surely the government must now state publicly what its goals are. It is not enough for a minister to have a meeting outside the House in the Pearson building with those who are his fans or friends in terms of the
Status of Women
status of women and not come before this House as the minister responsible to make a clear-cut statement as to his goals objectives.
Why did he not have the courage and common sense to say what the strategy of the government will be with regard to the serious problems confronting women? What has he to tell us about the kinds of costs and benefits that will result from substantial change within the public service? The government is simply failing in its leadership in this area. In fact, the leadership is simply non-existent.
In 1975 we had International Women's Year. We have had literally nothing similar since then. In fact, as these women public servants have acknowledged, we see a deteriorating situation with regard to attitudes and programs within the public service.
In addition to the motion of the New Democratic Party, we have put down some suggestions by way of amendment which now seem to be generally accepted, at least on this side of the House. These are some specifics that we had hoped the minister or others would have talked on. Certainly the advisory council on the status of women has filled hundreds of pages with clear-cut recommendations. The minister said they would like to take action on the amendment to the Indian Act. How often do we have to hear him make that kind of statement before anything substantial happens? I happen to have a private member's bill on that subject. If the minister really wanted to do something, it could be moved forward to the standing committee.
With regard to the tax changes that have been suggested, surely a clear inequity is the problem of women who work with their husbands on farms, in rural situations, in fishing operations or in small businesses. They are not provided with the same benefits they would have in a legal partnership or an incorporated set up. The advisory council on the status of women made ample recommendations in this regard.
My colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), recently received a letter from one of his constituents. With his permission and yours, Mr. Speaker, I will quote a couple of phrases from it. This woman writes:
I work on the farm full time (this often means 12 or more hours per day) during calving, seeding, summer fallowing and harvesting as well as doing all the bookkeeping and helping whenever necessary during other times. You will find that this is also the case with most of the women in this area, as it is no doubt in every farming community throughout Canada ...
My husband has threatened to divorce me, and then hire me as a farm worker and so claim wages for me as an expense for income tax purposes. I am only joking, but I do think that the fact that this could be a solution, points out the foolishness of the present tax law. Just as silly is the fact that I could do the same work I do on our farm for a neighbour and get paid for it and my husband could hire a neighbour's wife to do the work I am doing here, pay her and deduct her wages as an expense.
It also hurts to know that women who work at their own job can file their own income tax. I have a teacher's certificate, but when I got married I decided to give up teaching to raise a family and help out on the farm. I feel this has been a good decision as far as the family is concerned and has meant a rewarding way of life to me but the present tax laws do not encourage anyone to make such a choice.

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
In the face of that reasonable proposition, could not the minister urge his colleague the Minister of Finance to include a provision of the kind suggested in a budgetary announcement? If this debate today does nothing else, I hope it will wake up the minister and the government who seem to be immobilized at the present time in the face of a pressing national issue.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the comments just made by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) I think I should say at the outset of my remarks that several ministers have been unable to be here today. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is unable to be here. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) is ill and I am speaking in his place. I would also point out that there are two ministers sitting here now and that they were sitting here at the time the hon. member made his complaint that there were no ministers in the House.


An hon. Member:: We want real ministers!


Mark R. MacGuigan: All of us on this side of the House were pleasantly surprised that the NDP were presenting us with an opportunity to speak about our record in the field of women's rights, because that record is one of which the government has a right to be proud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I would not want to be misunderstood, Mr. Speaker. There are many things which need to be done in this area, especially on the side of implementation. The opposition has rightly been drawing attention to these things. There will always be weaknesses to remedy, Mr. Speaker, because here we are faced with a great historic inequity, probably the greatest inequity existing in the world today. An inequity of this dimension is not something which can be cleared up overnight. Nevertheless, Canada is on the leading edge of the movement to advance women's rights throughout the world and this government certainly has by far the best record of any government in Canada in this field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am sure the NDP faced something of a dilemma when making women's rights the subject of today's debate. They wanted to get in on a good thing but obviously did not wish to give the government the credit which its record deserves. I thought the solution of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was rather ingenuous. He got around this difficulty by avoiding the subject entirely, by dealing with peripheral aspects of the problem, by making comments which from his limited viewpoint he could have made about any minority group in the country-youth, Cape Breton miners, the urban poor or what have you. He really did not deal with the question of women's rights at all.
In the words of the motion before us today, the NDP asserts that the women of Canada ought to have fully equal rights in

participating in the Canadian economy. Mr. Speaker, where was that party last spring when the government brought forward the Canadian Human Rights Act? If the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) had been able to be here today I know he would have brought to the attention of his colleagues section two of that legislation which was passed by the House. It reads as follows:
Every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able or wishes to have consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices.


An hon. Member:: Fine words!


Mark R. MacGuigan: They are indeed fine words and a former member of this House has been given the authority to enforce those words.
Three elements of the Human Rights Act are of particular interest to women. First, sex is made a prohibited ground of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services. Second, provision is made for affirmative action programs and the Human Rights Commission is enabled to advise on and encourage the setting up of these special programs. Third, and most significant, the legislation establishes the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. This is the first government and the only government in the country to take this step. Enactment of this principle is one of the most significant advances in recent years in the march for equality for women and puts Canada ahead of almost every jurisdiction in the world.
The wording "equal pay for work of equal value" is significant and is more effective in its formulation than that used in other jurisdictions whose legislation may appear to be similar but is not because it uses the concept of equal pay for similar work. When the government was drafting the Human Rights Act it listened to women's organizations who explained how under the similar work formulation women employees could be laid off into the low pay job ghettos where they would never have a chance to do work similar to that of men, job ghettos where women could be paid less even though their work was of equal value. The government accepted this principle of equal value and put it into the legislation.
The over-all significance of the affirmative action power of the commission can hardly be overestimated. In addition to the right to make recommendations as to special programs, the commission also has the power, where discrimination has been established against an employer by a hearing tribunal, to order an affirmative action program to be instituted at the expense of the employer. In this area the American experience has suggested that affirmative action programs are a much more useful device to disadvantaged minorities than are a host of individual complaints which, even collectively, cannot usually bring about a change in the practice of an employer.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the record of the NDP in this area has been dismal. They have had many opportunities over the last five years to respond to the needs of women. In British Columbia under the former premier, Mr. Barrett, in
March 6, 1978

Manitoba under the former premier, Mr. Schreyer, and still in Saskatchewan for a short time, under the premiership of Mr. Blakeney, they could have enacted legislation to give effect to the concept of equal pay for work of equal value.
Did that party which today preaches in its motion that the women of Canada ought to have fully equal rights participating in the Canadian economy ever lift a finger when it had the power to do so in those provinces? Did it ever put in place such legislation? Not once. A sad comment on a party which used to think of itself as a leading force of social reform in Canada.
Perhaps I should also draw attention to the new committee which the Conservative party has established in this election year-a caucus committee on the status of women. I believe the first public pronouncement of that body was that no serious consideration had been given to women's issues in parliament for the past two years. Well, where was the Conservative party last summer when we enacted the Human Rights Act? The hon. member for Egmont mentioned the former member for Fundy-Royal who played a very vital part in that. He is playing an even more important part in it now that it has been enacted.
Where was the Conservative party when the Criminal Code was reformed to prevent the unnecessary harassment of rape victims appearing as witnesses? Where was it when we brought about the reforms outlined earlier in this debate by my colleagues?
The assertion that we have given no serious consideration to women's issues has a hollow ring to it in the face of all this. Hon. members in the official opposition would have served Canadian women better had they directed their criticisms at their colleagues in the government of Ontario, who have so far flatly refused to adopt the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.
One of the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) suggested the government should take some action in relation to the tax situation of spouses working in unincorporated small businesses. This is an issue the government has been looking into. Unfortunately, it is not one which lends itself to a simple solution since it would be very difficult to monitor the payment of wages to a spouse. Nevertheless, a step in this direction has, in fact, been taken by Revenue Canada. A recent Revenue Canada interpretation bulletin goes some way toward equality of the sexes under income tax rules. It makes it easier for a husband and wife to establish a partnership to carry on a business and for the wife to receive income from the business which is treated for income tax purposes as her own. Without going into the detailed provisions of the policy statement, let me simply say that among other things it provides that, if a loan is made from husband to wife on terms which are comparable to those which one businessman might offer another operating at arm's length, such loan will be treated as a contribution of capital by the wife. In other words, this major policy change will allow a husband to finance his wife's capital contribution, albeit on a commercial basis, and for the wife to be considered a fully fledged partner for income tax purposes.
Status of Women
This recent bulletin is an indication that efforts are continuing to be made by the government to recognize the new realities relating to women in the work force. It suggests a new approach to tax treatment of husbands and wives while attempting to prevent tax fraud through artificial arrangements.
In conclusion, I want to draw attention to the fact that the individual and social cost of unfair discrimination on the basis of sex in our society is staggering. A person's ability to contribute to society is not determined by whether that person is a man or a woman; nor is his or her value to his or her employer so measured.


An hon. Member:: Now you're telling it the way it is.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I have been doing it all along.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert:: You sound like Bryce Mackasey. Take over Bryce's job.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I should say to members of the opposition that I find my present job most satisfying. It will be a long time before they are going to get jobs on this side of the House.
As I mentioned, we are dealing with a great and historic social inequality. In fact, this is not really a problem of women's rights at all; it is a problem of common human rights because the various forms of sexual inequality involve our common humanity and are harmful to all people. It cannot be tolerated by society, and government and society must work together over the years to eliminate these problems.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House gives sad evidence of the unemployment and underemployment of women in Canada today. In spite of the existence of the advisory council on the status of women, International Women's Year, and the minister in cabinet assigned to develop a national plan of action to respond to the needs of women in Canada, we have not, to paraphrase a popular ad, "come a long way, baby".
A few women have broken through the man-made barriers to participate fully in Canadian life. I am one of the lucky ones and I have found myself walking in new areas which have traditionally been men's preserves. I have found myself involved in making decisions that will affect the lifestyle of generations to come. I have felt pride and satisfaction, as it is right for women to be involved in decisions affecting society.
As the waves of rapid change have lately increased in their intensity, I am glad we are having a debate about the role of women so we can gain a sense of perspective about the world today, its challenges and how they affect women, why it is different for women today than at any other time in history, and what tasks must now be tackled by women together with men, faced with the fact that the population of the world will double in the space of a lifetime. By the time my 15 year old

March 6, 1978
Status of Women
daughter is my age, the population of this planet will have doubled to seven billion.
The capital, technology and management skills required to meet present needs were accumulated over thousands of years, but now we must more than double our productive capacity in the world as a whole, not simply in the rich countries but throughout the world, in a space of one lifetime. Planners looking at the resources needed to meet this incredible challenge are realizing that the most valuable untapped creative and management resource they have is womanpower.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member. [Translation]
Order, please. It being 9:45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(9), to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings now before the House.

The question is on the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.
It being after ten o'clock the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.21 the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
to

Tuesday, March 7, 1978