1979-03-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have already discussed this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I hope the House will give its unanimous approval. I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
With Canadians being dedicated to the achievement of international peace, I move:
That this House commends United States President Carter for his courageous initiative in going personally to Egypt and Israel in his continuing endeavour to bring about peace between these two countries, and supporting his objectives, expresses the hope that through his unusual and statesmanlike endeavours a just and lasting peace will have been achieved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In order for this motion to be presented at this time pursuant to Standing Order 43 the unanimous consent of the House would be required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion by Mr. Diefenbaker, seconded by Mr. Jamieson. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 involves a matter of great urgency and has reference to orders in council of this government which permit Canadian corporations to alter the basis of
pension funding by employers in this country by increasing assumed interest rates, thereby permitting a reduction of their liabilities to their own pension funds.
The Canadian Railways Employees Pension Association yesterday brought this urgent matter before a committee of the other place, and keeping in mind that the matter of integrity of pensions is one of the most important issues facing the country today, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Finance, or both, on motions, before the dissolution of this parliament make a statement explaining and justifying, if they can, the situation which does not require Canadian corporations to show on their balance sheets the very substantial sums of money owed to their employees' pension funds, and to explain, for the benefit of the House and the country, the justification for the substantially different approach taken since 1966 involving the procedures of the Pension Benefit Standards Act and regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SECURITY OF OIL SUPPLIES FOR EASTERN CANADA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter or urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the current uncertainty of oil supplies for Newfoundland and other parts of eastern Canada, coupled with the recent experience of Canada being held to ransom by multinational oil corporations like Exxon, and the prospect of the Canadian government importing oil directly from Mexico and Venezuela, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House instruct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to have Petro-Canada purchase the Come-By-Chance oil refinery so that Canadians in eastern Canada can be confident of adequate supplies of petroleum products at a reasonable price.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 7, 1979


REQUEST THAT MINISTER LIQUIDATE DEFICIT OF CANADIAN ALPINE SKI ASSOCIATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the "C" team of the Canadian Alpine Ski Association is asking for $2,000 and $1,500 from the athletes to make up the deficit incurred by that association; considering that under the Loto Canada contract the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) has made Canadians lose $15 million; considering that the same minister refuses to pay the $35,000 deficit of the Canadian Ski Association and that it is unacceptable to lay the burden of that deficit on the athletes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That parliament enjoin the minister to pay $35,000 to the Alpine Ski Association and free the athletes so as to enable them to concentrate on sports.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such motion cannot be presented without unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the Department of Secretary of State agreed to grant, directly or indirectly, the sum of $215,000 for aid in the financial situation of L'Evangeline newspaper in Moncton, and whereas other newspapers in Canada have not been so favoured, and whereas such financial assistance leaves some doubt as to possible government interference with the freedom of the press and the free enterprise system generally, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher):
That this House strongly object to such action and request the Secretary of State to reconsider this move in light of strong opposition to this type of grant to newspapers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask leave to move the following motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given that our international travel account for the fourth quarter of 1978 reflected a higher deficit in the amount of $351 million, an increase of 7.3 per cent over the previous year, and considering the tremendous potential in attracting more tourists from the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the government take urgent and necessary action to combat the amount in travel deficit and announce the establishment of a secretariat for tourism, and implement some form of controlled deregulation vis-a-vis airlines' operations to Canada in order to encourage an increased flow of visitors to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to an urgent matter of national import.
It relates to the unfair and, I think, poorly balanced broadcast the CBC gave of the inaugural speech yesterday before the National Assembly of Quebec. As hon. members know, the French network of the CBC fully covered the Quebec premier's speech but refused to extend the same privilege to the leaders of the opposition parties. The House will recall that the CBC had also given poor coverage to the Progressive Conservative convention nearly a year ago. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras):
That the House urge the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to appear before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts and to explain its attitude.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, such

March 7, 1979

a motion can be put only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will put my question to the Prime Minister. It touches on the record current account deficit which was run up in 1978, and the record fourth quarter deficit of last year.
Would the Prime Minister indicate whether he feels that this is a satisfactory performance for Canada and, if not, what does he propose to do to rectify this huge deficit?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am advised that the Minister of Finance is presently attending IMF meetings in Washington and that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is addressing the Canadian Society of Mechanical Engineers in Toronto. I will be very happy to take notice of the question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not know where the Prime Minister has been since the last quarter of last year: surely he knew we were running up a current account deficit. The point is that it is $700 million higher than anybody expected. Last year the Prime Minister said we were a healthy economy in a difficult world, but it turns out that we are in difficulty and we have a healthy world around us.


Mr. Jamieson:: Oh, come on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the fact that 80 per cent of the current account deficit is made up of interest and dividends going out of the country, does that not at least alarm the Prime Minister? If so, will he speak to the Minister of Finance and suggest that he take certain other measures rather than this continuing borrowing of foreign funds that will only aggravate our problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, now the suggestion is that I speak to the Minister of Finance. That is exactly what I said in answer to the first question, that I will speak to him about the hon. member's concern.
Oral Questions
As to the preface, to the effect that it was much higher than expected, I would remind the hon. member that he and his leader were suggesting a deficit of some $18 billion for the current year. They were merely $6 billion or $7 billion off.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe it. The Prime Minister-


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


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I cannot believe it either, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am referring to the current account deficit that arises with the rest of the world, and the Prime Minister is talking about a budgetary deficit within Canada.


Mr. Clark:: He does not know the difference.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I will come back to the current account deficit, Mr. Speaker. Some $2 billion of capital has gone out of the country in the last year. That represents possibly 40,000 homes that could have been financed with that kind of money. Is the Prime Minister aware of that, and will he at least try to do something about the exodus of capital from the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member that I had not seen these figures and that I was going to discuss them with the Minister of Finance who is at IMF meetings in Washington.
As to the hon. member's disbelief, all I was indicating was that in the estimates of our cash requirements they were exaggerating by $6 billion or $7 billion, and therefore they are not reliable, this opposition, when they are talking figures.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, my question is to that tame pussycat, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.


TOURISM
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, following up on the question asked by my colleague, I wonder if in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance I can ask the Prime Minister a question on a subject that he does know something about, which is travel.
The fact is that the current account deficits show a one billion, 700 million dollars shortfall on travel. This is the highest record ever, in any year. Could the Prime Minister indicate why the government has been unable to grapple with this problem?

March 7, 1979
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we do not have export controls or exchange controls in this country. Canadians are free to travel to any part of the world that they want. The hon. member and his leader have made that kind of choice, and we are not going to criticize it.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Let me put one simple question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Tourist Association of Canada has repeatedly asked to have expense deductibility restored in the United States so that Americans can deduct their convention expenses when they come here, surely this would be of tremendous benefit to offset this deficit.
Why does the Canadian government consistently refuse to raise this problem with the United States government? The Prime Minister has just returned from the United States.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was asking about Canadian travel abroad. Now he has switched his question-


An hon. Member:: No, your travel abroad.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and he is talking about Americans travelling in Canada. To compound his own confusion, he says we have always refused to raise this question with the United States. I raised it personally with the President, and other ministers have raised it. The Americans know our concern. It is a matter of-


An hon. Member:: What did he say?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Carter said he understood our point of view perfectly.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: And he has been trying to change it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Even the opposition would know that the President of the United States cannot have Congress vote the way he would like it to every time.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it concerns high food prices which the AIB said went up by some 21 per cent last year. This is based on information made available this morning that profits for Loblaws last year went up by some 39 per cent and that profits for Loeb last year went up by 34 per cent.
Since the National Commission on Inflation has no power to roll back high and excessive prices, what is the minister going to do to make sure that companies making these huge profits are not gouging Canadian consumers?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants simplistic solutions to very complex problems. In the motion put before the House last week, they were suggesting we return to controls. But I would put to the hon. member and to members of his party that if he wants the power to roll back, does he also want the power to roll back costs, including wages?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, wages in this country have already been rolled back and workers are making less this year than they were last year, in terms of real dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Nine per cent versus six per cent.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would like to ask the minister, who is always looking into things, about the following. Nine days ago he took notice of a question from my leader about the price of flour in this country. It was based on the fact that a 5 Vi pound bag of flour went up by some 41 cents, while the subsidy the minister in charge of the Wheat Board took away was worth only 22 cents. He said he would look into why there was such an excessive-almost double-mark-up. What are the results of his investigation? He has had nine days to do something: surely to God that is long enough.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as with several other questions that were put to me by the NDP about detailed price questions, I have prepared answers and I have sent them to members of the NDP, in many cases by mail because they were too long to give in this House. I sent one a few days ago respecting steel, and there was one a few weeks ago on another subject; I think it was with respect to lumber. There is one in preparation, which will go out very shortly, on the question of flour and bread.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the House has the right to know the answers to questions we are posing. I will try once more.
The organization call CSIP, which is now dead, reported a few months ago that the profits for beverage companies were excessively high, yet we notice in the press this morning that beer companies in Quebec have raised the price of beer by 9 per cent across the board.
I ask the minister, what will he do about this in view of the fact their profits are excessively high? Will the minister look into the possibility of price fixing, since three of the largest companies announced price increases at precisely the same time?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have under way several investigations with respect to price fixing and other infractions under the combines act. These are being pursued by the director of investigation under the combines act and charges are being laid from time to time.
With respect to the other matter that the hon. member mentioned concerning allegations with respect to profits, as I mentioned in my remarks last week, much depends on the base
March 7, 1979

upon which you start. There is no doubt in my mind that profits in many areas of the food industry were very low in 1976, so an increase in profits in some cases is warranted. The AIB, which studied profit margins in the food industry last summer and again in the fall, pointed out very strongly that the profit margins were quite in accord with historic norms and were not out of line.


FISHERIES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. On November 22, 1978 the minister announced that for conservation purposes capelin would no longer be fished in the North Atlantic. At the same time he announced a new study and review of the question of stocks this month. Could the minister tell us whether he intends to announce his new policy concerning capelin fishing in 1979?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that following the meeting taking place today in Montreal we will be able to announce our overall policy; however, I can already indicate that scientists are in favour of setting low quotas and that offshore fishing will be first affected. Whenever possible, quotas will be attributed to inshore fishermen. In this regard, I must remind the hon. member that a good deal of the capelin fishing is done outside the 200-mile limit and that we therefore need the international co-operation on which we seem to be able to rely for the time being.


INQUIRY WHETHER QUOTAS WILL BE INCREASED FOR CANADIAN FISHERMEN
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that the reduction in catches was attributable instead to excessive fishing by the Russian fleet, could the minister advise the House whether the quotas for Canadian fishermen will be increased, as this is a type of fishing which can be exploited on this side of the Atlantic and which could be of benefit to us in Canada?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can accept the hon. member's premise that the damage to our fish stocks is due to only one country. Undoubtedly there exist other factors about which we are not yet sufficiently informed, including the events which have affected capelin stocks and which have not
Oral Questions
yet been accounted for. Because of this situation we have taken precautionary measures by reducing quotas as much as possible for the current year. But I repeat that stocks will be reserved first for coastal fishermen.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I ask it of him as he is the clear authority on dates in this House. I tried to get the information from other ministers, without success.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to tell the House that he will see that there is brought into this House before the final days of this parliament a bill dealing with freedom of information? Is he prepared to agree that it should go to committee of the whole, with a free vote, in the hope that what might be a defective bill will be improved and the somewhat tarnished legislative record can be brightened by a good bill being passed in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 am informed by the Deputy Prime Minister that the status of this bill is such that we could bring into the House fairly soon. I hope the hon. member will be patient for a little while longer.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, having been patient for several years, I can be patient for a couple more weeks. Can the Prime Minister assure us that the bill will be brought in before parliament ends, and that it is not his wish to avoid its being introduced because of the various political skeletons in the closet of the PMO?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It follows on the motion successfully introduced a few moments ago by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.
May I ask the minister what assistance Canada has offered in enabling Egypt and Israel to take advantage of President Carter's presence in the Middle East this weekend and finally come to a political accommodation that can put into place a strategically important cornerstone in constructing a new framework for permanent peace in the Middle East?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was, of course, more than happy to

March 7, 1979
Oral Questions
see the right hon. member's motion, as were all members of the House.
The Prime Minister was given, as I believe he indicated to the House, a briefing on the Middle East situation in Washington on Saturday. In addition, it has been known for some time that we have indicated to all of the parties concerned, including the United States, that if there is, for example, a United Nation's component in any force that may be established as part of the peacekeeping mechanism, we will consider most sympathetically participation in that kind of exercise.
If, in addition to that, the various parties, including Israel and Egypt, were to see some other advantages or role for Canada, in that case also we would respond in as forthcoming a way as possible to any request.
Mir. Roche: In addition to any possible extension of our peacekeeping role, specifically, has the government engaged in consultations that could lead to stronger Canadian economic relationships with Israel and Egypt that would reflect our conviction that a great era of economic and social development lies ahead in the whole Middle East once the pillar of peace is put in place?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. To the extent you will permit me, I can designate two or three examples. In the case of Egypt, we already have a co-operation arrangement in place under which we have provided within the last few months considerable assistance with regard to electrification in that country. There is also a locomotives order, if my memory serves me right, in the order of several million dollars on which we have also provided financial assistance. Several other projects are either being discussed or advanced with that country.
We do, of course, have the closest working relationship with Israel. During the visit of Prime Minister Begin last autumn, we talked about improving the trade balances between our two countries and the level of trade, and specific discussions have been held on those subjects as well. I would have to check the records to see what precise items were involved, but certainly we are committed to the strongest kind of trade relationship with that country.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, who is in charge of the ARDA program. Last year I sought assurances from the minister that a new agreement would be signed with Ontario-a five-year agreement rather than simply an extension. At that time I was told that the negotiations were progressing favourably.

I further sought assurances that Ontario would receive the same treatment as all other provinces in this regard. I now find that the minister is endeavouring to make Ontario sign an agreement which would not provide any funding for southern Ontario or western Ontario, by which I mean west of Belleville. The federal government does not wish to provide any funding for that part of the province. I wonder why the minister has reneged on his former commitment.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions we extended the ARDA program with the province of Ontario even if we had indicated our intention to terminate that program, but we did so for very good reasons. And when last fall, following the budgetary cuts, we decided to terminate the ARDA program since it was operating only in Ontario, we indicated that we would be prepared to consider some projects within an agreement to be negotiated, which would apply to the eastern part of Ontario. Being satisfied that the agricultural situation has improved considerably in the western part of Ontario, to which the hon. member is referring, we want now to concentrate our effort and allocate the necessary capital to improve the agricultural picture in the eastern part of the province.


Robert Elgin McKinley: It seems to me that the other provinces are not treated in this way. For instance, all of Quebec is covered by the ARDA agreement. I wonder what the problem is. Is it because there are no ministers from western Ontario who have any clout?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Windsor West.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as the minister with responsibilities for international trade negotiations. Would he report to the House today or at an early date on the trade negotiations with the United States which some journalists have reported could be leading to a free trade arrangement with that country?
If negotiations are moving toward such an arrangement, can he assure us that there will be no final commitment on it until there has been a full study of it by the House, including public hearings by one of its committees on the implications for our industry and its workers and the existence of adequate safeguards for them under any such arrangement?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: I can give the hon. member
March 7, 1979

Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS
an assurance that there have not been discussions with the United States with a view to establishing a free trade area.
The Minister of Finance met with Ambassador Strauss on February 23 to discuss and, if possible, settle a number of outstanding bilateral issues between Canada and the United States within the over-all context of the multilateral trade negotiations. I can report that progress has been made. The Minister of Finance is again meeting with Mr. Strauss on his current visit to Washington and, hopefully, further progress will be made. But I would again underline that these discussions are within the context of the trade negotiations and whatever arrangements are reached with the United States would obviously be multilateralized, if I can use that dreadful word, under the most favoured nation arrangements.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that progress has been made in these discussions, discussions which significantly affect Canada's trading situation. Will he give us an undertaking that the details of what he calls progress will be made available to the House of Commons either by way of a statement from himself or from his colleague, the Minister of Finance, which would make public information on arrangements which will materially affect Canada's future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it will certainly be the intention of the government to make public the details of these trade negotiations when they are completed. We are at present attempting to bring to a conclusion our discussions with the United States and we still have outstanding questions to settle with the European Community and with Japan. When all has been completed, we shall be making the details public, but it is impossible at the moment to be certain when that will be.


Charles Joseph Clark: We were given to understand by the government that these arrangements are expected to be completed by the end of this month. The Deputy Prime Minister spoke earlier about specific progress having been made. Can he tell us whether to this point any firm agreements have been reached on specific matters in the course of those discussions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. All these discussions are, first of all, ad referendum to the cabinet and the cabinet will have the final word as to what is proposed by those of us who are involved in the negotiations. We shall not be able to reach a conclusion on all facets of the discussions until we are satisfied that the result is a balanced one for Canada, and we cannot determine that until all the cards are in place.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is the Deputy Prime Minister telling us, then, that no details of these discussions presently under way with the United States will be made available to parliament or to the people of Canada until after an election?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that.


PROFITS OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS-RESULTANT PRICE INCREASES
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises from the recent Reisman report and the previous Arthur report which showed auto manufacturing companies were getting higher profits on Canadian car sales than on sales in the United States.
In view of the latest CPI figures which showed that car and truck prices have increased by 11.2 per cent over last year, can the minister tell us what he intends to do to roll back this increase which is obviously inflationary?


William Warren Allmand: As the hon. member knows, during the past three years the Anti-Inflation Board was dealing with prices, profits, wages, and so on, and it has not been my responsibility to watch this aspect of the automotive industry.


John R. Rodriguez: The minister well knows that the controls which were in effect under the AIB were very effective when it came to controlling wages. Now we have a situation where price increases in this field amount to 11.2 per cent. Is the minister prepared to say to this House and to the country that he is unable to do anything about increasing prices in the field? If he is saying that, will he at least be honest and tell us so?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that we are opposed to further controls at this time. The New Democratic Party now seems to want controls, which its members voted against three years ago.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Perhaps this does not happen in the House very often, but I want to thank the minister for the agreement with the churches regarding refugees coming from Southeast Asia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: On Friday last the minister was at a federal-provincial meeting regarding the minimum and maximum number of refugee landings which would be possible for 1979. At that meeting the provinces asked the minister to give specific details as to federal commitments on language training and infrastructure for refugee landings.
I would like to ask the minister whether those matters were resolved and, specifically, whether the government has committed itself to increasing the number of refugee landings from
3906

March 7, 1979
Oral Questions
Southeast Asia in addition to the ones to which the churches have now committed themselves.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the hon. member for his commendation, not so much of me or the government but of the groups which are participating in private sponsorship. They were quick off the mark and the central committee of the Mennonite Church was the first group with which I signed an agreement just last Monday.
Insofar as the numbers are concerned, I had a good discussion with my provincial colleagues on Friday. The numbers which will come under private sponsorship will be in addition to those sponsored by the federal and provincial governments.
Insofar as language training is concerned, the same rules are applicable. Where an individual or both adult individuals in a family go into the work force, language training is the responsibility of the federal government. If, however, only one member of a family enters the labour force, language training for that individual is provided by the federal government but language training for the other spouse and the children of the family is a provincial responsibility. It is one of the provincial responsibilities with regard to participation in refugee and immigration movement.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Under the provisions of the new Immigration Act, the minister must file with parliament the annual target of the government with regard to the number of landings for the coming year. The minister put that target at 100,000 for the present year. If he is contemplating increasing the number of refugee landings beyond what he originally proposed and then expanded, are those landings still within the 100,000 total annual flow or has the minister adjusted the 100,000 as well?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, by its very nature the question is hypothetical and I am not very keen on answering it on that basis, but I will say that I think much will depend on where the increase is. For example, if we indicated that we would take 10,000 refugees per year out of the 100,000, and we are getting toward the end of the year and we get into a situation where we suddenly have to take in many more refugees, then in that particular instance obviously the number would go over 100,000. If it happens early in the year, we would probably stick with our 100,000 level to see what impact that would have. If we could not work it out, I would meet with my provincial colleagues again for discussions.
There is nothing hard and fast about the 100,000. We can increase that number if it is necessary, but the provinces and the federal government do have some opportunity for planning based on the figures we anticipate for the calendar year.


NUMBER OF IMMIGRANTS TO BE ADMITTED ANNUALLY
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister. If the annual quota or expected total remains the same, is it not a fact that if there is an increase in the refugee allotment, this is at the expense of

the ordinary flow of immigration; and what is the view of the government toward those people who have normal expectations of immigration, under this new quota system?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of consulting with the provinces was to make a determination of what might be, first, an appropriate global level for the number of immigrants and, then, the number of refugees we might anticipate. We did not see that number of refugees having a detrimental effect on what the hon. member has called the ordinary flow of immigrants. If we found it was having that effect, obviously I would meet with my colleagues and suggest we move that up to whatever number is necessary. However, I have to do that in consultation. Under the present legislation I can no longer do it unilaterally.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). Appendix C of the Loto Canada document which was tabled on February 21 indicated that all matters relating to the contract between Loto Canada and General Instrument would be finalized at eleven o'clock on Monday, March 5. That Monday has now passed, and I wonder if the minister can tell me whether money changed hands at that time and whether the contract initially entered into between Loto Canada and General Instrument has now gone by the boards and is a fail accompli.


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, God in Her wisdom, and Harold Ballard to the contrary, as a woman who is up on her feet in this House of Commons I would like to say that I consider Mr. Ballard's remarks to be a disgrace to all women in Canada, and the answer to the hon. member's question is yes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the minister has an easy way of smuggling in a few other ideas.
On seven occasions in this House the minister indicated that she was not able to table the contract between Loto Canada and General Instrument, but that after the matter was settled the contract might be available to the House. As recorded at page 1797 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said to the Leader of the Opposition:
The Leader of the Opposition suggests that there is a waste of money. The minister has told us that when the contracts are completed, she will table them if they are requested.
The Prime Minister was referring to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), and I am now making such a
March 7, 1979

request. I wonder if the minister will be able to table the contract between Loto Canada and General Instrument before the end of this week.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, it was my earnest desire to table that contract. However, there is a confidentiality clause within it which remains in effect even after the cancellation of the contract. Therefore, I am unable to table it. 1 have asked the lawyers of the corporation to keep me informed as to whether there will be a time when that contract will no longer be confidential. If there is, I will bring it forward as the Prime Minister suggested.

[ Translation]



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
The population of Quebec has been deprived of its Voyageur bus service for several months. Does the minister intend to participate personally in the negotiations between Voyageur Colonial Ltd. and its bus drivers and can he tell the House whether he expects the conflict to be settled in the near future?


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the federal mediator pursues his effort to find a solution to that conflict through personal meetings with both parties.
I agree with the hon. member for Gaspe that the general public, the residents of 450 municipalities are affected by that conflict. I urge both parties to co-operate fully with the federal mediator, particularly when we consider the fact that the company has endorsed the principle of the hourly wage, 1 think, instead of the mileage compensation system, so the time has come to accelerate their negotiations. Personally, I do not intend to interfere at this time.
* *



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce perhaps I can direct my question to his parliamentary secretary or to whomever is responsible for answering for that department.
In the new assistance program for the lagging shipbuilding industry in Canada, announced just recently by the government, it is very evident that much of this assistance is slated for the east and west coast areas and very little, if any, is
Oral Questions
earmarked for the Great Lakes shipbuilding industry. I would like to ask the government to take a long, hard look at this program in order to correct any injustices or hardships to the Great Lakes shipbuilding industry.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in its accouncement the federal government provided for amounts to be allocated for ships or ferries to be built or repaired in Canadian shipyards and, therefore the Great Lakes shipbuilding industry will also be able to tender for those works.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he would take the necessary steps to assure the Great Lakes shipbuilding industry that all applications for assistances will be given the same consideration as those received from the east and west coast areas.
[ Translation]


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, of course the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as well as the minister will give as much consideration to the Great Lakes shipyards as to others across the country.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In response to a letter, the minister stated that it is only sensible for the CRTC to impose some sort of limit on the number of foreign signals which are allowed into the Canadian market. Therefore, does the minister support the stated policy of the CRTC of limiting Canadian cablevision systems to the distribution of a maximum of three commercial stations not licensed to serve Canada?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with that policy of the CRTC. It is designed to allow Canadians to view Canadian programs and to encourage the Canadian broadcasting industry to produce those programs. The hon. member is suggesting by his question that he would like to see Canada submerged in American programs to a degree that there would not be a Canadian broadcasting industry any more. I am surprised at that kind of a question coming from the hon. member.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised about the minister's inference from what I have said. Obviously, she did not understand the intent of my question.

March 7, 1979
Oral Questions
In view of the reality of earth stations and the technology which indicates that in a few years earth stations will be a viable option for the private receiver, why does the minister talk in terms of limiting the freedom of choice of Canadians, instead of saying that through technology Canadians should be able to make their own choice of stations throughout the world via satellite? Why does the minister not support the expanded freedom of choice of Canadians and respect their right to do so?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member does not quite understand how the satellite system operates. One has to program a Canadian satellite with the signals one wants people to be able to receive. Even when there is an individual receiving station, that station just cannot be simply beamed anywhere. There are international agreements which preclude allowing an earth station to be beamed on just anybody's satellite.
We decided 10 or 12 years ago to go into the space industry precisely because we wanted to maintain a sovereignty in the field of communications. If one has one's own satellite, then it can be programmed to allow for the distribution of signals, which new earth station policy will allow to be done more effectively and more flexibly.

[ Translation]



REQUEST THAT MINISTER LIQUIDATE DEFICIT OF CANADIAN ALPINE SKI ASSOCIATION

Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). In January I sent her a letter asking that her department provide financial help for team "C" of the Canadian Alpine Ski Association. As these athletes are not chosen on the basis of the money they can bring to or collect for the association but on the basis of their skiing talents, is the minister prepared to reconsider her decision and provide the $35,000 needed to make up the deficit of the Canadian Alpine Ski Association?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the sport governing body is supreme in our system. The Canadian Alpine Ski Association underestimated the amount it would need for this year's program. There has been some $720,000 spent on skiing by my department this year, of which $325,000 was for Alpine skiing: $63,000 in the world cup, $147,000 in competition, and $115,000 in training.
I presume the hon. member is referring to two people, the Pratt family of the "C" pool of skiers who have been asked to provide some funds to the sport governing body to assist with the "A" pool training program. They would be refunded at the end of this year.

The hon. member's motion under Standing Order 43 stated that this was a result of Loto Canada profits. Somehow or other he must have forgotten that 82.5 per cent of the profits of Loto Canada go to defray the Olympic debt until the end of 1979. There will be funds up to $24 million for sport, starting in 1980; that is, if people do not listen to the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As I said, since the young members of team "C" are not chosen on the basis of their family's or their own wealth, does the minister think it is normal that they should be the ones to finance the benefit of the Canadian Alpine Ski Association?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, that is a decision of their sport governing body, and this government does not interfere in the decisions of sport governing bodies in these matters.



INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TAKEN TO SETTLE DISPUTE AT LAPRADE PLANT, MONT-GABRIEL

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and concerns the current negotiations with the Laprade plant in Quebec. Last summer, when the Quebec Liberal caucus met in Mont-Gabriel, a brief on the Laprade plant was presented to the Prime Minister. This brief expressed complete disgust with the Canadian government's attitude because, after having virtually imposed a settlement on the province, the government had, with little or no consultations, revised its position. Could the minister tell us, in light of his consultations with his provincial counterpart, what kind of arrangement he is working on or getting ready to announce?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and I met very recently with two Quebec ministers, the minister of finance and the minister of energy. At that meeting it was quite clear that the province of Quebec is prepared to negotiate an extension of the completion date for the Laprade heavy water plant. That was made clear in the discussions and I believe subsequently by comments the Quebec minister of energy made publicly.
As to the other energy projects which might be undertaken with the assistance of the federal government, that is a matter presently under discussion.
March 7, 1979


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will surely remember that the brief warned him to avoid making the present Quebec government solely responsible for this difficult situation since things had begun to deteriorate long before the PQ came to power. Having read this brief, can the Prime Minister tell us' if he has advised his ministers to co-operate more closely on the major problems of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the hon. member's initial question and I am not very familiar with the brief mentioned. He will probably wish to send me a copy. I think, however, that the people of Quebec have repeatedly indicated which party they feel can best look after their interests, and it is not his party.
Oral Questions



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Recently, the summer student job centres opened up in the Peel and Halton regions and 1 understand they are already off to a very strong start. I should like to ask the minister if this indicates another improved year for summer student jobs in general right across the country-


An hon. Member:: Hypothetical.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
*
* *
* *
*



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to address my question to the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers.
Figures released by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation show that housing starts for February are down 45 per cent, from 11,761 last year to 6,413 this year. In view of these figures, can the minister explain to the House when he will introduce specific measures to prevent massive unemployment in the construction industry and to allow Canadians affordable housing?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of optimism justified in terms of construction, industrial and manufacturing plant expansion. The construction association in the housebuilding industry has had five or six years of very high-level housing starts. The view has been put that there will not be a requirement for the same number of housing starts that prevailed over the last five or ten years. I think in each of the last five years they exceeded well over 200,000, or closer to 250,000.
It is doubtful there will be a requirement for that level of starts, so the industry is going to move into industrial and commercial enterprises, as well as the expansion of large plants, energy projects and many others about which the construction industry should be justifiably optimistic.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it stems from the case of a German born Vancouver resident, Herman Von Pfetten, but it stands to affect many thousands of Canadian citizens who were not born in this country. Mr. Von Pfetten was arrested in the United States on an extradition request by Germany. After a scathing attack on the procedure, a United States magistrate dismissed the case.
I would like to ask the minister about the treaty that Canada has drafted with Germany dealing with extradition, which treaty is expected to be ratified later this year. Will that treaty be retroactive, and will it affect Canadian citizens who may have been born in some other country such as Germany? Will they be subject to extradition requests to Germany, a state which does not extradite its own nationals to any other state?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I share his satisfaction with the outcome of what was a most unfortunate and, as it turned out, unwarranted action against the gentleman in question in the courts. As the hon. member knows, he has been totally exonerated and the case is now closed.
In light of the notice I received, I have been able to get this answer, that the treaty to which the hon. member has made reference must be approved by the German parliament, and that has not as yet taken place. We have had a reciprocal extradition arrangement in effect with West Germany since March, 1974.
On the specific point of the hon. member's question, as it does not apply to offences committed before March, 1974, in the case in question they could not have proceeded against the

March 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. R. Stewart
gentleman. In any event, there is a considerably more complex legal explanation which I will be glad to send the hon. member by letter, if he so desires.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the minister could give us a projected date for the passage and ratification of this treaty, and could he tell us whether copies are available?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would imagine, on the second part, the answer is yes. I would have to make inquiries. I am afraid I have a hard enough job predicting what matters are going to be passed through this House. 1 do not know what happens in the German parliament, but I will make inquiries.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, some 11 years ago it was my privilege to be chosen by my people in the Cochrane riding to represent them in the Parliament of Canada. I have done my best to serve them ever since.
Being a person of frank expression, I have never hesitated to voice my disagreement. It became clear that any opposition to policy on the part of the troops is not looked upon with favour by the government.
A few years ago 1 became increasingly disillusioned following the famous musings of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on national television when he stated that the free enterprise system had failed. I could not accept that kind of thinking. The free enterprise system is what made the United States great and brought Canada on the road to becoming a great nation.
Later that year many of my colleagues were scandalized when the Prime Minister stated in no uncertain terms at a meeting of Ontario MPs that he had come into politics to move the country further to the left and he had never abandoned that goal.
Feeling that I could not accept this thinking, nor could I change it, I thought seriously of resigning from the caucus. This would have been a betrayal of those who had elected me as a Liberal because it was not long after the last election, so 1 did nothing in that regard. However, now that this parliament is playing an overtime period, the circumstances are vastly different. It is abundantly clear to me that Canada must reject a further drift to the left and it is time for me to take a serious stand.
I fully realize that I shall be making a great personal sacrifice by taking this action today, but my feelings for the principles involved run very high indeed. There is no amount of personal security that could make up for a failure on my part to come to grips with my gut feeling that to do otherwise would be a betrayal of my commitment to Canada and the people I have served.


Several years before I got into active politics, I was already fighting in favour of bilingualism and the French fact in Canada. I believed that better understanding was necessary to promote Canadian unity. I worked hard and I became one of the first advisors on bilingualism within the public service.

In respect of bilingualism and Canadian unity, it is my opinion that the whole problem has been handled badly. Our country is less united that it was ten years ago. The government has gone about it the wrong way and has even allowed it to become a personal vendetta amoung a few elite, including the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec. The climate created as a result has been one which pits faction against faction and threatens the very existence of Canada as a nation.
The potential of Canada, in my view, is great. It is my feeling that the present governmental policies will not develop that potential.
Accordingly, I have decided, after consultation with my wife and a few respected associates, to leave the Liberal caucus and seek to take my seat with the Progressive Conservative caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]



MR. ALLARD-DELAY IN ANSWERING ORDER PAPER QUESTION

Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to question No. 356 which is on the order paper since October 24-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Rimouski has the floor.


Eudore Allard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it is in order, but I would like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to question No. 356 which has been on the order paper since October 24, 1978. Since I did not receive any answer yet, I would ask the parliamentary secretary what is his position on that matter.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I had a look at the question. It does concern several departments and agencies and it has been referred to whom it may concern. We are expecting the results of the steps we took in order to be able to give the hon. member the most complete answer possible without undue delay.
March 7, 1979



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Agreed.']
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 77, 180, 525 and 939.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



Mr. Jones: 1.	Was the move to decentralize the Superannuation Branch of the Department of Supply and Services originally planned for Moncton, New Brunswick? Upon whose recommendation was Moncton chosen and on what basis?
2.	What costs were entailed in planning and preparing for the move of the said Superannuation Branch to Moncton, New Brunswick?
3.	Why was the change made to go to Shediac, New Brunswick? What additional costs were necessitated by such a change? Whose recommendation was followed to change the destination from Moncton to Shediac? And on what basis?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: 1. The decision to relocate the superannuation branch of the Department of Supply and Services to the Moncton area in New Brunswick, not the city of Moncton-was approved by the Treasury Board early in 1976 and announced on June 14, 1976. The Moncton area was recommended by the Department of Supply and Services and the Treasury Board task force on decentralization.
2.	Not applicable. See following answer (number 3).
3.	The relocation of the superannuation branch to the Moncton area community of Shediac is consistent with the original decision by the Treasury Board. There are therefore no additional cost associated with planning and preparing for the move.


LYTTON INDIAN BAND-HOUSING PROJECT
Mr. Patterson: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development receive a bid for work on a housing project for the Lytton Indian Band from Carter Building Systems in 1977?
2.	Did the Department receive a bid for work on a housing project for the Lytton Indian Band from the Matsqui Correctional Institution in 1977 and, if so (a) what hourly wage rate was used by the Matsqui Institution in determining their costs (b) what is the Department's policy regarding federal minimum wage rates on departmental projects?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Ministry of the Solicitor General as follows:
Order Paper Questions
1.	No. However, the Lytton Band has responsibility for administering its own housing programs on its own reserves. We understand that a bid was received from Carter Building Systems but was not accepted by the band.
2.	No, but it is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development understanding that the Matsqui Correctional Institute submitted a bid to the Lytton Band.
(a)	One dollar per hour.
(b)	Normally, the policy of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding wage rates on departmental projects is to pay either the provincial or the federal minimum wage rate, whichever is higher.
Note: Chapter VIII of the sub-committee's report on the penitentiary system in Canada, 1977 particularly refers to work education and training. Recommendations 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 underline the necessity for further development of industries within the Canadian penitentiary service and, with the Solicitor General's agreement in principle, these recommendations are now in the process of being implemented.
However, the Canadian penitentiary service has been operating an industrial program for many years. The construction of modular housing is only one aspect of the program. The objective of this program is to ensure that inmates would be fully, regularly and suitably employed at tasks that would train them to operate and hold employment upon their return to society. It would also assist in defraying the cost to the public of operating the Canadian penitentiary service.
Prior to the construction of modular units for Indian bands, inmates under the program would build structures as a phase of training. At the end of the training period, the training structures would be demolished. To eliminate this waste of materials and the frustration of inmates in knowing that what they had built would serve no useful purpose, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Canada penitentiary service developed the modular housing program. The training program leads to inmates learning a trade thus enhancing their potential for resocialization and their chances of being absorbed into the labour market on release. Many of the inmates undertaking the training are Indians and, on release, return to the reserves to assist in the band's housing construction program.


SHIPS ON CHARTER TO CN MARINE
Mr. Muir: 1.	What are the names of the ships on charter to CN Marine?
2.	For what service are they chartered and at what cost?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1. Marine Nautica	Marine Voyager
Marine Atlantica	M. V. Kloster
Marine Cruiser	M. V. Clyde
Marine Evangeline	M. V. Sarah
Princess of Acadia	Marine Coaster
Marine Sprinter	M. V. Glencoe

March 7, 1979
Order Paper Questions
Marine Runner	M. V. Mount Blair
Marine Packer	Marine	Transport
Topsail Star	Marine Trader
Dunure
2. The ships are chartered for mainland Newfoundland, Bay of Fundy, and Newfoundland-Labrador service. It is not the practice of the company to disclose financial details of commercial transactions between itself and persons or firms providing services.


DEFENCE INDUSTRY PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM
Mr. Crosbie: 1. For the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76 (c) 1976-77 (d) 1977-78, under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Defence Industry Productivity Programme (DIP) or any successor programme under the Enterprise Development Programme (EDP), what was the number and total value of contracts (i) between $0 and $50,000 (ii) between $50,001 and $100,000 (iii) between $100,001 and 500,000 (iv) between $500,001 and 1,000,000 (v) $1,000,001 or more (vi) in total?
2.	For the same years, what were the expenditures of the Department under the Defence Industry Productivity Programme (DIP) or any successor programme under the Enterprise Development Programme (EDP) in (a) the Textile and Consumer Products Branch (b) the Agriculture, Fisheries & Food Products Branch (c) the Chemicals Branch (d) the Electrical and Electronics Branch (e) the Machinery Branch (0 the Resource Industries Branch (g) the Construction and Consulting Services Branch (h) all branches?
3.	For the same years, by province and territory, what was the total in grants and contributions by the Department under the Defence Industry Productivity Programme (DIP) or any successor programme under the Enterprise Development Programme (EDP)?


Hon.   Jack. H. Horner@Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	See list No. 1 below.
2.	See list No. 2 below.
3.	See list No. 3 below.
The Defence Industry Productivity Program has remained separate from the Enterprise Development Program.
Department of Industry Trade and Commerce Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP)
Number and Total Value of Contracts
$0 to $50,000	$50,001 to	$100,001 to	$500,001 to	$1,000,001 and over	Total$100,000	$500,000	$1,000,000	No.	Value	No.	Value	No.	Value	No.	Value	No.	Value	No.	Value1974/75	15	$507,983	11	$873,515	37	$10,479,098	2	$1,170,030	11	$39,469,513	76	$52,500,1391975/76	6	$224,150	4	$280,210	19	$5,080,462	6	$4,506,519	5	$8,771,718	40	$18,863,0591976/77	13	$390,156	11	$785,007	41	$11,310,286	7	$4,483,451	12	$39,684,901	84	$56,653,8011977/78	8	$197,586	15	$1,153,252	38	$9,104,099	8	$5,474,760	12	$48,802,784	81	$64,732,481Total	42	$1,319,875	41	$3,091,984	135	$35,973,945	23	$15,634,760	40	$136,728,916	281	$192,749,480Department of Industry Trade and Commerce Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP) Expenditures	N.B. Contributions $96,316 Grants $705,200 $801,516	$186,591 $11,489 $198,080	$6,698 $102,364 $109,062	1974/75	1975/76 1976/77	1977/78 p.E.I.	-	-	- -Textile and Consumer	Ont.	Products Branch	-	-	-	-	Contributions	$26,469,886	$17,215,217	$23,492,564	$17,079,003Agriculture, Fisheries	Grants	$2,592,294	$3,156,821	$3,180,673	$3,089,392and Food Products	$29,062,180	$20,372,038	$26,673,237	$20,168,395Branch	-	-	-	-	Que.	Chemicals Branch	$299,156	$403,199	$103,687	$5,036,840	Contributions	$14,231,739	$14,836,634	$15,201,725	$21,719,802Electrical and	Grants	$2,698,992	$2,511,402	$2,006,271	$703,137Electrics Branch	$7,669,717	$6,158,180	$8,509,476	$11,270,445	$16,930,731	$17,348,036	$17,207,996	$22,422,939Machinery Branch	$507,306	$474,328	$787,331	$651,791	Man.	Resource Industries	Contributions	$34,081	$403,787	-	-and Construction	Grants	$31,036	-	-	-Branch	$195,281	$294,888	$584,282	$207,964	$65,117	$403,787	-	-Transportation	Sask.	Industries Branch	$39,758,559	$31,669,405	$34,915,224	$26,042,598	Contributions	-	-	-	-Grants	Total	$48,430,019	$39,000,000	$44,900,000	$43,209,638	Alberta	Department of Industry Trade and Commerce	Contributions	$89,376 non	$16,686	-	-Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP)	Grants	$27,989 $117,365	$4,777 $21,463	-	-1974/75	1975/76	1976/77	1977/78	B.C.	Nfld.	Contributions	-	-	-	38,746Contributions	Grants	$219,345	$253,995	$145,570	$512,645Grants	$219,345	$253,995	$145,570	$551,391N.S.	National	Contributions	$643,142	$402,601	$690,395	$66,913	Contributions	$41,564,540	$33,061,516	$39,391,382	$38,904,464Grants	$590,623	$73,740	Grants	$6,865,479	$5,938,484	$5,508,618	$4,305,174$1,233,765	$402,601	$764,135	$66,913	Total	$48,430,019	$39,000,000	$44,900,000	$43,209,638

March 7, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is very brief. It has to do with amenities provided for members of parliament. I just wanted to draw the matter to your attention and to ask you, sir, if this is to continue, to check into getting facilities to dry out the fur of hon. members who jump off ships.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with a notice for the production of papers to which the parliamentary secretary has in fact referred but once again has not dealt with. I refer to motion No. 1 standing in my name. It deals with production of documents relating to the establishment of a uranium refinery in the province of Saskatchewan.
This motion is the first motion on that particular list. A number of subsequent motions have now been dealt with by the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the government. This is not the first occasion on which I have asked for the production of those particular documents. In fact, it has been a longstanding request and goes back to previous parliaments, but it has been refused.
Women's Right to Work
Saskatchewan is on the verge of very considerable expansion in terms of its uranium industry, and I think that it is absolutely essential in the dying days of this parliament that the government produce the documents so that the people of Saskatchewan will know what has been done with respect to the establishment of a uranium refinery and with respect to environmental studies in the areas of Saskatoon and Warman.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to direct his mind to obtaining a response to those particular requests and that he ask for the appropriate documents so that they can be tabled in the interests of western Canada and the people of Saskatchewan in particular.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if the papers involved can be tabled, they will be. If not, the motion can then be debated. I see the hon. member has already gone ahead and tried to debate his own motion even before a decision was reached on whether or not the papers would be tabled. As far as we are concerned, we shall follow the usual procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for documents be be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont) moved:: That this House recognizes the unqualified right of women to work in any and all fields of endeavour and that it urges the government to set an example for the private sector through:
(1)	employment programs and practices based on the fundamental premise of the equality of women and of their right to work;
(2)	economic planning that reflects the reality that women will continue to want to work and that the influx of women into the labour market is not a temporary aberration;
(3)	thorough study of the pension situation of women with special emphasis on the relation between low wages and low pensions; and
(4)	adoption of policies that will put an end to the serious exploitation of immigrant women in the Canadian labour force.


Mr. Speaker:: Members will recall that proceedings on this motion will expire in accordance with Standing Order 58(11) at the ordinary hour of adjournment this day.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is an important day in that it marks one year plus one day since we last debated the situation of women in this House. On that
3914

March 7, 1979
Women's Right to Work
instance the motion was moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). It is perhaps symptomatic in the decline and disintegration of this government that we are forced again to debate today, by way of an opposition day motion, the unqualified right of women to work in the occupation of their choice, and that we must in fact urge the government to set an example in this regard to both the public and the private sectors.
One would have thought after almost a decade following the report of the royal commission on the status of women in 1970, the establishment of numerous advisory councils, both federal and provincial, and the enunciation since 1972 of equal opportunity programs for women in the public service along with a declaration of support from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on down for the equality of opportunities for women, that such a motion today would be both unnecessary and irrelevant.
The tragic facts are, however, that in the last few months we have seen a growing response on the part of concerned Canadians, and particularly those women's groups that try to reflect the current status of women, nationally and provincially, to the point where it is now a virtual outcry. It was perhaps most clearly focused in the statement issued by the chairman of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women at the most recent quarterly meetings on January 10, 1979. The opening paragraph of her statement stands as a sorry tribute to the government's present record with respect to women in the work force. Here is what Madame Yvette Rousseau had to say in her opening paragraph:
After considerable study, consultation and discussion I have come to a tragic conclusion: not only Canadian women are excluded from the employment strategy proposed by the Canadian government, but they are subtly evicted from the labour force. This conclusion is all the more bitter in that it questions women's right to work. After ten years of in-depth studies, conclusive research and multiple recommendations, such are the facts.
Madame Rousseau then goes on to state some of the collective experiences both of the advisory council and other bodies concerned with women's right to work. She mentions some of the historic developments which have taken place in the last decade, and goes on to say:
I will mention only a few documents and organizations which have clearly explained the realities of women's lives and their claims: the Bird Commission, Provincial and Federal Status of Women Councils, "Carrefour 75" in Quebec, and the latest Quebec Status of Women Council's report... Were those efforts in vain? Is the whole exercise considered a farce? Have those organizations been established in order to sugar-coat the "pill"-this time, a psychological and bitter one.
She continues:
But when we dissect official statements made in time of economic ill-health, we are appalled to see that women are consistently held responsible for the high rate of unemployment, though they fall victims to it more than other groups. Consequently, they are used as scape-goats and as a screen for a chronic inability to redress the economy.
In more specific terms-and I will come back to this matter in a few moments-she directly focuses on the employment strategy enunciated by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) in September, 1978. She asks these two questions:

Before it was decided to exclude women from the employment strategy, why is it that the CACSW's advice was not asked? Is an advisory council a political ornament? Are there any women on the regional working groups advising Canada Employment and Immigration Commission's sector task forces?
I understand that the minister responsible for the status of women and for this particular body which Madame Rousseau chairs will be speaking this afternoon, and I for one will be most anxious to hear what the minister, who has been in his position responsible for the status of women since 1974, has to say to these serious allegations. We know only too well what his colleague the Prime Minister thinks of these allegations because he has told us so. I raised these statements with the Prime Minister on January 23, and I asked him what steps are being taken to reverse this situation. His reply was very short and direct. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I have had a report and I can state unequivocally that either the president was not directing her remarks at the government or else she was unequivocally wrong.
In case there is any doubt in the minds of the Prime Minister or any members of the government, it is useful to look at the letter which was sent to the Minister of Employment and Immigration on June 29. I simply want to read the first two paragraphs, which are as follows:
At a special meeting of the leaders of the Advisory Councils on the Status of Women of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan held in Toronto, January 26, 1979, there was unanimous endorsation of Yvette Rousseau's position that "not only are Canadian women excluded from the employment strategies proposed by the federal government, but they are subtly evicted from the labour force."
On behalf of my colleagues I wish to reaffirm to you our conviction that every person has the right to work. Women who make up 46 per cent of the work force in this country are not secondary nor marginal workers.
That letter has still to be answered. I know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration put some specifics in writing to the six provincial and one federal advisory councils some two or three weeks later. The essential thrust of that letter, the allegations put forward by Madame Rousseau on January 10, have neither been addressed, to my knowledge, publicly or privately, by the Prime Minister, who said they were false and not directed to the government, nor by the minister responsible for the status of women. We hear almost nothing from him these days with respect to developing and deepening women's issues. There was nothing either from the Minister of Employment and Immigration who seems to be the forward advance- or, should I say, retreat-with respect to adequate programs for the status of women, particularly as their employment and right to work is affected.
It might be useful, Mr. Speaker, to review the history briefly. Hon. members will recall that in 1967 at the time of the government of Lester Pearson, a royal commission on the status of women was appointed with the distinguished member of the other place, Senator Florence Bird, as chairman. It made its major report in December, 1970. Many of the recommendations were long overdue and were implemented within a short period of time.
March 7, 1979

Interestingly enough, I believe the first debate that took place as a result of this report was instigated by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in March, 1971. There was a valuable contribution on his part as well as contributions from our former colleague from Fundy-Royal, now the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Gordon Fairweather, and others.
In March, 1971, the Prime Minister enunciated his perspective and concern with respect to the status of women-not in the House, as is so often the case,, but at a meeting of a number of Liberal faithful in Toronto.
By 1972 the cabinet had formulated directive no. 44, referred to as the status of women directive in Canada. The report of the interdepartmental committee over the hand of Mr. Gordon Robertson, then secretary to the cabinet, gave a very clear indication of what appeared to be the direction the government was taking. This directive was to ensure the implementation of recommendations from the royal commission on the status of women. In addition, it said that the Public Service Commission had embarked on an active program to promote equal opportunity for female public servants. Indeed, deputy heads of departments were directed by cabinet to take steps to encourage the assignment and advancement of more women into middle and upper echelon positions.
That was almost seven years ago. In 1974 the minister responsible for the status of women assumed his responsibilities and declared the great things that were in store for 1975, International Women's Year. In the concluding part of 1975 a more detailed cabinet document entitled "Equal Opportunities in the Public Service of Canada" was enunciated. It stated:
-the federal government as an employer actively supports the principle of equal access to employment, training and development, and career opportunities for all employees-
It went on to say:
-within a reasonable period of time representation of male and female employees in the Public Service would approximate the proportion of qualified and interested persons of both sexes available by department, by occupational group, and by level.
Program guidelines were established. Policy examination was to take place under the responsibility of Treasury Board- I will say more about this shortly-and the deputy heads of departments were expected to establish and publicize their own statements of policy consistent with the policy outlined in January, 1976. Indeed, the minister stated there was to be very active monitoring, reporting and action on the part of all levels of the federal government.
The minister himself made such statements and I should like to quote from a couple of the many speeches he made in 1975. The minister responsible for the status of women said on October 15, 1975:
We find a society that pays lip service to the principle of equality while continuing to support actions that reinforce the inequities in women's situations. Perhaps we suffer from a collective time lag between conviction and action.
Perhaps today the minister will tell us about his collective time lag between conviction and action in the past two or three years. In another instance the minister said:
Women's Right to Work
It would make a mockery of this international women's year, both in government and the private sector, if we were only to speak out against this enormous inequality without taking firm steps to end it.
Those firm steps have still been held in abeyance, Mr. Speaker. We wait to see what real action the minister is going to take.
The tragic fact is that the present government seems intent on undoing or undermining much of the rhetoric and programs that characterized the earlier years leading up to and including International Women's Year in 1975. Certainly one does not have to be a detailed student of events of the past half dozen years to realize that rising expectations and implementation of new programs were very much the order of the day, reaching a peak in International Women's Year.
If we follow the performance curve with respect to developments in employment in the public service, a kind of peak was achieved in a number of areas in terms of accelerated access for women into middle and upper levels and into training programs. The tragedy is that, as we follow that curve beyond 1975, and as the Advisory Council on the Status of Women pointed out so clearly, it has begun to go, in some cases, into rather sharp decline.
How tragic it is that in the last year or so the only time we seem to have heard from the minister responsible for the status of women is when members on this side either direct questions to him or introduce motions, as the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) did a year ago yesterday and as we are doing today, so as to create a situation by way of opposition day debates for the minister to issue some kind of defence. I sincerely hope that in his response today the minister is not going to recite, as he did last year, a catalogue that is somewhat out of date and in some ways irrelevant to the present difficult situation for women. I can understand the minister's distraction over the past two years with the current pressure of federal-provincial relations, but one must conclude either that he has not sufficient time for the present major issues confronting women in our society, or the government feels it is sufficiently unimportant to bother appointing someone who might effectively bear these important responsibilities.
There is far too much that one could recite about the present sorry performance of the government and concerning its attitude toward women in the work force. A notable example of the current direction of federal policy was the action of this government in introducing Bill C-14 last fall. As the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women pointed out, there was no advance consultation with that council or with the National Action Committee, the umbrella organization that represents 140 women's groups across the country. It was sprung on them, so to speak. Even after it went into direct correspondence with the minister about those specific areas of amendments which would do severe damage to women in the work force, in many instances the minister quoted statistics that bore no relationship to the facts. Inadvertently, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has indicated the difficulties he has created for women.

March 7, 1979
Women's Right to Work
It is interesting that in his communication to the Advisory Council on February 14, he indicated that women will suffer disproportionately from the establishment, for instance, of a 20-hour weekly minimum for insurability. He pointed out that a 2.4 per cent reduction of the total benefits would occur for women compared to a 0.7 per cent reduction for male claimants. That so disturbed the joint meeting of provincial and federal advisory councils that they appealed directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission for a decision with respect to direct discrimination against women in this act.
I am only going to deal specifically with part time workers. The advisory council had five specific objections to Bill C-14 and the National Action Committee had three. In a letter to the Minister of Employment and Immigration on January 29, they pointed out that women make up 71 per cent of part-time workers in Canada. When they raised this with an official of the Employment and Immigration Commission, he replied:
We simply do not have the data base to do that study (of part-time workers, 71 per cent of whom are women). We are now trying to determine the impact of this particular change (20 hours per week) but I am afraid that that information will not be available to us early enough to make a judgment as to whether or not the impact will be as severe as you have claimed-
What kind of nonsense is that, Mr. Speaker. With a major change in federal policy respecting part time work, the officials from the Employment and Immigration Commission tell us they do not have the facts in terms of impact and the minister is left to give statistics which, by themselves, certainly indicate severe and deliberate discrimination.
The following was drawn to the attention of the minister responsible for the status of women, and to his colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in a meeting of federal cabinet ministers which took place in Toronto on February 22. This statement is taken from the brief of the National Action Committee:
-the economic outlook for women now is less encouraging and more desperate than it was a year ago. Women have the highest unemployment rate of any group in the country and yet actions taken by your government in the intervening months have almost without exception tended to make matters worse for women.
In defence of this situation the government talks about growing participation rates creating higher unemployment situations for women, ignoring the historical reality that traditionally women have had lower unemployment rates, certainly during the 1940s and 1950s, than over the last year or so. This government not only fails to recognize the acute problem created for women because of the federal policy it is imposing, but it tries to make out that there is no particular problem.
In Toronto on February 21 I served on a panel with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Maine). This was a public forum concerning women and unemployment. When he was trying to defend the cancellation of the federal government's program with respect to the outreach program and training and re-training for women, he said, I suppose as a final act of desperation: "But women can in no way feel severely disadvantaged just because they are women". As I recall, he added the offhand

remark: "What is so special about women?" I do not know where that particular individual and his minister live, but they have not looked closely at the situation either in the private or the public sector.
I will say a few words shortly about the situation respecting the public sector particularly because that is an area of basic responsibility for this minister and the government. There are serious implications about the general trend of development of government policy. Members will recall when we were debating Bill C-10 in this House respecting changes in the family allowances and the new child tax credit that concern was raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), myself and others about the very bad precedent that would be established in terms of lumping the husband's and wife's income together for the purposes of computing the child tax credit. As we pointed out on that occasion to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), this could create a serious precedent in terms of future amendments to the Income Tax Act and to the unemployment insurance program.
I believe the minister at that time treated these comments as being wildly out of line compared to the possibilities that might occur. In case she has not heard, her colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration made a speech on March 5. In it he referred to unemployment insurance and changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. He said:
I am considering producing a "green paper", in which the problems of the program and alternatives to these problems could be spelled out. For example, there are some strong suggestions that the program ought to be restructured to take account of family income.
I trust he has shared that new development with his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Perhaps one other comment is worth noting at this point. It concerns the government's attitude on its withdrawal from the important aspect of assisting women into the work force. One of the central issues over the past few months has been the cutback with respect to the women's Outreach program. The Minister of Employment and Immigration, in seeking to explain much of the criticism he was receiving, offered this one defence for the withdrawal of the Outreach program. It is indicative of this government. He said:
Many of the women's Outreach projects were started in 1975 during International Women's Year and, because the normal duration for funding is three and a half years, many of the projects are coming to the end of their funding period.
The secret is now out. We were prepared to do things in a particular year because it was the "in" thing. The button which the minister responsible for the status of women used to wear proudly in this House which said "Why Not?" was the fad of 1975. Now we have it in holy writ that three and a half years is as long as anyone will get for any particular funding program. That is the end of that exercise. It is now "on to other and more important things".
I want to speak briefly about the situation of immigrant women workers. Nowhere does the government's present policy toward women seem more harsh and shameful than its attitude with respect to immigrant women workers. Increas-
March 7, 1979

ingly over the last decade immigrant women, either as landed immigrants or as visitors, have been brought to Canada primarily for the purpose of employment in "sweat shops" or low income work. Not only does the federal government fail to act by taking appropriate measures to improve their situation, but it ensures that there will continue to be a sufficient supply of these low income people.
The situation is even worse than that. Under the new immigration act more barriers are put in the way of those who come here to offer low paid work in terms of attaining landed immigrant status. The most dramatic example is the recent decision of the Department of Employment and Immigration with respect to Jamaican women and the government's present unbelievable attempt through the courts to prevent the Human Rights Commission from investigating aspects of discrimination which might have existed in this case. The recent report to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women by Sheila Arnopoulos pointing out the problems of immigrant women in the Canadian labour force indicates how the government adds to the exploitation, if you like, of those who come here to do domestic work.
It is clear that the government in recent years has taken a new direction with respect to immigrant women. It should be pointed out, as Sheila Arnopoulos does in her paper, that the permanent use of foreigners on temporary permits to do jobs which Canadians find unacceptable is not in the tradition of Canadian immigration practice. It is clearly a case of the exploitation of any possibility of compensation at some present or future time.
As hon. members know, I have been particularly concerned about the situation with respect to the performance by the government in its own employment practices in the public service. I have asked the minister repeatedly in this House to give a clear accounting, department by department, of what is happening to women in the public service. I have asked him to tell us where in real terms we have made progress, what goals have been achieved, what structures have been in place and where progress still needs to be made. All we receive are occasional generalized remarks, self-serving ones at that, which do little to encourage confidence or give a clear report as to what has transpired.
The advisory council, almost on an annual basis, has published report after report indicating the difficulties for women in the public service. Its most recent report has indicated again that in spite of cabinet directives in 1972 and 1975 the government's own employment practices respecting women, to use the words of the advisory council, have been a failure. I hope that the minister will indicate today why this has been so. For instance, why has it been, in comparing two programs that have tried to end discrimination in the public service, that there has been such inequality of staff support? Hopefully the minister will tell us directly why, in Treasury Board, with respect to the official languages program we have a staff of around 45 people and a budget of something over $1,300,000 but with respect to the area of equal opportunity we have a staff of two with no budget. Why has it taken, I don't know
Women's Right to Work
exactly how many years because it depends where one starts to count, but at least three and perhaps six years to have one full time person per department managing and working on equal opportunities? Last year I think there were about 15 people. Now we are up to 20. That figure is still less than half the number of departments.
A few days ago the minister told me that we are making progress, that we have a full time person in the major departments and it is not really necessary to have a full time person for the smaller ones; but perhaps the minister could tell us if there is a kind of two department policy within his government. Does he believe some departments must be more responsible with respect to equal opportunities than others? This would appear to be the case.
It is clear that in the last few years we have seen a subtle but real shift in the government's over-all approach to women in the work force. It is one with disturbing dimensions for it is reminiscent of the situation that existed in the 1930s and following the Second World War when the gains that had been made during the previous period in terms of opportunities for women in the work force had been dramatically reversed. The royal commission on the status of women very clearly pointed this out in its report on page 54, if the minister would like to refresh his memory.
In both instances it is interesting to note that the government played a major role in leading that reversal. This is what we do not want to see happen at this time of economic difficulties for the country and for this government. This is why we, Mr. Speaker, are committed to the unqualified right of women to work in any and all fields of endeavour and believe that it is the right and the responsibility of the federal government, as the largest employer of women in the country, to set an example both for the private sector and for other elements of the public sector in this country.
The recent report of the advisory council on barriers to equal opportunity points out that the federal government has lagged behind the public sector, incredibly enough, in its own employment practices in respect to women. I note with interest that yesterday, in the Speech from the Throne at Queen's Park, there was included this paragraph:
In addition to the ongoing programs of the Women's Bureau and the Women's Crown Employees Office, the Ministry of Labour will establish an Equal Opportunities Advisory Committee composed of senior labour and management representatives.
We believe that employment programs, policies and practices should indeed be based on the fundamental premise of the equality of women and of their right to work. More than that, we believe that economic planning that is so important to a healthy and fully functioning economy should reflect the reality that women will continue to want to work and play a major role in the economy, contrary to what the Minister of Finance said to me the other day when I asked about his projection of declining members of women in the work force. He said:

March 7, 1979
Women's Right to Work
-it is obvious that the rate of increase has been very high in the last few years. We do not object to it.
We believe that the influx of women into the labour market is not only not a temporary aberration or a pathological problem to be managed and if possible reduced, but a new opportunity to expand and enlarge skills and opportunities for the whole of our economy. In more specific terms, and my colleague from Kingston and the Islands will deal with this, we believe that the present pension situation with respect to women and particularly elderly women is atrocious. Particular emphasis must be placed on the relationship of long periods of dependency, low wages and resulting low pensions.
We believe that the time is long past for us to have a clear set of publicly enunciated goals indicating how the federal government is going to put its own house in order with respect to equal opportunities for women. The directions that were set out in 1972 and 1975 should be clearly defined in a detailed manner.
There should be, as the minister has promised, a response and a public accounting of what has happened year by year with regard to the implementation of equal opportunity programs. The annual reports which apparently for the past two or three years have been made to Treasury Board and the evaluation, department by department, of the implementation of equal opportunity programs should now be made available to the general public. Structures must be firmly in place if any real progress is to be achieved on a cumulative basis.
There are a number of other measures we would take, measures which I think are becoming increasingly obvious. I am troubled by the fact that this is a year in which we are going to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of women being recognized as persons under the British North America Act. It could be an important year with respect to progress for women in the work force, something that is very much needed in our economy. However, the likelihood with the current drift and indecision of this government, and at times actual opposition to women in employment, is that we will have to move further motions like this and continue to raise questions until we can get some kind of appropriate action.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the opposition has decided to precede International Women's Day with a debate on women in employment. In spite of the strong words of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), words that I suspect are not always shared by his colleagues, this new and quasi-annual commitment to women seems to be at variance with some of their other notions about economic policy.
I have said many times that women want to, need to and, most important, have a right to work. We recognized ten years ago that the government could and would make changes to legislation io improve the status of women.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that the present government has been committed for a long time to improving the status of women. I do not intend to review all its accomplishments in
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).J
this area. I need only remind the House that Canada was the first member of the United Nations to establish a Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Canada was among the first, if not the first, to create the function of minister responsible for the status of women, as well as an Advisory Council on the Status of women.
Moreover, we have translated our philosophy into action through major changes to our programs and through basic legislative amendments. Those are, of course, prerequisites to provide opportunities for women within the economy. I readily recognize that the measures already adopted might not be the final answer, but it is surely a step in the right direction.
Hon. members will remember the numerous measures that were taken since the early seventies, especially in 1971 following the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. When that report was tabled, the government proceeded to amend many statutes in order to remove any form of discrimination in existing federal statutes. We did not stop there, since we acted not only at the legislative level but also at the executive level by promoting women from the economic point of view within the federal civil service and in areas coming under federal jurisdiction. I remind the previous speaker that only recently, in the past few years, in 1975, this government introduced in the House an omnibus bill on the status of women, a bill amending eleven federal statutes to ensure equal opportunities for women.
Similarly, in 1975 the federal government passed a law authorizing the payment of allowances to persons aged 60 to 65 whose spouses receive the old age pension or the guaranteed income supplement. Obviously those benefits went mostly to senior citizens of the female sex. In 1976 the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended to allow women to determine during which 15 weeks out of a 26-week period, they would receive the unemployment insurance maternity benefits. In 1977 a law was passed allowing credits accrued in the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan to be shared upon dissolution of a marriage.
In 1977 the Bill of Rights was passed forbidding any discrimination based on sex and ensuring equal remuneration for equal work to every person working within federal jurisdiction. I must mention, in passing, that the federal parliament was the only government to pass such a law. No provincial legislature, at this time, has gone as far in that direction.
In 1978, very recently, a major amendment was passed to the Income Tax Act providing for a reimbursable tax credit to the mother or father of a single-parent family. That credit is based on the family income and can amount to as much as $200 a child. It is very clear that this measure will be of particular assistance to single-parent families and especially those whose head is a woman. The net benefits resulting from that act will clearly be advantageous to the underprivileged women in our society. Those are only a few of the measures which have been adopted. I have already indicated that other
March 7, 1979

legislation, for instance, dealing with sexual matters under the provisions of the Criminal Code will soon be introduced in the House, as well as other measures now being drafted.
What is important to remember is that we are acting not only in the legislative field but in the economic field, the social field and the cultural field. In these areas one cannot change history overnight or even in a decade. The demands on the economy and the expectations men and women have of their society reflect centuries of social and cultural attitudes which we are working to change.
Obviously, governments and political leaders have a major role to play in this respect but all other agencies in society also have a role to play. The federal government has a responsibility but the provinces also have a large responsibility which we should not ignore. As the House knows, the provinces have complete jurisdiction over education, health and social services, the administration of justice and a large proportion of the labour laws. In large measure they determine the availability of training through apprenticeship, particularly in the so-called non-traditional sectors.
As we developed during the years our programs for the improvement of the economic position of women, we were very surprised to find that most provincial governments and political leaders seemed unaware of their responsibility to women. We were even more surprised at the comment of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) recently that such steps would, and I quote, "create a terrible conflict" between a woman's natural instinct to stay at home and her natural instinct to provide for her financial well-being and for her pension. Frankly, we did not realize that women had such a "strong instinct to stay at home", to use the words of the hon. member.
Let us consider just one area of economic importance to working parents-day care. Let me remind hon. members how day care is financed. In 1974, the Department of National Health and Welfare introduced new day care policy guidelines under the Canada Assistance Plan. Under this plan it is up to the provinces to decide on priorities. If day care spending decreases, it is because provinces like Ontario and Manitoba, good Conservative provinces, have decided it is not important. The federal government matches what the provinces put in. We cannot match dollars which have not been spent.
Still in the area of services, the federal government has led the way in funding important demonstration projects such as the new Women's Centre in Montreal, the Ottawa-Hull Rape Crisis Centre and the Vancouver women's health project. Countless projects for women were initiated through job creation projects.
But let me remind the opposition that many of our provincial colleagues do not like this very much. As a matter of fact, we received continuous representation and objections from the provinces when the federal government was financing services of this nature over an extended period. We have led the way
Women's Right to Work
and we can do so through demonstration projects, but only for a relatively short period-three years, for instance. We do not have the jurisdiction to engage in the financing and supervision of social services of a permanent nature. That is a responsibility of the provinces and I am sorry to say that in general the provinces have not been quick to reallocate their resources to accommodate women's needs. Nonetheless, we do intend to continue to encourage the provinces in all possible ways to see that these essential changes do occur.
The opposition says it is concerned about pension benefits available to women. So are we, and we have done something about it. We increased the GIS by $20 this January. We are the ones who introduced the spouse's allowance and in future we shall be bringing forward more amendments for the improvement of pensions.
Again, though, we can act only on one part of the pension legislation. The Canada Pension Plan, for instance, can only be amended with the consent of two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of the population, and the whole area of private pensions lies overwhelmingly under provincial jurisdiction. Two years ago we agreed to amend the Canada Pension Plan to permit the splitting of pension credits on divorce. The provinces agreed and we were happy with it.
We wanted also to recognize the important contribution made by home makers through a special drop-out provision in the plan. What happened? Most provinces agreed with us but the biggest Conservative government of them all, the government of Ontario, would not accept that amendment. I was interested, almost amused, to hear the hon. member's reference to what was said in the Speech from the Throne delivered in Ontario yesterday. I would have been happier had Ontario lifted its veto on this very worth-while proposal which would benefit many thousands of women in Canada and which has received the support of all the other provinces along with that of the federal government.
The federal government is committed to recognizing the importance of the role of women in the economy. That is why, for example, women in Spence Bay in the Arctic have been receiving LEAP funding to make high-fashion coats and parkas that are marketed down south; that is why the northern pipeline agency has contracted with the Vancouver Women's Research Centre to examine the role of women in relation to that project. I could go on to quote hundreds of cases where funding has been made available through various federal departments.
We have expressed our support for the improvement of economic opportunities for women. This is shown not only by the direct actions we have taken but by what has happened in the economy. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Egmont has said, in the last year 324,000 new jobs were created. Out of this number, 207,000, almost 64 per cent, were filled by women. We are pleased that more women are working. We are pleased that the broad economic policies of this government have not only created more jobs than ever in the history of this country but also that women have benefited from those policies more than ever in the past.

March 7, 1979
Women's Right to Work
I said a year ago in this debate, and it must be said again, that the federal government is not trying to hide the problems unemployment poses for women. Since 1966 the Canadian labour force has increased by 37 per cent due to population growth, immigration and rising participation rates generally. 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 primary age; that is, the age group between 25 and 44. The participation rate of adult women alone increased by 59 per cent over that same period. In aggregate terms the economy responded well to the demands of women for employment. Employment growth among adult women relative to their population compared with that among youth and adult males increased substantially 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 to drop out during bad times. Their persistently high participation rate suggests that women in the work force is a phenomenon here to say, and it is one which we welcome.
What is important to recall, however, is that this is not something which can be dealt with by the federal government alone. The federal parliament has authority over only about 10 per cent of the work force of this country. Only about 10 per cent of the work force comes under the federal jurisdiction. The other 90 per cent is controlled, regulated and legislated about by the provinces in this country. That implies that provincial governments have large responsibilities as well as the federal government. It also implies a large role for unions.
I would like to pay tribute here to women leaders of the labour movement such as Shirley Carr, Grace Hartman and Nadine Hunt. I know that in spite of considerable efforts the union movement has its problems too in focusing on women's issues. Some unions are just now getting around to hiring status of women co-ordinators. We began in 1971.
I would like now to say a few words about the public service.
[ Translation]
Early this year I was happy to receive from the Advisory Council their report entitled: "Women in the Public Service: Barriers to Equal Opportunity." We are aware of the need to multiply our efforts in that regard. Mr. Speaker, why do you think we have set up the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women in 1973? It was precisely to play that role of advisor and critic with the federal government and to inform the public. Finally, I am happy that after their occasional criticisms the opposition members realize at last the existence of that council and the valuable help they give to all of us.
[Mr. Lalonde.)
The latest directives from Treasury Board to the department restate the government's commitment and insist precisely on those same points raised and highlighted by the advisory council, namely increased involvement of management in the planning, implementation and control of the equal opportunity program for women.
We have established qualitative and quantitative objectives to ensure fairer representation and better distribution of women at the various levels of the public service, not to mention greater job diversification for women. Deputy ministers are accountable for the programs of their respective departments. From the beginning of next financial year, departmental plans on equal opportunity for women will be made public. Once again, we have established objectives and will concentrate our effort in order to achieve them. Had the opposition really wanted to gain an insight into the matter, they would certainly have insisted on inviting Public Service Commission Chairman Edgar Gallant to appear before a parliamentary committee. Unfortunately it is easier to have only half-truths, as was the case with statistics on surplus staff.
Hon. members opposite did not even try to check the facts because if they had, they would have seen that a good number of surplus employees are nurses who work in federal hospitals, which are now transferred to the provinces. Those nurses still appear in federal government statistics on surplus personnel so as to give them priority status if they want to find a job with the federal government. So, in fact they are now employed by the provincial governments in the hospitals which were transferred from the federal government to the provinces.

These are facts opposition members could easily have found if they had bothered to check. These are facts which they could have obtained from the Public Service Commission just by asking. These are facts they could have gone into extensively with the chairman of the Public Service Commission, if they had bothered to ask him to appear before a parliamentary committee to explain the policies of the Public Service Commission, which is an independent body answerable to this parliament. Opposition members could have asked the commission to explain what it was doing, where it was going and what problems it was facing, but no, the Conservatives prefer to stay at the level of generalities and half-truths. They assume things which are just not true.
We have direct leverage in order in council appointments, and it is where we have direct leverage that we feel we are making headway. I examined statistics regarding order in council appointments, and I was pleased to see that in that area we are proceeding at a faster rate than the rate at which the public service generally is proceeding. The public service is regulated by public service legislation and, obviously, by the Public Service Commission.
In the last few years we have roughly doubled the percentage of women being appointed by order in council; that is, by the cabinet. These appointments have not been purely to
March 7, 1979

honorary functions or to positions without responsibility. In my own area of responsibility the number of women appointed judges of superior and supreme courts has increased very substantially. There are women who are presidents of Crown corporations. The president of the Economic Council of Canada is a woman. The president of the National Gallery of Canada is a woman, the first in the world. Women sit on all kinds of boards in the various departments. These are things this government has done. We have led the public service and, I might add, we have led provincial Conservative governments by a very wide margin indeed.
Conservatives have made a great fuss about the size of the public service. Repeatedly they tell us that they do not want the public service to lead or to increase. As a matter of fact, they want to cut 60,000 jobs, according to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Does that mean they intend to cut out the progress we have made in equal opportunity? I heard the hon. member talk about equal opportunities officers in departments. If they cut 60,000 jobs in the public service, where will they find their equal opportunities officers? I am amazed that a party which wants to cut 60,000 public servants will appoint full time equal opportunities officers in small departments and councils that have only 30 or 40 employees. Is that the type of management the opposition is offering to the country?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is called working both sides of the street.


Marc Lalonde: I am afraid the hon. member opposite is quite correct in that respect. We believe in comparability with the private sector, but not without catch-up for disadvantaged workers. The hon. member for Scarborough East, the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell), made that clear when we received the National Action Committee brief two weeks ago.
We believe in ending job ghettos. That is why we have a federal Human Rights Act which indicates there shall be equal pay for work of equal value.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Job ghettos in the public service?


Marc Lalonde: We believe women should be trained for, and have the opportunity to work in, a wide range of jobs. That is why we have minimum quotas in non-traditional job training. That is why all government publications must stress the diversity of opportunities within the public service. We believe child care costs must be considered as part of a family's working costs. That is why we amended the Income Tax Act in 1972 and why we want to examine further changes to that act.
We believe the pension situation for women must change. That is why we changed the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canada Pension Plan. That is why we will introduce more changes soon. That is why we have asked the Economic Council of Canada to undertake a major study on women in the economy: the nature of their participation and its effect on their dependence.
Women's Right to Work
We believe immigrant women must receive language assistance and be treated fairly by employers. That is why our work plan for the future addresses these questions. That is why the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission has officials studying the problems of domestics in particular. But I must remind the House, and the opposition in particular, of the importance of provincial labour legislation in this field and the great deficiencies which exist in that regard in most provinces at the present time.
We believe women workers need protection. For example, they need protection from workplace hazards during pregnancy. This will be an important focus of the work of the recently established Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. That is why we introduced maternity benefits under UIC in 1971. Moreover, that is why we are making changes this year to allow more flexibility in using those benefits. We recognize times have changed since 1971. More fathers would like the option of looking after their new babies. Also adoptive parents feel they should have this kind of income support. For these reasons, in the future we envisage a parental insurance scheme which could accommodate this changing pattern of shared family responsibility.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but I must advise him that his allocated time has expired. He may, however, go on with the unanimous consent of the House.

Is there consent to allow the hon. minister to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marc Lalonde: I thank hon. members of the opposition for their co-operation. Let me say that the government has recognized in the past and continues to recognize the right of women to work, the need to ensure opportunities are available and the need in the foreseeable future for special measures to improve their place in the economy.
We spell out our program in a document which I will make public today. I should like to table it in the House if there is agreement by all parties. It is entitled: "Towards Equality for Women". We are committed to improving women's place in the economy and society. In spite of the annual concern of the opposition, apparently the message has not reached the ranks of the Tories. When one Ottawa Centre Conservative campaign worker was questioned about the Conservative platform on women, a member of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women was told the following:
You know, you ladies don't have as much support as you think. Women just aren't an issue in this campaign.
If that is what Tory workers are thinking, the hon. member for Egmont has a lot of evangelizing to do. "Towards Equality for Women" is the federal government's contribution to the United Nations world plan of action. The document consti-

March 7, 1979
Women's Right to Work
tutes the federal government's main program of action on the status of women's issues between now and 1985.

"Towards Equality for Women" is the result of recommendations and representations submitted by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, by women's associations and individuals in recent years. "Towards Equality for Women" reflects the federal government's commitment to fight vigou-rously against all barriers to equality of opportunities for women and to launch deep reforms through legislative amendments suggested by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.

Through the plan resources will be reallocated, both at the level of policy development and program support, to respond to women's increasing participation in the economy and the wide wage gap between men and women. Women's problems in the labour force will be addressed as a separate agenda item by an economic conference of first ministers in 1979. Discussions will begin immediately with the provinces to increase trades training for women in non-traditional occupations and apprenticeship programs. Economic development policies will be reviewed to assess their specific effects on women with a view to increasing their participation in high wage work. Education grants to labour unions will be redirected to ensure that they will benefit women workers.
[ Translation]
A task force on women and employment will be created shortly under the leadership of the co-ordinator of women status Canada. The Economic Council of Canada will be asked to inquire into the status of women in the economy. Reviews of policies relating to pensions will be centered on problems particular to women. The plan also includes the first steps of an important inquiry into violence against women stressing the need to consult with the provinces to ensure that services are in accordance with women's needs.
'

A national clearing house for information on victims of family violence and sexual assault will be established. More research and program support will be directed towards health promotion in the areas of safety of contraceptives, occupational and environmental health hazards, alcohol, drug addiction and nutrition.
Federal policies will be assessed for their effects on the parental roles of men and women, and the feasibility of a parental insurance scheme to replace maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act will be examined.
[ Translation]
We will analyse the conditions under which joint custody could be exercised after a divorce, keeping in mind the children's right to maintain relations with both parents. We will

negotiate with the provinces and take the necessary steps to improve the enforcement of alimony orders. The government also recognizes that income tax abatements for child support are not having the intended results. We will therefore consider other measures. We will reinforce the equal opportunity programs within the public service by insisting that managers assume a greater responsibility, by making relevant ministerial plans public and by correcting the classification systems which impede the promotion of women. We will prepare directives to eliminate all sex-typing in government publications and teaching aids.

In all work being undertaken in relation to this plan, the government will consult with the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In addition, it will seek out advice from experts on women's issues. The plan will strengthen the mandate of the co-ordinator's office in relation to policies of all departments so that focus on the implications of all government policies on women is increased.

Finally, by informing people of the content of the five-year plan, we are encouraging everyone to monitor its implementation and launching a vast debate on this whole matter.

In the many areas affecting women under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, action by the provinces and territories is crucial to achieving equality, and we will welcome any steps that are taken by provincial governments in this regard. [Translation]
The five-year plan is the symbol of our continuing commitment to work towards still greater equality for women. [English]
This document is not a working paper. It does represent a commitment by this government, and it does represent decisions that have been taken by the cabinet in all areas of activities of the federal government. I commend it to the House and I commend it to the women of Canada and to all Canadians, because each of us has a deep interest and a deep concern about the promotion of opportunities for all Canadian women.
Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I would like authority to table this document.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House consent to the minister tabling the document to which he has referred in order that it will be available to the public?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend most warmly my friend the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for presenting this motion to the House today. 1 regret that it does not come to a vote. We would vote for it unanimously and with enthusiasm. I thank the hon. member also for his references to a motion that
March 7, 1979

was moved by my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent), a year ago yesterday, as well as to other motions on which we have debated women's issues.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) seemed to enjoy referring to this as an annual exercise. I do not know where he is week after week, as hardly a week goes by without some of us on this side of the House asking questions concerning women's issues.
1 took the trouble to look at the debate that took place on March 6, 1978, and one of the things that is interesting to me, and 1 was scanning it while the Minister of Justice was speaking, is that his speech today is practically the same speech he made last year. At least, it is the same kind of speech but for one alteration. He spent a good deal of time last year and this year trying to tell us what the government has done for women. The rest of his time was spent on attacking the party that brought in the motion. The one difference is that last year he attacked us; this year he has attacked the Progressive Conservatives.
1 must say that I have a great deal of admiration for the gall displayed today by the Minister of Justice. I want to document that gall. He cited a number of things as evidence of the active concern of the Liberal government for the women of this country. If I miss any of them, forgive me, Mr. Speaker, as I took notes while he was proceeding.
One of the items he listed early in his catalogue was the spouse's allowance. He calls that doing something for the women of this country. That is one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation we have on the statute books.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It discriminates against women between 60 and 65 years of age who are of single status, whether single, divorced, widowed or what have you.
Then the next item, or one shortly after, was what the government had done by way of splitting the benefits under the Canada Pension Plan when there is a marriage breakdown. That is a big deal, Mr. Speaker. The minister is worried, of course, about the fact that the government did something else having to do with women who stay at home to rear their children in terms of Canada Pension Plan benefits, and he is concerned that the Ontario government did not go along with the proposal. May I point out to him that neither of these proposals, the splitting of benefits where the marriage breaks down or the proposal that was put forward regarding mothers who care for their children, touches the real problem in respect of the Canada Pension Plan, and that is that there is nothing in it and no equivalent to it for those women who work at home. There is no excuse at all for the government to stand up and boast about what it has done for women and, in that context, talk about the Canada Pension Plan, when it has left out any right under that plan for millions of Canadian women who stay at home.
Women's Right to Work
The minister did not seem to like the idea that reference was made to some women having an instinct to stay at home. We suggest that women should have the choice. If they choose to work there should be a place for them out there in the work force and in the economy. If they stay at home, the contribution they make at home should be recognized just as much as the contributions made by their husbands who are out in the work force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister went on to cite as another example of this government's concern for women the enactment of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the setting up of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I thought that even the gall he showed today would have been tempered by the fact that the hon. member for Egmont had already referred to the fact that this government is trying to get the courts to deny to the Canadian Human Rights Commission the right to deal with the case of the Jamaican women.
I suggest that my reference to gall is well put.
Then the minister went on to talk about the projects for women that this government has undertaken-rape crisis centres, projects that have helped women to get employment, and providing counsel for them. Where has he been when day after day we on this side of the House have been questioning the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) as to why these projects are being denied additional funding. We have been at that minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) with this story, whether it is Outreach or other programs that are being cut back. This minister has the audacity to stand up today and cite that as an example of something which the government has done for women.
Somewhere down the line he talked about the jobs that had been created for women. He said-I forget the particular category to which he referred-that there are twice as many now as there were then. Of course, two is twice one.
With respect to the judiciary the minister told us that there are many more women being appointed to the bench today than in days gone by, but he did not give any figures. If the number has gone from three up to nine, that is a threefold increase, but it is still hardly substantial enough for a minister to boast about as a sign of what the government is doing for women.
He went on to talk about the jobs for women that the government has created. The government talks all the time about every job created, no matter whether by a private employer or by somebody in a home. Whenever anybody hires a person to do something, it adds to the statistics, and we have the government standing up and saying that it has created some hundreds of thousands of job in a year.
I will pass that subject by because I want to get to the fact which two or three of us on this side of the House tried to bring out the other day. I am referring to the apparent policy

March 7, 1979
Women's Right to Work
of the government in this time of restraint to discriminate against women generally when it comes to layoffs. It is fine to say that more women have been hired, but when the government turns around and lays off proportionately more women than men, I do not know how the minister could have the gall to stand up in the House and say that the government's employment policy, particularly in the public service, is something which proves its dedication to the cause of women.
!Vfr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands): His Gaul is divided into three parts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) says that his Gaul is divided into three parts.


Mr. Orlikow:: There is enough of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hold in my hand, Mr. Speaker, statistics which came to some of us through the plain brown envelope route, and I believe that they are from the Public Service Commission. The minister was anxious for us to go to that particular commission for information. At any rate, the statistics are here and many people have them. If there are some who do not have these statistics, I suggest that they apply to the Ottawa women's lobby.
These statistics illustrate that in the professional and scientific category of the public service there are 18,000 male employees and 5,000 female employees. However, these are times of restraint and people have to be laid off. One would think with that proportion that probably three times as many men as women would be laid off. This government, which is supposedly devoted to the welfare and rights of women, does not work that way. It lays off 70 men and 90 women.
If one takes all the groups on this page of statistics, which have fewer than 50 per cent females working-and this is the key statistic-one finds that 18 per cent of the employees, in all those groups combined, are women; but when it comes to lay-offs, 40 per cent are women. Yet this minister stands up today and cites the government's employment policy in the public service as an example of what it has done for the women in this country, and how we should trust this government in the years that lie ahead, especially to the year 1985.
I will have something to say about 1985 in a moment. One wonders why the minister did not say 1984 as the year that this government will bring total disaster to this country. Time is passing, and I had better not use more statistics from that sheet, but, as I say, we accepted this challenge to get the figures, and the figures in my view do not support the minister's position that this government is carrying on an employment policy in the public service that is attuned to the rights and the needs of women. He can give statistics about the additional number that are being hired-and I would like to know what categories they are in-but the moment restraint is imposed and people have to be laid off, it is the women first.
We are not dealing with a sinking ship where the women are let off first. This is an employment policy which is totally out

of keeping with a supposed belief in the equality of women. I think that phrase which was attributed to the minister last year when he said that there is a "collective time lag between conviction and action" is a very lamentable situation.
I have made references about the minister having spoken last year and having given us this same line, except that last year he talked to us more than the Conservative party and this year he has talked more to the Conservative party than to us. I would like to read a paragraph from what the minister said in his speech last year. Once I have read it, I intend to present a challenge to the minister. The part I refer to is on page 3483 of Hansard, March 6, 1978: He referred to a number of areas in which studies should be undertaken and in which the government would hope to make improvements. Then he said:
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.
That is the paragraph which I wanted to quote, but I will also read the next one.
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.
That was a pretty massive operation which the minister announced on March 6, 1978, when he stated that there would be a huge study involving 25 departments and 100 officials who were going to look at everything and who were going to develop a plan of action or global policy on the status of women geared to 1985.
I understand-as a matter of fact I have seen it though I do not have it in my possession-that that proposal was implemented in terms of a cabinet paper being produced, approved by the appropriate committee and confirmed by cabinet. The committee in question is the cabinet committee on social policy which made its decision with respect to this document on December 13, 1978. It was confirmed by the entire cabinet on December 21, 1978, and the document was deposited with the supervisor of cabinet papers on January 3, 1979. It is a very bulky document. It certainly fits what the minister said on March 6 last year about what the government was going to do.
As I said, I had that document in my possession for a short while, and I challenge the minister to make it public. The document he produced today, the little booklet in three or four colours, is obviously a public relations effort to try to kid the people of Canada into thinking that something is going to be done.


An hon. Member:: It is an election ploy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I challenge the minister to produce the real document in which the cabinet made its decisions as to what it intended to do or not to do.
Everyone knows of my intense interest in questions on pensions in so far as women are concerned. I find in the
March 7, 1979

reference in this cabinet paper to the study of the Department of Finance on pensions that there is a paragraph that says that there are no recommendations to be made regarding pensions for women except further study.
I find, in the section of that cabinet paper which deals with veterans affairs, the suggestion that steps must be taken to establish, equality between men ands women regardless of their various conditions and so on, but there is not a reference to the 48 per cent rule which is one of the most serious forms of discrimination against widows of disabled veterans. There is not a reference to it at all.
I looked in vain in the document for some reference to immigration. There is none. There is a reference to the Department of Employment and Immigration and there is going to be a study of employment matters and so on, but there is no reference to the proposal in the last paragraph of the motion before us today which reads as follows:
(4) adoption of policies that will put an end to the serious exploitation of immigrant women in the Canadian labour force.
There are calls for a study of the impact on our economy of women. We had that statement today from the minister; the government believes in keeping women in mind in the development of our economic structure. Wonderful!
As for the cabinet paper that was issued by the cabinet committee on social policy on December 13 last and confirmed in cabinet on December 21, the key line of which is "get this ready by 1985", there is really no hope in there for the women of this country that things will be any different at all.
If the minister is going to make public that classy coloured document that he tabled today, which is obviously a public relations effort, he should also table the document which tells the real story on what the cabinet does not intend to do for the women of this country.
In my view, there are many ways in which improvements could be made for the women of this country. We are all saying now that they have their right to be out in the work force, and they do; but unless they get equal pay for work of equal value, unless they get equal opportunity at the high level jobs as well as the low level jobs, those words are so much rhetoric.
I think we should take the minister up on his reference to the statement made about some women wanting to stay at home. I believe that women in this country should have that free choice. They should be able to work on an equal basis and if they choose to stay home they should not suffer discrimination because of that decision, particularly in terms of economic security during those working years and more particularly in terms of economic security when it comes time to retire.
When I am through, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will probably congratulate me for not having devoted the whole of my speech to discrimination against women with respect to pensions, but I am not going to sit down without dealing with that matter. We still have all these ways in which we discrimi-
Women's Right to Work
nate against women. There is nothing for them equivalent to what is in the Canada Pension Plan if they stay at home. I know the compilation of the plan is that it is a work-related scheme and all the rest, but there should be an equivalent for women who stay home, and until we get it we cannot talk about equality.
There is, then, the question of the spouse's allowance. For the minister to stand up and quote that as an example of doing something for women is more than I can understand. There are things that all of us here know about because we are involved in the process, but the people out there do not pay attention to things until the time comes. Every year I get a new crop of letters from women who have turned 60 or 61 who hear about the spouse's allowance and then find they cannot get it. They did not know about or pay attention to the legislation when it was introduced in 1975. I get letter after letter which asks how the government could pass that kind of law that would give something to a wife if she has a spouse she is living with who is 65 years of age or over, but nothing from the same legislation if she is widowed or single.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue if there is unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall take only two or three minutes, Mr. Speaker, as I see an hon. member down the way wishes to speak.
I want to declaim again against the tradition that is still with us that says a widow's pension, whether it is under the Public Service Superannuation Act, the armed forces or in the private field, is only 50 per cent of the pension of the husband. I suppose if we go back to the days when pension plans were for husbands only, it was a step forward to get the 50 per cent survivor pension for the widow; but how can we justify that now? A man and wife live together, build their home, build for their future and the day comes when they retire. There are a certain number of dollars of pension, whether public or private. The day comes when one of them dies. If she dies first he gets 100 per cent of the pension, but if he dies first, she gets only 50 per cent of the pension.
We do a little better for ourselves as members of parliament. We seem to manage that. Even in our case, however, if a pensioned member of parliament dies first, his widow gets only 60 per cent, but if the wife dies first the member gets the 100 per cent pension. There is no defence for that in a society that says women have equal rights.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that one of the serious deficiencies in our veterans legislation is in this field. I am not only prepared to admit we have made progress in recent years, I am prepared to assert it. It is a thrill for me to have been part of winning that improved legislation. Surely the time has come when the rights of women who are married to veterans should inure to them as persons in their own right. The widow who

March 7, 1979
Women's Right to Work
has helped care for a veteran who was on a 40 per cent disability pension is just as much in need when he dies as is her sister down the street whose husband was on a 50 per cent pension. In one case there is the full widow's pension, and in the other case no pension at all. We have the problem of widows when the war veterans allowance runs out. It lasts for a year and then drops.
The cabinet document which I have seen says that the Department of Veterans Affairs is being asked to look at things in its legislation that are of concern to women, but there is nothing in there about the War Veterans Allowance Act, about allowances that are discontinued, and not a single reference to the 48 per cent rule.
This is a speech I often make, Mr. Speaker, to women's groups when they come to see me. They usually consist of younger women and they are not concerned about their pensions. I listen to them and then ask, what about pensions? I am diplomatic and tell them they are not of an age when they are thinking about pensions but that I think that is the most serious discrimination of all.
It is bad enough when women have a tough time in the work force or when they are at home instead of out working, but when the retirement years come and there is more for men than for women-and all statistics show that the section of our older community that is having the toughest time is women- that is not fair. It is not the equality that the people across the way try to talk about.
I commend my friend the hon. member for Egmont for producing this motion today. It is good that we are having this debate, as we had a similar debate a year ago. I would remind hon. members opposite, however, that it is not only once a year that they hear from us; they hear from us every week and they will go on hearing from us until something is done to establish real equality for the women of this country.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for putting forward such an important motion on the rights of women in Canada. This is not the first opportunity we have had in this House to discuss this parliament's responsibilities to women.
Hardly two months ago, I believe, we had the opportunity to discuss a motion I had the privilege of putting forward to invite all members seriously to consider recognizing the rights of homemakers. When we speak of salaries, jobs for women, the reference is always to women outside the home, whether women as secretaries, women as nurses, or women as workers in clothes manufacturing. But we forget the homemaker does a tremendous job, for which there are no records because she does not have to punch in and out. But she does a tremendous job nonetheless. Not only manual work in preparing meals, mending clothes and so on, but also a fantastic job of bringing

up our children. A people having the privilege as we do to have mothers taking their responsibilities as educators is bound to grow, develop and play a tremendous role in the world.
I am therefore happy to see once more that hon. members who spoke before me seriously discussed this matter. I listened closely to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) who earlier spoke to the motion and expressed most valuable views and ideas. And if the Minister of Justice took the time to remain in his seat this afternoon when he had so much to do, this shows how important the matter is. I commend him for that. Of course newspapers tomorrow will say a Social Credit member supports the government, pays tribute, offers congratulations. This does not worry me.
For my part, I want to say quite frankly that when someone in authority accepts his responsibilities towards the country, I believe we must say so and encourage him to do more. Of course we can criticize each other, but I believe this subject is too important for us to show any partisanship. Mr. Speaker, I consider this subject as the continuity of Women's Year a few years ago.
I recall with emotion, Mr. Speaker, the day when Mrs. Morin, who was then Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons and member of parliament for Louis-Hebert in Quebec city, was called upon by all members of the convention and all parliamentarians in Ankara, Turkey, to preside over a very special day, International Women's Day. I have already said this in the House and I want to say it again, she presided with great dignity over all our proceedings and all participants showed much consideration and seriousness in all their speeches made on International Women's Day. Mr. Speaker, not only in what we say but also in our legislation should we recognize the right of women to choose freely as is asked in the motion, which, I must note in passing, is quite well written, especially the first paragraph which reads as follows:
That this House recognizes the unqualified right of women to work in any and all fields of endeavour and that it urges the government to set an example for the private sector-
Mr. Speaker, it is quite logical for all levels of government to set an example for the private sector, not only in the area mentioned in the motion, but in all other fields. We may invite our fellow citizens to practice such and such a virtue, for instance the virtue of economy, which is certainly a great virtue nowadays. I believe that it was very late last Sunday night on television that I saw a man who travelled to China with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few years ago. I may be wrong, but I believe that a book, entitled Two Innocents in China was published at that time. And this gentleman, one of these two innocents who are not as innocent as all that, was relating how they used to live in the family home. He did not name the village but it sounded familiar when he spoke of a small village in eastern Quebec. So he recalled, Mr. Speaker, that his mother, though she was not rich, had managed to give her family a reasonable standard of living and how they made
March 7, 1979

good use of things already used but not quite finished. And he gave what I considered a striking example, because I recall seeing my mother do this so many times. When she was breaking eggs to prepare meals she would put the shells one into another and then put them in the oven.
This man told me that when they were dry his mother would crush them and feed them back to the hens to help them produce eggs with a stronger shell. Mr. Speaker, those things may seem old fashioned but we shall have to come back to those customs and principles. We are living in a society where everybody has the right to spend-the more the better-and no one has to save. We talk about an energy crisis, but tomorrow it will be other kinds of crises. I say that there is a crisis among the population, caused by the absence of a cardinal virtue, that of economy. When I was a little boy 1 attended at the school of my village a conference given by Commander Desjardins, the founder of Caisses Populaires. My father let me go with him and we were not seated as comfortably as we can be these days. They were small hard benches with precious little room. For adults it was not enough, but for little boys like me, it was. So I heard Commander Desjardins talk about savings, the pooling of money to use in the parish or develop means of living, industries or the pooling of our small savings. Today, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the virtues of saving as opposed to wasting, we are considered old fashioned.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think that we have the responsibility to go back to the practice of thriftiness. We administer Canada. We are 264 members responsible for legislating to administer our country, and this is called the legislative power. There is the executive power of ministers who implement the laws. Yet, if we go to the trouble of playing our role seriously and making sure that taxpayers' money is spent as wisely as we do in our homes, we shall witness a change in our country and enjoy a high level of prosperity. I am sure of this. It is certainly possible to manage our country efficiently and more economically. Telling others is a lot of fun; you are not compelled to do anything. But to tell oneself to do it and see that it is done with a view to setting an example so that the private sector can act accordingly would be to me of considerable help to the people.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I recall having recently toured Mauritius with a few colleagues. I saw with my own eyes women harvesting sugar cane. That is not an easy job. If our Canadian women had to do that kind of work, they would certainly feel like slaves. I saw that and my friends did too. It is really strenuous work.
Women would go out to the field early in the morning and come back late in the evening. They could be seen with their sickles-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It was very hot!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, indeed, it was very hot, but they were doing their utmost to contribute to the prosperi-
Womert's Right to Work
ty of their country which had just become independent. Independence had been granted to them, so they were going out to work precisely in order to earn a living and thereby contribute to the prosperity of the country as a whole.
Let us talk about women's right to work, Mr. Speaker. In this country we sometimes hire cleaning women to ease the burden of elderly people in the upkeep of their homes. Nowadays such women are hard to come by. Yet there is nothing degrading in their job.
Before 8 a.m. this morning on the radio in my office I heard that there was a young man 20 years of age who was offering his services to perform housework. He just wanted to earn a living. He said he was willing to perform housework in private homes. Mr. Speaker, I indeed found it a wonderful thing for a young man 20 years of age to be willing to do housework. I think that this motion is an invitation for us to appreciate the splendid job performed by women and to let them know it. Is it not nice to enter a house and get a feeling of cleanliness around the place! Poverty does not mean that it has to be dirty.


An hon. Member:: Even if there is no beauty!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Even if there is no beauty? There is no such thing as a woman who is not beautiful and when the hon. member for Verdun tells us there is no beauty he is insulting women-


Mr. Savard:: Even if the house is not beautiful.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Oh, 1 see, he is talking about the house. But anyway for those who live in it the house is always beautiful.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to quote from a document used by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) when he was still national health and welfare minister on April 4, 1974. In this document we can find statements which are still true today. I remember that one day I introduced a motion-I think it was last year-asking that women who want to stay at home get an income. But one female member of the House got up to say that it did not make sense. This is why I thought that quoting what the Minister of Justice and then minister of national health and welfare said just might help people think differently so that we could adopt as quickly as possible a formula for a guaranteed annual income. We could start with the mother who stays at home. For those who find this idea extraordinary or think it does not make sense, let us start with the case of the homemaker.
Here is what this document says.
The report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women gives all the relevant data about this problem and advocates a number of concrete solutions clearly defined which could be considered in the future. It is said in this report that apart from some rare exceptions, the homemaker has to rely on her husband to have some money.

March 7, 1979
Women's Right to Work
But as it happens often and we know that, as representatives we become almost confessors and we receive extraordinary confidences, but not to be specific, how many times have we heard a married woman say: "I feel embarrassed asking my husband for some money." And yet we all know she needs it. It is as necessary for her as for anybody else to have money to get what she fancies without having to ask her husband: "Give me a few dollars."
This is why we should correct this situation which is sometimes embarrassing for mothers and wives.
It says although they may be receiving family allowances, that money goes for the maintenance of the child and cannot be considered a payment. When Bill C-10 was being considered the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said that the family allowance was not intended for the mother but for the child. Some mothers understand that, and the minister of national health and welfare of the day understood also-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, time really flies. I had not even realized that my 20 minutes were already up. So I thank my colleagues for giving me a few minutes to conclude my speech. I know there are other members who have interesting things to say. So I will conclude in a few seconds by saying that I wholeheartedly support the motion before us and 1 hope that the debate will serve as a starting point, that it will be a new effort to try and do more to allow women to have rights that will be recognized and upheld better not only when working outside the home but also inside the home.
Mothers watching us now who are having difficulty making ends meet and think what we are saying might prompt the government to ensure better distribution of the gross national output to give them a supplementary income which would be added to the income the father gets from working at the plant, the yard or anywhere he can to earn money. Then mothers would be proud to say: Finally, we are in a very civilized country in Canada and the role of mothers, of all married or unmarried women contributing to society is being recognized in a tangible way.
Mr. Speaker, I remember where we went during the last war when we needed soldiers. We went to homes with children where there were boys and girls to take on the responsibility of defending our freedoms, of defending Christianity. That is where we went. If those women were able to provide our

country with the elements essential to our survival, let us be grateful enough to give them a recognition that will allow them to live honourably in this country on an equal basis with men.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be addressed to the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) to compliment him on having introduced this motion today. I congratulate the hon. member for having done so just as on previous occasions I have congratulated the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for bringing this important subject to the floor of the House. How else, Mr. Speaker, do we ever get this issue discussed here if it is not through the initiatives of members of opposition parties? It is never the government which brings it forward. The minister who spoke earlier, the minister responsible for the status of women, has held that responsibility for five years yet only once in that five years has he taken personal initiative to bring the question of women's rights to the floor of this chamber. That is a shocking indictment.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said he admired the minister's gall for speaking as he did this afternoon. I do not know about that. I do not know whether I feel angered or saddened by the way the minister spoke. I say this because I find that with regard to women in the work force, with regard to their economic status, the government allows them to take one step forward and then forces them to take two steps backward in some kind of fancy gavotte.
The minister presented us with a public relations document, as it was called earlier. Mr. Speaker, if we had not initiated this debate today he would never have brought it into the House of Commons. He would have gone elsewhere, outside the chamber, to try to peddle his booklet. And what is it entitled? It is headed: "Towards Equality for Women". If he had only bothered to read the motion in the name of the hon. member for Egmont, he would have noticed that it states that we accept the fundamental premise of equality for women. We do not have to work toward it; we accept it as a fundamental premise in this country, whereas the government has said we are only moving toward equality for women, that this is not something which is accepted as one of the fundamental rights. That is what I mean by taking one step forward and two steps backward.
It is the attitude of the government on this whole question that forces us to bring this issue to the floor of the House of Commons time and time again. I am saddened by what the minister has said this afternoon because unfortunately he showed not the slightest glimmer of understanding the magnitude of this issue in all its perspectives and what it means to millions of people across this country. Nor has he recognized the role the federal government can play in providing leadership. All we got from him was a recital, once again, of short-term programs, ad hoc measures and stopgap procedures, all of which we have heard over and over again.
March 7, 1979

At the same time he lashed out at opposition parties, the provinces, the Public Service Commission and the trade unions. Why? Obviously because he feels a sense of remorse and guilt on this whole subject. I am staggered by the attitude of the minister. I have gone back over some of his speeches. I have looked at what he said to us in 1974 when International Women's Year was approaching. He said then:
I am honoured to be given the responsibility of guiding government policy in this area and I intend to devote a good deal of time and effort to bringing about the necessary changes in our laws and in our society so that women and men will be able to participate fully in all activities of life.
Five years later we get a document from him saying that women are going to be able to move toward equality. The minister was so honoured by his responsibility that since 1974 he has addressed this issue once in the House of Commons. When he is asked questions he always has some excuse to explain why he did not bring in a program, why he failed to secure a commitment on the part of the federal government to the full principle of equality for women.
Listening to the minister this afternoon I was reminded of a phrase from Macaulay. It goes like this:
From all the angelic ranks goes forth a groan, "How long, O Lord, how long?" The still small voice makes answer "Wait and see, O sons of glory, what the end shall be."
Mr. Speaker, it may stretch your imagination to see members of the opposition as the angelic ranks groaning "How long, O Lord, how long?" on this issue, but it takes less imagination to see the minister as the still small voice saying "wait and see, wait and see," particularly when he brings forward a document saying "Towards Equality". Yes, indeed, the tokenism of International Women's Year has been surpassed this afternoon. We no longer have just tokenism; we have empty words.
I do not lay the entire burden of this issue on the federal government, but I do expect the federal government to show leadership, and that is what has been lacking. I do not expect the government to be able to legislate attitudes or to move mountains, but I recall the words of a former colleague of mine who is now the chairman of the Human Rights Commission when he spoke on this subject some eight years ago. He said:
All that governments can really do is lead, that is their mandate. They can influence people because of the information they give and the leadership they exercise. They can lead people into changing attitudes and ways of thinking about problems.
What has this government done to lead people into changing attitudes and thinking about problems? I would say that in the five years the minister has been in his position, very little. Oh yes, we heard him this week. We heard him evade answers about what would happen when his colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) moves to repeal the rights of immigrant women before the Human Rights Commission; he is moving to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. The minister responsible for the status of women evaded that question. He will not face up to it.
Women s Right to Work
When the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) announced a new policy this week about women, he said "Last hired, First Fired". The minister responsible for the status of women did not enlarge on that. He evaded the issue once again. Is that changing attitudes? Is that providing leadership?
I am interested in several areas where government thinking should be changing to keep up with changing realities, but instead where government policy reflects anything but a change. In these areas the government's thinking is as rigid, unbending and unchanging as the rock of Gibraltar. I am thinking, first, of labour market projections and the planning which must go with them, planning which must be done at the federal level. The government's planning in relation to the job market does not reflect any change in ways of thinking about problems. Rather, it shows that the same old thinking is at work in not responding to exciting possibilities or potential regarding women in the work force. There is not that kind of thinking. Instead, we are locked into the same old problems. We are locked into facing this situation in a way which will add to women's problems rather than solve them.
I would like to direct the attention of the House to the government's economic forecasters in the Department of Finance and others who have predicted a labour shortage in the 1980s based on the belief that the increase in the participation rate for women in the work force will subside.
Last February the Department of Finance published a study on medium term economic trends, and in it the department predicted that the women's participation rate would rise from 46 per cent of the working age population in 1976 to 47.4 per cent in 1981, to 48.9 per cent in 1986 and to 49.5 per cent in 1990. That is what the government is basing its employment policies on, participation of women in the work force of 49.5 per cent in 1990.
These predictions upon which the government has been basing its economic and employment policies could not be more wrong. Already, in 1979, women have reached the participation rate in the work force which the planners predicted for 1986. A recent publication of the C. D. Howe Institute put it this way:
Labour-market analysts have consistently underestimated the growth of the Canadian labour force in the 1970s, mainly because they assumed the female participation rate must be reaching its upper limit.
The government's analysts were wrong about the 1970s, and they will be wrong about the 1980s because of their belief that the participation rate of women has peaked and will subside. On what is this belief based? On what are these projections based? Certainly not on the fact that women have more education, which they have, are demanding greater economic independence, which they are, or are having smaller families or even no families. Yet that is the reality in Canada today. Women have more education, are more independent and many are choosing to have fewer family responsibilities, all factors which point to increased rather than decreased participation in the work force. Yet the government blindly assumes that the influx of women into the work force has reached its peak.

March 7, 1979
Women's Right to Work
Just recently the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development predicted an 85.8 per cent participation rate for women in Sweden by 1990. Closer to home, even in the United States the prediction is a 60.8 per cent participation rate for women by 1980. Yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), clinging to the analysts' top rate of 49.5 per cent of Canadian women in the work force by 1980, says quite emphatically of the increased rate of participation of women in Canada, as reported by the Toronto Star of February 22: "We expect this rapid increase will taper off in the future". That is what the Minister of Finance says, and that is what the Minister of Employment and Immigration bases his employment policies on.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration says that we must look forward to a strategy which will help fill the employment gap over the next several years. How can he be so sure that there will be an employment gap? The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration are attacking new problems with their old thinking. It has already been shown that that thinking is totally wrong. Why do they carry on with it? The reason they carry on with it is that they think and state that women wanting to work is just a passing phase. That is what they are thinking, and they base their planning on that. They think that this is an abberation which will pass.
Among other prestigious groups, the C. D. Howe Institute thinks otherwise. That institute looks at the situation realistically. Understanding that the factors contributing to the higher female participation rate-higher education, lower fertility and increased urbanization-are unlikely to change through the 1980s and 1990s, the institute says this:
There are strong reasons for arguing that the behaviour of women will continue to change.
That is the assumption on which predictions about the job market should be based. Women in the work force are here to stay. They will join the work force in increasing numbers, and not just in programs like LEAP at Spence Bay, which the minister cited as an example of what the government has done.
There are almost four million women in the Canadian work force now, and there is no reason why we should not think there might be five million in another few years. Perhaps an additional million women will be in the work force, perhaps more, at a time when the traditional occupational roles for women are already becoming more than saturated.
Those are the matters the government should address itself to. I did not hear one word about them today. We will see more and more women coming into the work force and finding the traditional roles they occupy are no longer open to them. This kind of situation calls for imaginative thinking and planning on the part of the government. It calls for positive and innovative thinking of a kind which says: "What can we do to best marshal the potential of this group of people?" It does not call for the negative and stale thinking of the government which says: "What can we do to cope with this problem

until things return to normal?" That is the kind of situation we have seen in government thinking over the years. It has brought about the situation we face today. It will not be diminished if we carry on with the lack of innovation which the government has shown in recent months and certainly prior to that.
If we take a positive and innovative approach to this situation, it could lead to new attitudes concerning work and training suitable for women. The new attitudes could have women filling the predicted shortages we hear so much about in the skilled trades. We have heard so much about shortages in sheet metal work, woodworking and a number of skilled trades such as electrical and plumbing. Skilled trades should be open to women far more than they are today. While it may be heartening to note that men are moving into the jobs of secretaries or bank clerks in a manner that they were not ten years ago, it is less heartening to note that women are not making much headway in the highly paid, skilled worker category. We need to break down the attitudinal barriers which keep women out of many occupations. The government can show the way to business, unions and the trade labour movement through its manpower training programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that her allotted time has expired. She may continue with unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) contains many articles. To some extent it has sprung from the complaints of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women which indicated that its advice was not requested before amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were introduced. It is understandable that the advisory committee would be unhappy about not being consulted, if indeed this was the case. However, the real answer to having policies which reflect the current needs of women is for every government department official to be aware of the impact of policies on women.
At the present time the major obstacles to the recruitment and promotion of women have been long since removed, but the difficulties which remain are more subtle and pervasive. Therefore, they require more vigilance and greater sophistication. Perhaps I might state my personal bias. I have always seen the struggle for women's rights as being very much in the context of human rights. Of course, this has been the tradition of the Canadian women's rights movement. The most effective measures to assist women in the labour force very often are ones which also have the effect of opening up certain jobs to young men or men with unusual qualifications.
A few moments ago I mentioned that most of the major obstacles to equality have been removed. I should like to list a few of these obstacles in so far as they affect federal govern-
March 7, 1979

ment employees. In 1971 the equal employment opportunities office in the Public Service Commission was set up. One must remember that it was established to ensure equal employment opportunities for women, native peoples and other traditionally disadvantaged groups. Also in 1971 there was the defence council direction that women be employed in the Canadian forces on the same basis as men in all classification except combatant, sea-going duties and isolated positions.
In 1971 the Unemployment Insurance Act included age, sex and marital status as prohibitive grounds for discrimination. Also in 1971 the Canada Labour Code prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status.
In 1974 the Public Service Commission removed from its questionnaire and job application forms all mention of sex, age and numbers of dependants. Between 1971 and 1974 obvious discriminatory factors were removed, but we were left with matters which perhaps are more subtle and therefore require more vigilance.
In 1972 a cabinet direction required every government department to have a senior official whose duty was to consider the effects of policies on women. Of course, this official is quite separate from the equal opportunities for women employee. If the official concerned with policies at the Unemployment Insurance Commission had been as much concerned with style as with substance-and there are times when I think one must be-he or she would have moved earlier to get rid of the economists' jargon which refers to women as "secondary earners". It is economists' jargon but it offends. It offends for reasons concerned with the status of women at this time. Since women are just taking their places as permanent members of the labour force, it is offensive to apply the term "secondary earner" to someone who may work part time or may be required to take summers off to meet family responsibilities if there is no affordable child care available. The term "secondary earner" offends.
The comparable piece of economists' jargon which refers to men between the ages of 25 and 44 as "prime rate males" does not offend in the same way, because generally a 45-year old man is quite secure in his occupation or profession. He knows what his earnings are, what his pension plan is, and he is not upset by being categorized as non-prime rate.
It was more the style than what was done by the Unemployment Insurance Commission which raised a lot of distress. People have seen an unfortunate style as an indication of changing government policy. The essential change made in the act at that time was that part-time workers working less than 20 hours a week were no longer allowed to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund. This was the substantive change. Interestingly enough, the only complaint I received was from a male teacher in my constituency. He made the point that in the present state of things he cannot work more than 20 hours a week in one job, and that there is administrative rigidity in requiring people to work over 20 hours with one employer.
Women's Right to Work
If, indeed, this particular exclusion from eligibility for unemployment insurance for people who work 20 hours a week or less with one employer is causing a hardship, it certainly should be reviewed. But this is only one indication of the long neglect of part-time workers of this country, and this has been a neglect by the employer and by unions. Part-time workers generally have not had access to pension plans, sickness benefits or even to regular pay increases, and unions have not considered that they have the same responsibilities for their part-time workers as for their full-time workers.
Since women, very often by reason of family responsibility, have no choice but to work part time when the money is needed, I think it is high time that part-time workers received more attention. That attention should be directed not only toward a possible change in respect of unemployment insurance benefits, but should also be directed toward the benefits they have and the treatment they receive when they are employed.
I might just mention here something about the attitude of unions to family responsibility, and I do not mean in any way to single out unions for particular criticism because I think in this regard they have been reflecting society's values. Recently when I took up the cudgels for a woman working in a Crown corporation who needed a shift change because of family responsibility, I found that management was willing to accommodate her but the union insisted that changes in shifts be handled strictly on the basis of seniority. I can see why, because it perhaps builds in a certain equity. But I suggest that it also might be equally important for unions and management jointly, whether in the federal civil service, the provincial civil service or in private industry, to look again at the treatment of part-time workers, and also to look at the question of whether seniority must always be the overriding factor or whether there are other parameters which should be looked at too.
I remind hon. members, too, that when the equal pay for work of equal value provision was written into our human rights legislation a couple of years ago there were unions which were unhappy about that and were afraid this might interfere with some of their traditional seniority requirements.
The federal government only controls or can regulate something like 10 per cent of the labour force, but it is obviously important that the trend or the example set should be models where possible.
It is interesting to note-and the full potential in this regard has not been realized-the access women have in the Department of National Defence. In a peacetime army the emphasis on trade and technical training is tremendous. Since the military is so performance oriented, the increase in the number of women with skilled training is perhaps an indication of the fact that in the army the woman who can perform a job competently quickly gets recognition for this and then more jobs start to open up. The tasks they do in the army are measurable, but also they have very good measurement techniques, and we have women in the army able to get into technical training more easily than they can in certain commu-

March 7, 1979
Women's Right to Work
nity colleges in this country. In addition to their training they will also get experience that will stand them in good stead when they return to civilian life.
Another initiative of the federal government that has received rather less attention than it might, but which I think is having far-reaching benefits, is the voluntary compliance provision whereby firms doing business with the Government of Canada are expected to have, if not affirmative action programs, an awareness of the need to provide equal opportunities for women.
To return to what I said a little while ago about the need for subtlety and for better evaluation, we put a measure in place in the public service a long time ago which is not producing the results it should. This was a measure that includes on a classification form a space for voluntary experience. This has potential benefit for a woman who has been out of the labour force raising children but who in the course of that time may have gained tremendous administrative and organizational experience while working with voluntary organizations. The theory was that this would be recognized when a woman returned to work so that she might very well be able to enter at a position other than at the entry level.
This has not worked, and it has not worked because the techniques of evaluating that voluntary experience are not well developed. I think this is an important measure to develop. Again this is one which, in addition to benefiting women who have been out of the labour force, should also benefit the man who perhaps has not had very much formal education but who may have a tremendous commitment to his community, a lot of energy and ability that can be reflected in promotion if the system were able to evaluate it.
One of the other rigidities of the public service which sometimes limits the access of women to jobs is a built-in male bias that is not overt but occurs in terms of qualifications. For example, for a job as inspector under some of the regulatory authorities, if one of the job requirements is an absolute one of five years on a police force, the effect of that will be to exclude women. If the requirement is written with some equivalencies, then women who have had other kinds of experience in which they have developed an ability to assess conflicting facts and have shown an ability to evaluate conflicting evidence and produce factual reports, could qualify. Equally, men who do not have those rigid qualifications would be eligible.
Within the public service at this time we are at a stage for the most part of not needing new laws or regulations, but rather more subtle, more careful and more committed administration of what is in existence.
To return to the question of pensions, which I think has been addressed by almost every speaker, when middle and upper income people are pre-planning their retirement they usually have at least four planks; savings, the Canada Pension Plan or old age security, a pension plan from their work and perhaps some additional purchased retirement plan such as an RRSP. Low earners depend on the Canada Pension Plan and old age security or state provided plans. Women overwhelmingly find themselves in this position, partly because family responsibili-

ties have taken them in and out of the labour force and they have not been able to build up credits. Even with the Canada Pension Plan their credits may be lower than they might have been.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, oh!


Aideen Nicholson: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has had her time. If there is some particular reason why she would like the floor, perhaps she could advise me and I will sit down; otherwise I will continue.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Very thin skinned.


Aideen Nicholson: As I was saying before I was interrupted by noise from the other side, the majority of women are absent from the labour force for long periods during which they contribute to society by raising children. This reduces their ability to build up pension benefits in their own right and as a result each is dependent on her husband's financial planning for retirement.
Even if the husband worked with a firm that had a good retirement plan, it does not necessarily mean that the wife will receive a pension after his death. As we know, women generally live longer than men, but only 45 per cent of all members of employers' sponsored plans in 1976 belonged to plans that paid a widow a pension, and in most cases that pension was only 50 per cent of the husband's entitlement. It is for reasons of this kind, with women not being able to build up pension credit themselves, that in 1975 more than two thirds of all women over the age of 65 had cash incomes below $3,500.
I raised this question of pensions when I first spoke in this House in 1974. I pointed out at that time that many firms have an earlier compulsory retirement age for women than for men, which results in lower contributions from both employee and employer and therefore lower benefits. Although this practice was changing at that time, almost one quarter of the women enrolled in pension plans were required to retire at an earlier age than men under the same plans.
If the earlier retirement age is combined with low earnings and late entry-because many plans also delay vesting for women-then the pension is doubly or triply depressed. The whole question of pensions is one which involves provincial governments and private industry at least as much as the federal government. It is a question to which we are hearing different solutions at the present time. The Toronto Star has been advocating that the Canada Pension Plan be increased and that the people be encouraged to reduce their dependence on private plans. Other people are saying that the insurance industry should be much more flexible. It needs to build up earlier vesting, easier portability and perhaps require permanent vesting at an earlier stage in a person's work career. Whatever the solution, I think it is urgent that this be addressed. I hope that the federal-provincial ministers' conference planned for next year on the economic position of women will devote considerable-
March 7, 1979


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but her allotted time has expired. She may continue with unanimous consent. Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister is not here today, that he did not have the courtesy to stay through the debate. The minister touts his great ability and his great concern for women but he cannot even sit through the debate. It is a disgrace.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is having trouble with his gall.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: He is having trouble with some of his members too. It would be very good for the minister if his colleagues on that side would tell him to watch the wonderful story of Agnes MacPhail which is on television tonight. It is a story which could teach him more in an hour than he has learned in his while life, as far as I am concerned.


An hon. Member:: She was a socialist.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: She was a woman who cared about half the people in this country, the half who are women, and that is more than you care about.
The hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) mentioned in her speech that she did not receive many comments back about the changes for part-time people under the UIC bill. There are 1,129,000 women who are interested in part-time work. They should be considered a resource, not a penalty, as the government considers them. I just do not think that the government realizes that the stag party is over in politics, government, business and in labour unions. For the first time since womankind came out of the trees, women are now going on the hunt. I would like to salute the United States for their Uncle Sam. He is a traitor to his sex because he has ordered the hunt to be opened to women and that they be given equal opportunity.
The title of the minister's booklet is, "Towards Equality". Where on earth has the minister been? This book was printed with my tax money. The thing which he must remember is that his and her signs are now out in this world. Why has this government been so slow to act? The women's revolution, the
Women's Right to Work
women's movement, has been in force for ten to 15 years in this country.
As I was sitting here today I began to wonder about what the matter is, and I now know what it is. The minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are afraid of women. It is the only excuse which I can find. They are afraid of women as peers, as colleagues and as equals in running this country.
Perhaps the problem is that, with very exceptions, there have been no role models between men and women in government circles, but we intend to change that. I discovered today watching you people over there that I think your Prime Minister and your Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) think of women as wives, mothers, sweethearts or girlfriends. They do not look at women as co-workers-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: -or you would have done a lot more.


An hon. Member:: To the Chair.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Pardon, me, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I know the wife of Mr. Speaker and he understands women's revolution. The reason this government has been so slow is that it has been dragging its feet. They are a group of fearful men.


Mr. Mclsaac:: We're scared when you come into the House, Jean.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: We on this side of the House see a monumental opportunity to harness a virtually untapped energy, to put into service in this nation limitless new brain power and a totally fresh perspective. One way or the other women will be in the hunt. They will move into the decision-making areas to manage this country. I hope that the poor Minister of Justice will lose his fear of women. He has nothing to lose but the chains of the past and the limits of his own growth as a human being.
I would like to comment on the motion because there is the tremendous challenge that if the government could set an example for the private sector-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 8, 1979