1981-01-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In February, 1976, Robert Andras, then minister of manpower and immigration, increased Government of Canada annuity interest rates from 4 per cent to 7 per cent. In the communique, he stated, "It should be noted, however, that both the increase in the rate of interest and the percentage increase in the annuity will be subject to periodic review depending on future fluctuations in interest rates". The 7 per cent interest rate is now unfair, inappropriate and dishonest. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the government do forthwith increase the interest rate on which calculations are based for the payment of the Government of Canada annuities to the same rate of interest presently paid on Canada Savings Bonds, and that the rate of interest on annuities fluctuate with the rate of interest paid to those who lend money to Canada on Canada Savings Bonds.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This week 17 of the 41 CN Express employees on Prince Edward Island received notice they are to be laid off on March 1, despite assurances from the government that the elimination of CN Express on the island is being reconsidered. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That this House condemn the government for ignoring the severe economic hardship P.E.I. will experience should CN Express be terminated there, and that the Minister of Transport honour his commitment to explore every possible way to prevent P.E.I. from becoming, except for Newfoundland, the only province in Canada without CN Express service.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas this House has been debating a great deal the supply of oil and gas, for example, drilling in Alberta, tar sands development and pipelines, and has virtually ignored the things most people can relate to, such as programs converting their oil furnace to gas or electricity; and whereas the minister of energy, in talking about grants of up to $800, said in this House on November 14, 1980, that "we will arrive at arrangements with all provinces very soon as to how the program will be worked but especially concerning conversion to electricity", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That the federal government stop dragging its feet in its negotiations with the provinces and allow the grants to be administered by provincial utilities like Hydro-Quebec in order to protect the consumers from rip-offs, and, finally, that the federal government make the $800 grant exempt from taxation.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, in view of the most recent accounts overnight of beatings and other physical and mental abuse suffered by the American hostages at the hands of their Iranian captors during their

January 22, 1981
444-day detention, accounts which have shocked the world community, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Canadian government refuse to re-establish full diplomatic ties with Iran, and specifically refuse to reopen the Canadian Embassy in Tehran, until an international investigation of the treatment of the hostages is completed and the world community is satisfied that Iran will henceforth live up to the obligations of international law.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of great importance to the Ukrainian community in Canada. Considering that this House has not met on January 22 for the past six years and considering that the date of January 22 marks the commemoration of the 1918 proclamation of Ukrainian independence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House recognize the continuous efforts of the Ukrainian Canadian community to uphold the fundamental principles of freedom and democracy for the benefit of all citizens of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
*
* *
[DOT] (MIO)

Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I stand under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that there is considerable confusion and consternation in the north concerning the government's plans for northern airports, and since budget cuts and reduction of maintenance service reinforce the uncertainty, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the government deal with the issues of northern air services only after extensive consultation with territorial governments and other interested parties in the north.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas Canadian National Railways is planning cuts in CN Express which will, if carried out, close half of its 70 terminals and eliminate over 1,200 jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright):
That the Canadian Transport Commission permit no closure to take place or job to be eliminated without a proper hearing being in the communities affected and evidence indicates that the closure is justified.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
[Stage Direction]
1988 WINTER OLYMPICS-CALL FOR SUPPORT OF BID BY CALGARY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The 1988 Winter Olympic Games will be awarded to a host country in October of this year. Bidding for Canada is the city of Calgary. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House supports the city of Calgary in its bid to host the 1988 Winter Olympic Games.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 22, 1981


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, 1 too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of recent reports that the Canadian Wheat Board is offering a $100 million interest-free loan to the consortium that plans to build the new grain terminal at Prince Rupert, and in view of the fact that the interest costs for the loan will be a charge against money realized from sales of producers' grain and, in effect, an act of conversion or theft by the board of producers' money, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board instruct the board to withdraw its offer and cancel their plans for such a loan, and further that the minister have the law officers of the Crown review the Canadian Wheat Board Act and, if necessary, bring in amendments to ensure that the powers of the board are restricted to the basic principles on which the Canadian Wheat Board was established.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
[Stage Direction]
1988 WINTER OLYMPICS-SUPPORT OF BID BY CALGARY- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner):
That this House supports the city of Calgary in its bid to host the 1988 Winter Olympic Games.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: There is unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Daily we receive reports of the disastrous effects of the program on future supply of oil in this country. We have heard from the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, and today Chevron announced a cutback of $330 million in its exploration program, with a Mobil $164 million cutback in addition to many other cutbacks by both independent and multinational companies.
When will the government accept the fact that all these actions which have been proposed by the companies, plus the advice which has been received, indicate that the National Energy Program, particularly the tax policies under that National Energy Program, is leading this country into a very serious supply crisis in the 1980s? More specifically, will the government withdraw the National Energy Program and replace it with a white paper, so that there can be proper discussion of the energy program following which specific policies can be introduced?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to withdraw the National Energy Program. As I stated yesterday, the main elements of that program are widely supported-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where?


An hon. Member:: Even you don't believe that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -by the Canadian population. If the hon. member's point is that the new federal taxes are affecting the cash flow of the industry, that, of course, is readily accepted because any tax which is implemented without loopholes is bound to have that effect.
However, despite the effect of the taxes on the industry, I think it is absolutely clear that the cash flow available to the industry is ample and growing. There is no other sector in the Canadian economy which has the opportunity for growth and development this industry has. I think the hon. member ought to bear that in mind instead of repeating the doleful dirges he has repeated today in his question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, everyone agrees with the broad elements of the program, but the actual details of the program are undermining those elements, particularly in the area of supply. Has the government been monitoring the current National Energy Board hearings on supply at which company after company is saying that the supply objectives of

January 22, 1981
Oral Questions
the National Energy Program will just not be met and that self-sufficiency is not possible under the National Energy Program in this century unless there are changes?
If the government is not monitoring these National Energy Board hearings, will the minister do so in order that he can amend the National Energy Program at the earliest possible stage if the supply objectives of the program are not met?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's support for the main outline of the National Energy Program.


Charles Joseph Clark: Canadianization.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am delighted that he supports the major elements of that program. He has suggested that changes ought to be made. No one on this side of the House has ever opposed the notion of changes if they are justified. As the hon. member knows, just before Christmas I had tabled in the House changes to the definition of exploration expenses in response to representations from the industry, and as discussion continues there undoubtedly will be further modifications if they are justified. However, what the hon. member fails to get across in his question is that despite the National Energy Program the cash flow to the industry as a whole is very substantial. It is growing, and when we add the incentive payments, growth in the cash flow to the industry in 1980 and 1981 will be very substantial indeed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why are they leaving Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Therefore, the hon. member ought to bear that in mind as he contemplates the details of the program.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the impact on cash flows is very substantial. It is causing companies to cut back severely on their exploration programs to help us achieve self-sufficiency. Those cutbacks are severe and we will not achieve self-sufficiency as it stands.
Let me move on to my supplementary question. I mentioned earlier that three banks have stated their objection to the National Energy Program. Clearly there is a message here, Madam Speaker. Their clients, the oil companies, have told them that they will not be able to finance the activities which had been under way prior to October 28, and their financial position has been quite drastically weakened as a result. Has the minister discussed the impact of the program with the chartered banks in order to take their advice as to changes which might be made in the National Energy Program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I have had occasion to discuss briefly, for example, the National Energy Program with the president of the Bank of Montreal, who recently made a statement in which he supported the National Energy Program and the elements and goals of that program. In fact, it was a very supportive statement, in
contrast, I might add, with some of the not so favourable and not so objective comments made by other bank presidents.
The hon. member has again stated that the industry will not be able to finance development activity, and I want to tell him that the cash flow of this industry in 1981, even without the incentive payments which are provided, will be 28 per cent higher than it was in 1979.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense, flim-flam.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is that an industry that is being hard done by? I again ask the hon. member to think over his question.


CUTBACK BY MOBIL OIL
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I should like to ask the minister this question, and I am concerned not only because of the supply aspect, Madam Speaker, but because the $164 million or 46 per cent cutback bodes serious economic consequences for the Atlantic provinces. My question to the minister is whether the government has been in touch with Mobil Oil and has it determined precisely where the cutback will take place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not aware of what has been done by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I personally have not been in touch with Mobil.


OWNERSHIP OF OFFSHORE RESOURCES
James Aloysius McGrath: My supplementary question has to do with the question of jurisdiction, because the Mobil announcement, in addition to the uncertainty of the government's energy policy, cited the whole question of jurisdiction as being one of the reasons they are cutting back at this time.
Perhaps I should direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him why the government has shifted its position. Last fall it indicated that the energy offshore question would come in the second phase of the constitutional talks, yet in the energy paper preceding Bill C-48 the government says it is anxious to refer the matter of ownership quickly to the Supreme Court. Now we have Bill C-48 which stakes out the government's claim in terms of the Canada lands, thereby pre-empting the whole question from being discussed at the first ministers' conference. I now submit that the consequence is just further uncertainty and perhaps further cutbacks.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I do not understand the hon. member. Surely when we have an energy policy, we have to deal with Canada lands. Whether the offshore is in those Canada lands or not will be a matter to be decided either by negotiation, as we have attempted to do for the past ten years, or by the courts; but surely you could not have an energy policy without dealing with the Canada lands, and the matter of what is included in those lands will be determined in some other way.
January 22, 1981


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for CMHC, whom I would like to welcome back from the city of Vancouver which, to quote him, has the hottest housing crisis in North America. The mayor of Vancouver asked the minister for $15 million to help establish a land bank program, which is absolutely essential to de-escalate the extreme situation going on in the housing field in that city, and also to build affordable housing. How can the minister justify to the House the fact that he refused this help for Vancouver when apparently he agreed that there is a terrible housing situation there, and when he also admitted that he has surplus funds available in his community service grants budget which could be used for this very purpose? Why does the minister have to wait for advice from a real estate conference in March before acting on behalf of Vancouver?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, in my discussions with Mr. Chabot, the provincial minister for housing and with the mayor, I think it was generally understood that the land banking proposal, the request for $15 million, was a long-term or medium-term plan of the mayor and council in addressing the question of need, the point being that if lands were made available in the future possibly the problem being experienced now in Vancouver and in the lower mainland would not be as acute. It is a request for all governments to join in co-operation, as we have in the past, under some program for addressing housing needs. I think the mayor was more concerned with the immediacy of the problem. Of course, in that respect we have been able to respond immediately with the designation of social housing units, from an initial designation of 600 last year to over 3,000 for the year ending 1980. I am directing my attention to the immediate needs, and I thought the mayor, the councillors and the provincial minister with whom I met understood that as well.


ADDITIONAL SOCIAL HOUSING FUNDS-ELIMINATION OF SPECULATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, certainly the situation in Vancouver demands action now. Why wait for spring; it is now that a solution is needed and the planning should start.
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Last week the minister said that he would forward my request for additional social housing funds to the cabinet social development committee. The first part of my question is: Will the minister confirm that he submitted it to, and supported it in, the social development committee? Second, since the monthly increase in the value of a home in Vancouver is greater than the earnings of a worker, and the vacancy rates in at least six other major cities in
Presence in Gallery
Canada are very low, what action will the minister take to bring in a 100 per cent capital gains tax in order to eliminate this terrible speculation in housing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in the interests of brevity, the answer to the first part of the question is yes and the answer to the second part is no.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I will return to the minister responsible for CMHC. Perhaps the minister is aware that last week the hon. member for Oshawa was in Vancouver-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to omit her preambles and go immediately to her question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Does the minister support the economic recovery program proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa which would include lower mortgage interests, revitalizing CMHC, increasing non-profit housing, leasing Crown land for housing, and reinstating community services grants to municipalities?


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the hon. member made submissions on the designated day last week. I think there were ten points which perhaps reflected her idea of an economic recovery program. I indicated in my first answer that the government is addressing a number of those points in order of priority, where we think we can achieve the most immediate good in response to the present tight market. For some other areas such as the community services program to which she alluded, the money and space will not be free until 1982.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of members of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Minister of Communications and leader of the House for Australia, the Right Hon. Ian Sinclair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, since the Minister of Supply and Services is not present in the
80094 -37

January 22, 1981
Oral Questions
Elouse at this time, perhaps Your Honour could see me at a later time or later date.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It is with regard to the proposed new zinc refinery in Belledune, Restigouche county, New Brunswick. Could the parliamentary secretary inform the House as to the status of this proposed new refinery, in light of excellent world markets for zinc? Can he inform the House as to the anticipated construction date of this important refinery, which will bring many permanent and much-needed jobs to the area?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, no money yet has been requested of the department for that operation. However, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has committed over $1,600,000 to preliminary engineering and design work for the facility. Because it has put that amount of money into the design work and preliminary engineering, the department feels the project is a very positive possibility.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister called a hurried press conference together this morning to announce $59 million for the disabled and the chronically unemployed. I regret the announcement was not made in the House, where we could have made a suitable response. In the absence of that opportunity, I would like to ask the minister how much of the $59 million is allocated to the disabled. Over what period of time will it be available, what assistance and what assurances will be given for permanent employment at fair wages?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in my response to the hon. member I would like to elaborate on the press release, which was based upon the program announced in this House previously, when we announced our general employment strategy last summer. The program is a two-year experimental program. It is designed to provide employment opportunities in the private sector for the disabled, the mentally and physically handicapped and those who have disadvantages in the workplace.
The program is designed to give grants to the employers. It is our assessment that once that takes place, once the disabled are able to overcome that first barrier of obtaining a private sector job, they will then be able to stay in that job and demonstrate their worth and therefore obtain a high degree of commitment to continuity over a period of time. Our commitment is to take a look at this experimental program, at the sum which was paid, and if it seems to be a good program and provides for the incentive we need, obviously the government would be prepared to examine whether or not the program should be expanded.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, I have already had feedback from the disabled community pointing out that employment in sheltered workshops and temporary employment at low wages has been the chief deterrent in the past for permanent employment of the handicapped. Will the minister give us assurances that qualified disabled people will be able to participate in all government programs? They want to be integrated. They want to be part of the community and not earmarked in this special way. They want the assurance that they will be provided assistance from all government programs, including assistance for the setting up of small businesses and, particularly, the provision of technical aids designed to overcome motor and sensory disabilities which make full employment possible. This is the only way in which they can become fully employed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that we have introduced affirmative action programs in the public service. One of the groups included in that program is the disabled or the handicapped. We have also introduced the affirmative action principle as part of our over-all job-creation program. Again, they are one of the identified target groups which will receive special assistance. As part of the announcement today with respect to the program for the disabled we are offering grants of up to $5,000 to any employer who takes the physically or mentally handicapped as part of the employment package to renovate facilities or provide special equipment where necessary.


OLYMPIC GAMES
[Stage Direction]
1988 WINTER OLYMPICS
John Kushner: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport. As the minister knows, the city of Calgary is bidding to host the 1988 Winter Olympic Games which will be awarded in October of this year. What is the minister doing to help the city of Calgary in its bid for the 1988 Winter Olympic Games?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary East for his question. His interest in the Olympics bid by Calgary is well known. I want to assure him that my department is totally supportive of the
January 22, 1981

bid by the Calgary Olympics Committee. 1 might add that it is an excellent committee which has been doing the work of seeking to have the games awarded to Canada for 1988.
We have given an official indication to the Olympics Committee that we endorse Calgary's bid. On Monday, in Calgary, 1 will be indicating a contribution by my department toward the cost of the bid, which is, of course, a very expensive undertaking. We have approved in principle, if the bid is successful, assistance in the form of revenue-producing stamp and coin programs, which we think will be helpful. We are very supportive of the efforts of the Calgary Olympics Committee to convince the Interprovincial Lottery Commission, which now has control of the lotteries of this country, to allow Calgary substantial revenue from those provincial lotteries, or to establish a special lottery to make the financing of that undertaking possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister will know that today the bank rate indicates continuing blind adherence by this government to its high interest rate policy. In light of that, the minister indicated a week ago that he would be fair to Canada Savings Bonds holders. The minister will know that the rate is only 11 Vi per cent, while banks, trust companies and other financial institutions are paying higher rates. Will the minister now be fair to Canada Savings Bonds holders and increase the rate to \ 2'h per cent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I have mentioned to the hon. member on a number of previous occasions, 1 am obviously monitoring the rate of Canada Savings Bonds. In that regard, on one occasion late last year the rate was adjusted.
Despite the comments which he has made today the Canada Savings Bond is still a very attractive instrument. I have not yet reached any decision to alter the rate at the present time.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the minister will know that $261 million worth of Canada Savings Bonds were redeemed last week. He will also know that probably more will be redeemed this week, as the high interest rate policy of the government carries on. It costs the government a great deal of money to place those bonds, at least 1 per cent. Will the minister, in the interest of running a reasonable economic system in Canada, do something to retard the redemption of these bonds? Will he at least be fair to the people? Will he pay the people the kinds, of rates which he is prepared to pay to the big banks and the bond market generally for money which he borrows?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, of course we intend to be fair to those who have purchased bonds. The Canada Savings Bond has certain features which no other instrument has. For that reason, in addition to the interest rate, these other features, which are attractive to subscribers, must be kept in mind. 1 will certainly keep in mind the question of fairness so that the fair thing will be done at the appropriate time.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On June 23, 1980, the minister assured Canadians that there was no evidence that pesticides tested in the U.S. by Industrial Biotest Laboratories "represent a health hazard to users or as residues in food.'' Yet on January 7, 1981, the Regina Leader-Post revealed that secret Canadian government memos obtained in the United States indict IBT for fraudulent captan safety studies. The memo reveals that as early as 1978-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question, please?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Is the minister still prepared, in light of the recent disclosures about the health hazards of captan, to stand behind her statement of June 23, 1980, when she claimed that there is no evidence that any of these pesticides represent a health hazard?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that on January 7, I believe, the CP wire service carried a story on the possible health risks associated with captan. Generally speaking, the information contained in that story was correct and corresponds with what 1 said in the House previously. Replacement studies were initiated by the registrants some time ago because tests on captan which were carried out by Industrial Biotest Laboratories in the United States were invalid. The results of a critical cancer study are expected to be available some time this month.


Simon Leendert de Jong: 1 have a supplementary, Madam Speaker. The secret Canadian government memos also revealed that five pages of the test reports were altered by IBT after Chevron Chemical Company, a major manufacturer of captan, expressed concern about the high number of mutations found in animals exposed to the chemical. Yet the Canadian government has asked Chevron to carry out new testing on captan. Can the government assure the Canadian people that falsification of testing will not occur again?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, a Canadian ministry is not and cannot be responsible for invalid tests performed by an American laboratory. The objective of any monitoring of tests

January 22, 1981
Oral Questions
by a government is to ensure that they are valid, well done and not falsified. As soon as the weaknesses of the 1BT tests were known, they were declared invalid and the proper course of action was taken. We are continuously attempting to ensure that all tests are valid.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who will recall that on Monday he said that his government will "move toward a normalization of relations with Iran as soon as possible". Would the Prime Minister assure the House of Commons now that restoration of full diplomatic relations with Iran will not take place until at least these two conditions have been met: first, that there be an investigation into and report on any torture or violations of the human rights of the American hostages; and, second, that Iran has demonstrated that it will accept the normal international standards of behaviour governing diplomats abroad?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there are two aspects to this question. The question about resumption of diplomatic relations with Iran by the Leader of the Opposition presupposes that we have broken off diplomatic relations which, of course, neither his government nor mine has done. We still have diplomatic relations with Iran. The question is, when will we take concrete steps to send our mission back to Tehran? As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the other day, that certainly would be done in months rather than in weeks.
The return of diplomats will depend largely on the assistance which Canadians need in Iran, if any at all, whether those are Canadians needing consular help or businessmen seeking to resume operations or regain some of their losses. So we cannot answer this question in advance; it will be decided in the best interests of the Canadian people.
With regard to normal relations, since the remark quoted by the Leader of the Opposition is the answer which I gave, I should say that I believe the remarks were made in the context of sanctions. The sanctions were taken specifically to obtain the release of the hostages. The hostages have now been released. I believe that it would be the policy of this government, though it has not been made a decision as yet, to lift those sanctions, as, indeed, they have been lifted already by the EEC, Australia, Japan and other countries which wish to re-establish normal relations with Iran.
But this being said, we are concerned as a government about the news of ill treatment of the hostages, and we will wait for further information before taking any concrete steps, particularly in light of the fact that the object of this exercise was to ensure respect for international law, especially the Vienna convention on diplomatic immunity. As I argued very early in
this whole crisis, I think that much of what happens will depend on consultations between the major parties concerned. We will be in touch with many of the countries which took steps similar to the steps Canada took.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have had a long answer and little enlightenment as to what will guide the policy of the government. The question both Monday and today had to do with the resumption of full and normal relations with the government of Iran. On Monday the Prime Minister said that those full and normal relations would be resumed "as soon as possible". The Prime Minister is now quoting his Secretary of State for External Affairs to suggest that perhaps there will be a longer time period.
I have raised two conditions which we believe should be among the conditions necessary before that resumption is achieved. One is that there be an investigation into and report on the torture and violation of human rights relating to the American hostages; and the second is that Iran demonstrate that it is prepared to abide by the normal diplomatic customs in relation to diplomats abroad. I would like a simple answer to the question whether or not those two conditions will have to be honoured by Iran before full and normal diplomatic relations are established by Canada with Iran.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the answer to the second question has been given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this House when he dealt with this matter the other day, the same day as I dealt with this matter. He said-and I remind the Leader of the Opposition that if he is interested in this question, he should review what was said by the minister responsible-that we will not send diplomats to Iran until we are certain that the Iranian authorities are prepared to respect diplomatic immunities and the provisions of international law as laid down in the Vienna convention. The answer has already been given, and it is part of government policy.
As to the first part of the question, I am not quite sure who will carry out this investigation, what the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition is or what is the international convention which he has in mind. It seems to me that this is a matter for the United States first and foremost. I repeat, we will be consulting with the United States as to what means they envisage in order to ascertain the facts of the matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the mystery is just exactly what principles will guide the government in this matter. I hope that the Prime Minister will consult with his Secretary of State for External Affairs when he returns and make a clear, concise, unambiguous statement as to what will guide them. Would the Prime Minister consider placing on the agenda of the upcoming economic summit in June, which will be hosted by Canada, the subject of terrorism perpetrated by governments against diplomatic personnel, so that such action would automatically trigger the kinds of economic sanctions discussed one year ago at the United Nations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I answered that question just a couple of days ago in reply to the hon. member for
January 22, 1981

Sherbrooke. I remind the hon. member, as did the hon. member for Sherbrooke in his question, that it was Canada which achieved movement in the area of international terrorism at the Bonn Summit. This subject was raised again by Canada at the summit last year in Venice. As I said, I am prepared to raise the subject again this year. Hopefully, Canada will be successful in having positive steps taken, as we had steps taken after the Bonn Summit.


WELLHEAD TAX ON OIL-EXPORT TAX ON NATURAL GAS-REQUESTED WITHDRAWAL
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said yesterday in Alberta that he is prepared to negotiate at any time with Alberta on an energy agreement. The Minister of Finance today has indicated that he is prepared to change certain clauses of the agreement. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to withdraw the 8 per cent wellhead tax on the production of oil, and is he also prepared to withdraw the export tax on natural gas, as proposed by the producing provinces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure that when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was talking about negotiations he used that word with some care. Negotiations imply a willingness on the part of all participants to make adjustments. It is in that spirit that we are prepared to negotiate, on the understanding that those with whom we negotiate are also prepared to make accommodations and changes. That is the only spirit in which we would approach negotiations that would have any hope of success.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I would like to question the Minister of Finance once again. Will he clarify very simply whether he is prepared at least to negotiate the 8 per cent wellhead tax on petroleum and the export tax on gas?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we are prepared to discuss with the producing provinces-


Jack Wendele Shields: Are you or are you not? Yes or no?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -all items which might lead to the conclusion of an agreement that would be fair to all parties. But to suggest at this stage that the Government of Canada should indicate unilaterally what items it is prepared to withdraw-


Mr. Epp:: Never.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -would be a rather foolish operational method which I would not expect any hon. member to suggest.
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF NORTHERN AIRPORTS
Peter Ittinuar: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On January 19, the minister stated that he would not transfer responsibility for northern airports to territorial governments if safety was impaired by the process. Will the minister further reassure the House by telling us that he will not transfer responsibility until such time as it can be demonstrated that air services in the north will be improved by the process?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: That is the idea, Madam Speaker. If I remember correctly, this policy has been in existence for three or four years. One transfer took place under this policy in the past. It is now being reassessed and future decisions will have to justify that all economic and safety aspects are met. I think the general proposition is that there are a number of instances where a local government can do a better job, with a small airport particularly, than the national government.


DISARMAMENT
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In preparation for the meeting with President Reagan, would the Prime Minister take the initiative and seek to have included on the agenda for discussion the policy of gradual suffocation of armaments as proposed by Canada at the United Nations in May, 1978. In addition, would the Prime Minister seek the support of the United States government for holding a disarmament conference in Europe, as proposed by the French and Polish delegations at the Conference on Security and Co-operation which is scheduled to resume in Madrid on January 27?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to the first part of the question, for which I thank the hon. member and which is one very central to the Canadian government's concern, 1 would certainly hope that the United States would accept putting the question of east-west relations on the agenda in any forthcoming meeting I would have with President Reagan. It is essential that we discuss this together because it will obviously be an important part of the discussions we will eventually have at the summit in July.
In that regard, I can answer affirmatively to the hon. member's question that not only will we be discussing, for my part, the policy of suffocation but the other two elements of the speech on disarmament I made to the United Nations in 1979, that is to say, the resumption of the Strategic Arms Limitation talks and the comprehensive test ban.
As to the second suggestion made by the hon. member regarding the French proposal, I would say at this stage, not having examined it in detail, that we are in favour of confi-

January 22, 1981
Oral Questions
dence-building measures, which 1 know the French proposal suggests. In that sense I can answer that part of the question affirmatively also.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister endorse the concept of tripartite aid as outlined in the Brandt report, and does he see a special role for Canada in this aid format?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker. The concept of tripartite aid was explored by our government long before the Brandt report was thought about. 1 recall having discussed it at Commonwealth conferences in the early 1970s. 1 discussed it again recently during my visit to Saudi Arabia and other countries. I proposed support for the energy affiliate of the World Bank, a suggestion which came from Mr. McNamara. It was a subject which I had discussed with Mr. McNamara before leaving Saudi Arabia. I did urge that proposal not only on the Saudis but on the Germans and on the French. It is a form of tripartite assistance where capital would be joined with technology from developed countries, both of which in this case would serve to seek greater energy self-reliance in the less developed countries.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question if for the Prime Minister. That parliamentary task force on North-South relations stated that Canada seems to have been able to achieve only limited impact in enlisting oil-rich countries in joint efforts. Because of the government's failure in this area, would the Prime Minister consider initiating, prior to the North-South discussions in Canada this year, a series of trilateral demonstration projects whereby Canada would provide technological expertise and equipment in conjunction, perhaps, with Arab financing for assistance to a country particularly in the poverty belt of Africa, such as Somalia? Would the Prime Minster consider several demonstration projects to get to the specifics of this particular aid form which he supports?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I proposed more than a demonstration project; I made a concrete proposal and Canadian government support for it. The hon. member, and I think his words should be noted carefully, indicated that the Canadian government had failed because it had not convinced the oil-rich countries to let us use their capital with our technology in Third World countries. That can be described as a failure of our government, Madam Speaker, but it can also be looked at as a natural disinclination by oil-rich countries in a surplus position to let somebody else use their capital.
It seems to me the demonstration projects suggested by the hon. member all have this difficulty. These are the difficulties which we have run into in the past. It takes an extraordinary
amount of good will and generosity to give your capital to someone else so that it can be used in a third country. I do not fault the Saudis, among others, for being reluctant to embark upon that. That is why we have pursued the cause of the energy affiliate, because it would permit the oil-rich countries to have a greater say in such an affiliate through their votes. That is also why, as a fail-back position, this government in its energy policy has set aside some $225 million or $250 million to be spent over the next five years to help bilaterally, with our funds and our technology, the LDCs in finding energy self-sufficiency.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the Minister of Indian Affairs has now designated $150,000 to the Nishga Indians to fight the Amax marine dumping, would the minister please tell us where he is at in the process of rescinding the special dumping permit issued to Amax?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member indicating acknowledgement of the funds going to the Nishga to enable them to conduct research.
As far as the demand for an inquiry, which the hon. member has made several times both to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and myself, might I say that a panel of experts has been set up to look into the matter, notice of which has been communicated to the Nishga tribal chief, Mr. Gosnell.
If he finds that unsatisfactory as to a communicated vote to my colleague and myself, we will be prepared to consider some alterations for that type of panel to increase its participation and we would welcome its views. As the hon. member knows, that is the substance of the discussion the minister of fisheries, the hon. member and myself had yesterday.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I understand he is preparing to rescind the special order in council dumping permit to Amax. Can he bring the House up to date as to where we are at in that process?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I have not had before me a recommendation to this effect. Basically, the Nishga have told us they are not opposed to the project going ahead. They would like to be assured the project is conducted in a safe way. That is also our aim and our interest. We are trying to find a way to get a scientific review of the project, not a legal one because it is not
January 22, 1981

a legal problem. It is a question of scientific judgment and that is what we are working on.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This morning the minister announced the Summer Student Employment Program for 1981. As he knows, for people aged 15 to 21 this is a very important matter. Will he advise the House why he felt it necessary to cut back on the number of summer jobs for students from 70,000 to 49,000?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member will look at the statement, he will see that we say the number is 49,000. However, there are several streams to that program, including the cadet program and the student for hire program. There are several streams within the confines of that program.
The other allocation was to put further money back into the community employment programs to provide for ongoing work in the chronically high unemployment areas. Also under the new program we announced this morning is the program for the employment of the disadvantaged. A large number of those will be young people who have been chronically unemployed in those areas. It goes back to our basic philosophy, which is to try to target our resources at those who have the greatest need. We feel that those with the greatest need are the young people in the marketplace who have the most difficulty finding a job, and they should be given the greatest source of assistance from this government.


David Edward Crombie: Is the minister saying out of all of that that there will be 21,000 fewer jobs for students this summer?


Lloyd Axworthy: No, Madam Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask the government House leader some specific questions with respect to the business of the House. Last week the Chair struck down the first part of the tax bill, indicating the government will have to fund some borrowing authority, if it intends to do so, in another bill. Can the House leader tell us his plans with respect to that and where the bill would stand in the order of priorities if he did indeed bring it forward?
Also, we have some indication that there is an intention to introduce an excise tax bill. I wonder if the House leader might comment on that. The customs tariff bill is presently on
Business of the House
the order paper, which the government wishes to call. Is he prepared to say something with respect to that?
In answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, he indicated there were processes in place for some institutional reform. We know the freedom of information bill is on the order paper. I understand from his parliamentary secretary that some parliamentary reform proposals are being prepared. Will he confirm that is the case and indicate what priority he attaches to each of these matters to which I have alluded?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, in so far as the borrowing authority is concerned, we will be in a better position to give some indication to the hon. member in the near future. The same answer applies to the excise tax bill.
With regard to the customs tariff bill, there is an agreement among us. Following consultation, we agreed to dispose of second reading stage of this bill tomorrow afternoon. There will be one speaker per party. The bill will then be sent to a standing committee of this House rather than Committee of the Whole. That is the understanding among House leaders, and that will be done tomorrow.
Following that, we will resume debate on second reading stage of the income tax bill now under discussion. I hope that bill will go to Committee of the Whole at the beginning of next week. There is a good indication that that is a serious possibility. I think it would be very useful to allow members to deal with the specific provisions of that bill. It would be much more useful than sticking with second reading stage to which so many days have already been devoted.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, essentially this is the business for next week, and we hope that we shall also have consideration in Committee of the Whole of the bill to amend the Income Tax Act. As everyone knows, today is an opposition day. Finally, as concerns the last request of the Conservative House leader in relation to the question of parliamentary reform, I believe that my reply to his leader was complete. Once again I will say that this matter is very important for all members of this House. It is true that we are now working on some parliamentary reform proposals and I hope to be able to brief all the hon. members on the subject reasonably soon, but my colleague will understand that we have a relatively full agenda for the coming weeks and months as we have to consider very urgent matters dealing with the economy, energy and the Constitution. Therefore it is not very likely that our proposals can be fully approved and made public for discussion purposes before Easter. However, I hope that between Easter and the summer break, we shall be able to make these positions public so that they may be analysed and considered by the House as a whole.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the House leader did not comment on the freedom of information bill which was the one matter I mentioned. That can be discussed among ourselves, or perhaps he may wish to comment on it now.

January 22, 1981
Business of the House
There is one other item I want to put to him as a matter of practice. When his predecessor, the Minister of Finance, was Leader of the Government, it was the practice for us to submit to him a suggested list of allotted days to cover a period of time. That would act as a guide to the government in choosing allotted days. Of course the government was not bound by those days because they were allotted one at a time. I wonder whether that practice would be agreeable to the government House leader, given the fact that we have a fair number of them and a rather large legislative program to accommodate.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, with pleasure. I followed that practice last spring. It was not done last fall because all the allotted days were grouped together for the period of supply. I intend to suggest a list. It will not bind the government, but may be useful to House leaders. With regard to today's allotted day, I did consult with my colleagues. It is at their request that I allotted today rather than last Tuesday, which would have been more practical for the government. Therefore, my answer is yes, I will be pleased to provide him with a list.
In so far as the freedom of information bill is concerned, as the hon. member well knows, this House is faced with a very heavy schedule for the next weeks and months. Many times I have asked if there was agreement to deal with second reading stage of that bill in one day. If that were the case I would be pleased to try to find one day which would be suitable to all parties.
The Conservative House leader indicated that he has a long list of speakers and that possibly two days minimum would be required. With so many budget bills and tax bills which have deadlines, it is practically impossible at this time to set aside two days. In addition, we have the constitution to deal with and all the energy measures, as the hon. member knows.
If the opposition wants that bill to be very thoroughly studied by the standing committee, I will be pleased to discuss setting aside a period of time not exceeding one day in the very near future. I hope the Tories will agree to not more than one day's debate, taking into consideration the very heavy burden facing us and which we must deal with in order to assume our responsibilities.


Walter David Baker: It is unfortunate that this discussion concerning freedom of information has only been in respect of the number of days. Would it be within the purview of the government, leading to further discussion, to have a long day allotted to the freedom of information bill? Would that be within the thinking of the government and, if that is the case, would it be within the thinking of the government that we might have a long day allotted next week to this matter?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I shall be happy to take this positive suggestion into consideration. It now seems that the Progressive Conservative Party is prepared to agree to one
long day of debate. The Secretary of State has also subjected me to a lot of pressure. I shall be happy to take the suggestion into consideration and, if need be, to discuss it with the House leader in the near future at a meeting of the House Leaders.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, in respect of the bill regarding access to information, we are quite prepared to enter into discussion on a shortened debate so it could be given second reading and referred to the appropriate standing committee.
In respect of the customs tariff bill, I am happy to confirm the agreement we revived, the one we had in December, to limit ourselves to a one speaker per party debate on second reading tomorrow so that bill can then be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
I noted also the request of the minister that we get into Committee of the Whole on the income tax bill, C-54, as soon as possible. We are disposed to do that, it being understood, of course, that on clause 1 of the bill it will still be possible for members to make general speeches, the one difference being that they would be 20 minutes each instead of 40 minutes.
I hope the minister will pay some attention to the very friendly answers I have been getting from the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs, and that if that minister tells the government House leader he has a piece of legislation ready I hope he will fit it in, without question.
May I also ask the government House leader about Bill C-42, the Post Office legislation turning the Post Office into a Crown corporation. We were put under great pressure about that last October and November. The bill is back on the Order Paper. Can it not be called fairly soon?
I have one other question. The other night when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare was answering a late show question by the hon. member for Edmonton South, part of the question being, "Could we not have a full debate on North-South relations and other matters with reference to external affairs", the parliamentary secretary suggested we might get together and each of the opposition parties might contribute one of their opposition days and the government might contribute a day so we could have a full debate in this area, particularly in the area of North-South, and perhaps even more. I wonder if the government House leader would be willing to enter into some discussions about the possibility of having such a full-dress debate on these important matters?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have three answers to three questions. First concerning veterans, I will be glad to talk with the acting minister and I hope to be in a position to give a satisfactory answer in the reasonable future.
Second, concerning the Post Office, I have started discussions with the Postmaster General and I think we will be in a position to know if amendments will be required at the report stage. As soon as this is clarified I hope we will find some time to dispose of the report and third reading stages of that very
January 22, 1981

urgent bill within a very short period of time in the very near future.
Third, in respect of North-South, this is a subject that is very important to the Prime Minister, to this party and to this Parliament. I welcome the suggestion made by the hon. member. It deserves to be considered very seriously and I intend to raise that matter at a future meeting of House leaders so that if the opposition is willing to give some of its allotted days then it might be easier for the government to try also to give a bit of its time, which is very precious and needed for all the programs about which I talked earlier. We are willing to take that into very serious consideration in the very near future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, a week ago today I asked the government House leader if he would discuss with the Prime Minister the possibility of his making a statement on North-South arising from his trip. Of course the government House leader had to leave it to the Prime Minister. Is there any chance of that being implemented, having a statement on motions by the Prime Minister on his recent trip and on North-South generally?


An hon. Member:: That used to be the practice.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I hear the comment that that used to be the practice. Let us take into consideration the fact that we are dealing now with a Parliament which follows two elections within a year and which has a very special and heavy burden that former Parliaments did not face. These are very special circumstances. In any case, the Prime Minister answered questions on the subject during the question period. I do not want to use an allotted day to ask the Prime Minister to make that statement, thereby depriving the opposition of their precious time. I think the suggestion made previously by the hon. member is much more sound. That suggestion deserves serious consideration and I would prefer to consider the possibility of using allotted days, and perhaps some government time, to deal with this issue. In the meanwhile, the Prime Minister is here every day and I am sure he is delighted to answer questions on that very important subject.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have just one thing to add that I neglected to say when I was last on my feet, and that is to indicate my agreement in respect of the proposals regarding the customs tariff bill. Our speaker will be the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Don Valley West rising on a point of order?


Mr. Bosley:: Madam Speaker, I rise-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but I want to know if the hon. member is rising on a point of order.


John William Bosley: Yes, 1 rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: On government business?


John William Bosley: It is about House business.
Privilege-Miss Begin


Madam Speaker:: Very well.


John William Bosley: Last week, on Wednesday, the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for Communications agreed that they would appoint a special mediator in regard to the Montreal French CBC strike. My understanding is that the mediator or special envoy has now reported. This matter is very important to us in the House, Madam Speaker, and I only ask whether we are going to get-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a point of order addressed to what we call government business. If the hon. member has a point of order to raise, I will recognize him later. Just so the hon. member realizes, I am trying to hear hon. members in the order in which they have asked for the floor. We have others who have asked for the floor on certain questions which have to be dealt with before that which the hon. member is talking about, and I will recognize him with pleasure later.

I have received notice of a question of privilege from the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare whom I now recognize.


PRIVILEGE
Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which, through you, affects the privileges of all hon. members in the House and which I relate to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and to an incident yesterday. Anyone in the House who reads yesterday's Hansard will notice, I think, a very serious breach of privilege on which I want to comment today.

Page 6410 of Hansard of the debates yesterday indicates to us that in the middle of an exchange between members during the question period, after you had called some members to order the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition at one point said clearly, and we all heard him and, of course, it is recorded in Hansard:
So much for an impartial Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Monique Bégin: This was broadcast across the country from coast to coast, and it has been reprinted in some newspapers in French and in English.
It seems to me that this has brought an amplification across the country of an attack against the authority and impartiality
6456

January 22, 1981
Privilege-Miss Begin
which make the Chair the institution without which this Parliament cannot function.

For instance, if I may be permitted to note that Beauchesne thus defines your characteristics:

The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality... Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. His-
Her; this is an old book.
-actions cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive motion.
[ Translation]
I could go on at length in this vein but 1 will refrain because it seems to me that the matter is much more serious than a legal question. For several weeks, I would even say for several months, hon. members have certainly noticed that in some corners of the House every opportunity lends itself to making disparaging insinuations against the very office of Speaker of the House. Like many of my colleagues I am not fully conversant with our procedure. I think that most of us do not have legal training, which indeed strikes a healthy balance in the representation of Canadians. Still we cannot operate properly if, through you, Madam Speaker, there is lack of respect for the rules of the House. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition did let slip unfortunate comments in the past. I do not know why. We all have our ups and downs, some weeks or months are more difficult to live through. But we cannot tolerate that the fundamental institutions of the House be held up to ridicule to the extent they were yesterday. As proof, witness the importance given to our debates by the TV media which show on every screen throughout the country the acts of a person whose personality and duties we fully respect.
I might add that it is rather ironic to listen to the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition who seems anxious either to destroy you, Madam Speaker, or destroy the role you are playing among us, or perhaps to create an atmosphere of disorder in the proceedings of the House. I cannot say what motivates him. But it is ironic indeed that such a direct and flagrant attack against the office of the Speaker of the House is made by the Leader of the Opposition during an exchange of questions, allegedly in support of a better status for Canadian women, allegedly in support of Canadian women who have significant achievements to their credit, at the very moment when members on both sides of the House were speaking for others instead of letting women themselves air their views. And then the Leader of the Opposition could not do any better than launching an attack against the first female Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada in a way such as 1 have never witnessed before in the eight years I have been here, which happens to be the length of her mandate as well.
Since the beginning of the week we have had many questions about the Advisory Council on the Status of Womenand we will be hearing more about it today since that is the subject chosen by the Progressive Conservative opposition- and I have noted how very easy it is, and unfortunately very sanctimonious on the part of certain people, to appear as champions of the cause of women, in words but not in deeds, supposedly to promote equality and simple justice for women.
I find it particularly deplorable that the Leader of the Opposition did not enrol for more courses in sociology and social psychology. Had he taken a course on institutions, he would have learned that institutions have life, personality, those very institutions of which he always poses as guardian. He has been preaching to us about that ever since he got elected, always posturing as the specialist of great issues. He would have learned that if people who work within an institution lack respect for it, it does not exist. To my mind that is the most serious consequence of the insidious attack which the right hon. gentleman probably let slip during question period yesterday.
The only thing left for me to do, Madam Speaker, is to demonstrate as best I can that such an attack against you was indeed a breach of privilege. For example, Sir T. Erskine May sets it out very clearly, I think, in his nineteenth edition, page 152, and I quote:

As examples of speeches and writings which have been held to constitute breaches of privilege or contempts may be mentioned:
First of all:
Reflections on the character of the Speaker and accusations of partiality in the discharge of his-
Or her.
-duty.

And then he gives a whole series of references to cases over the years where this type of attack was the first example given of a breach of privilege of each member of the House.
Having established as best I can, I think, the inadvertence and the unfairness of the comments which the Leader of the Opposition probably let slip, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that in all likelihood there was a breach of privilege. I am aware that the Leader of the Opposition is well known for his respect for formalities, we have often heard him speak on that subject.

I therefore ask him to withdraw this unfortunate remark. If he does not, and Your Honour finds a prima facie breach of privilege, 1 propose to move:
That the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the impartiality of the Speaker be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 22, 1981


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege. I will be brief, and I will obey the rules of the House.
First, I must express my surprise that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who has risen on this day when the government is desperate to demonstrate its respect for women, did not give me notice of a question of privilege relating to me, and my surprise that she did not rise at the first opportunity available to her, which was yesterday-if she was sincerely interested in this question-instead of simply using this matter as a means to shorten a debate on an allotted day.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Charles Joseph Clark: That deals with the minister.
Respect for the Chair is crucial to the conduct of this House, and I would not want to see that respect eroded by any member of this institution. My interjection yesterday was inappropriate for an officer of this House, and I consequently withdraw that interjection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail).


Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker-


An hon. Member:: No. That is the end of it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sorry. Indeed, since the right hon. member has withdrawn the words, which I am sure went beyond his thoughts, the question is now closed.


POINT OF ORDER
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which has nothing to do with House business. My point of order is this. Last Wednesday, as reported in Hansard, the government agreed to appoint a special mediator to look into a most unhappy strike that has been going on in the CBC in Montreal. I understand the mediator was appointed and so 1 was expecting a statement on motions today. Since 1 gather he has reported to the minister and our interest in this matter is critical because, unhappily, there is a growing sense in Quebec that the government is not interested in settling the strike because it prefers the news blackout on constitutional matters, my point of order is to find out from the minister whether he proposes to speak on this on motions, because I think a member of the House has asked him to do it during question period. 1 think the minister has an
Ways and Means
obligation to report on motions on the mediator's response to him. I assumed that it would be done as soon as the report had been made to the minister, which 1 think is now.


Madam Speaker:: Did somebody wish to respond to that?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member has no point of order. He was unable to get the floor during the question period to ask a question, which would have been the proper way for him to bring this matter forward if he had an inquiry to make. Certainly there is no point of order.
The mediator who is seized with the responsibility of investigating the present situation with regard to the strike to which the hon. member has referred is vested with that responsibility. Any report he has made has been of an interim nature. He has spoken of meetings with the parties pending a meeting of the membership of the union over the weekend. Indeed, as 1 said at the time of his appointment, he was appointed to carry on exploratory mediation to see if the parties are in a mood to make the concessions necessary on both sides for an agreement to take place. That may be a very difficult course to steer, and I do not believe the mediation is helped by having a daily report in the House on the result of his meetings. That is not the way that mediation works.
I want to stress that the role of the Department of Labour is that of an arbiter, a helper between management and the trade unions involved. There is no proper way by which we can force parties to change their positions or to agree, under a free, collective bargaining system. Our role is to provide help at the appropriate moment, and we are attempting to do that through the appointment of one of the most able mediators existing in any jurisdiction in Canada. That is all 1 can say on the matter at present, except to repeat that obviously there is no point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I think I have to tell the hon. member that his point might have been raised more properly during the question period. I know that the hon. member was trying to get the floor, and I must tell him that he was next on the list but the clock did not permit me to recognize him. When hon. members wish to pursue a question of this nature, there is a proper time at which to do it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60, I am now tabling a notice of ways and means motion

January 22, 1981
Order Paper Questions
to amend the Excise Tax Act (1) and a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act (2).
Pursuant to Standing Order 60, I would ask you to designate the required order of the day for consideration of the two notices which I have tabled today, and for notices Nos. 13 and 14 on October 28, 1980.


MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1981 MEASURE TO CORRECT ANOMALIES IN CERTAIN ACTS
Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-56, to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters of a noncontroversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, and other acts subsequent to 1970.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am told that there have been consultations among the House leaders and that there is unanimous consent to deal with the three stages of this bill without debate right now, because it is a non-controversial bill.


Walter David Baker: Yes, Madam Speaker, today is one day in which Parliament will live to deal with the three stages of the bill on anomalies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree, but it will be an awfully short lifespan.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and the second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,692, 1,699, 1,801, 1,897 and 1,969.


Mr. Patterson: 1.	During the time in which records have been kept, how many fatalities have occurred as the result of crashes between trains and other vehicles at the so-called Five Mile Crossing, east of Pembroke, Ontario, where the CPR tracks cross highway 17?
2.	Since 1950, on what dates did crashes occur and how many persons were killed in each case?
3.	Has consideration been given to installing pre-warning lights at the crossing?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Six (since 1931).
2.	December 11, 1977, 1 killed, 1 injured; February 11, 1979, 1 injured; October 24, 1980, 2 killed.
3.	Crossing is presently equipped with a warning signal, standard flashing lights and bell, and advanced warning signs. Pre-warning lights are not a standard form of installation. Pre-warning or advanced warning signs are the responsibility of the road authority.


Mr. Herbert: Did Statistics Canada send a questionnaire to engineering and scientific services groups in 1979 and, if so (a) to which groups (b) how many persons (i) were questioned (ii) responded?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: in 1979, Statistics Canada did send a questionnaire to businesses providing scientific and engineering services.
(a)	Questionnaires were sent to consulting engineering firms and to businesses providing other engineering and scientific services.
(b)	(i) In the consulting engineering group, 3,778 firms were sent questionnaires and in the other engineering and scientific services group, 3,025 questionnaires were sent out.
(ii) Of the 3,778 consulting engineering firms, 2,834 replies were received; 2,559 responded of the 3,025 other engineering and scientific services group.


Mr. Cossitt: Is Parks Canada renovating a building, formerly a residence near Jones Falls, in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) what will it be used for (c) at what cost?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Yes.
(a) The Sweeney house was designated of national historic significance along with ten other defensible lockmaster houses along the Rideau Canal. Only two of these houses, one of which is the Sweeney house, remain in their original format, that is, one storey without major alterations. The defensible nature and construction make them unique in North America and possibly the world. In addition little interpretation of the "average" family home of pre-Confederation Upper Canada had been done. These factors led to a recommendation from the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada that Parks Canada restore the property. The recommendation was made in the Jones Falls unit plan and
January 22, 1981

accepted and approved as part of the management plan for Jones Falls.
(b)	Uses-(1) Open to public (if staff permits), seven days
a week during July and August and five days a week from May 24 to Thanksgiving. Parks Canada will provide an introduction to the house and demonstrate pioneer crafts as staff permits.
(2) The building will be open to school and special groups (by appointment) from April 15 to May 24 and again from Thanksgiving to approximately November 15.
(c)	Cost-	Phase I (exterior)	$32,767.00
Phase II (interior)	27,689.50
Furnishings and costumes to
November 27, 1980	10,463.00


Mr. Stevens: On (a) October 31, 1979 (b) October 31, 1980, how many persons located in, or reporting to the Prime Minister's office received their salary from (i) the Prime Minister's office (ii) the Privy Council office (iii) other departments?


David Michael Collenette: (a) (i) 91, (ii) nil, (iii) nil.
(b) (i) 64, (ii) nil, (iii) nil.



Mr. Cossitt: Are there instructions in the Privy Council office that questions on the Order Paper concerning the government and its relations with the Liberal Party, such as appointments of Liberals to various posts, etc., be delayed in their answering and, if so (a) is it government policy not to answer such questions for lengthy periods of time (b) is the government in a position to state when questions of this nature will be answered?


David Michael Collenette: See reply to question No. 5,364 answered May 10, 1976.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Status of Women



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo) moved:: That this House condemns the blatant interference by the minister responsible for the status of women in the plans of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women to hold a constitutional conference, demands the resignation of the minister, and urges that the mandate of the Advisory Council be changed to enable it to report directly to Parliament, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1970.
He said: Madam Speaker, in introducing and speaking to the motion today we as members of the opposition do so because of our concern about the credibility of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the important role it has played in the past, and the important work yet to be done.
In addressing the resolution before the House today and in introducing this matter for discussion, we do so in order that Canadians will be more aware of the important issues which affect the life of our nation, particularly 52 per cent of our nation.
For a moment I should like to make reference to the formation of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It arose out of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in December, 1970. The commission recommended a council which would be directly responsible to the Parliament of Canada to advise on matters pertaining to women and to propose legislation and policies to improve their status. In May, 1973, the council was officially established. In acting on the recommendation of the royal commission for change in legislation, the council was to introduce measures to improve the status of women. These were not to be presented to Parliament but to the government through the minister responsible for the status of women.
History records that at the first meeting in July, 1973, the council clarified its terms of reference. It outlined that it was to advise and consult on matters pertaining to women and to report annually; to undertake research and suggest research topics which could be carried out by governments, private businesses, universities and voluntary organizations as they relate to the status of women in Canada; to establish programs to correct attitudes and prejudices adversely affecting the status of women; to impose legislation, policies and practices to improve the status of women; to systematically consult with women's bureaus of similar provincial organizations and with voluntary associations particularly concerned with the problems of Canadian women; and to maintain a liaison with the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and other national and international organizations as may be relevant.
In following its mandate since 1973, the record will show that beginning with distinguished Canadians committed to the cause of Canadian feminism, the council played an important

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
role in the life of Canada and in the raising of the consciousness of Canadians about the plight of women in many cases.
In the past the council gained the credibility and confidence of women and women's groups through advice given to the government on many issues including the following: adult occupational training; the appointment of women to boards, commissions, courts and the Senate; equal pay for work of equal value in the labour force; unemployment insurance criteria; maternity benefits; child care and the proposal for a national day care act; changes to the Criminal Code, including rape and prostitution legislation; employment programs and career upgrading for women; changes to the Income Tax Act, particularly as they affect dependent spouses; pension plans and the eligibility of housewives; benefits to female survivors; native women's rights; economic hardships facing older women and single parent families; and last but not least, the widely-acclaimed paper directing attention to the implications of the constitutional proposal. I mention these to show the significance of the council's work, that it is not in one corner or somehow a group merely directing its comments to an interest group, but widely affects the Canadian population.
When the council was first established, members were recognized for their expertise and their previous involvement in the concerns which I have just outlined. They brought stature to the advisory council; they gave it a reputation because of their own reputations. One might think of Sophie Stedman, the 1980 persons award winner, who had years of experience with business and professional women. One might think of Grace Hartman, the present vice-president of CUPE or the past president of the National Action Committee, who is recognized by feminists. There are many others who could be mentioned, but if we look at what has happened to the council from its beginning, we find that too many of its present appointees had little previous connection with women's groups, or at least they are not recognized contributors. They have had little previous experience and expertise with the issue facing today's women.
They attain their stature and expertise from their appointments to the council as a result of the politicizing of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It is politicized by the appointment of friends of the minister and campaign workers. This has meant that there was an easy possibility of interference by the minister which, after a long and subtle progression, has led to the resignation of the chairman, Doris Anderson.
A second result is that women's groups and other voluntary agencies across the country do not feel they were represented as they used to be. In the last few days, since the resignation of Mrs. Anderson, there have been comments from those who contribute to the awareness of women's issues across the country. Lynn MacDonald, President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, a voluntary group representing 150 women's organizations across Canada, said the postponement of the proposed conference showed "a lamentable loss of credibility" for the council. She added:
The time for regional conferences proposed as a consolation prize to the women of Canada has long past. From the beginning the government failed to consult us, failed to consider us, and for a long time refused to hear us in discussion of constitutional change.
Miss MacDonald concluded that her group would:
-re-think its position on the government-appointed advisory council... whether such councils appointed by politicians from among their political friends can reasonably be expected to speak for women is open to question.
Miss MacDonald's concerns were echoed by Linda Ryan-Nye, co-chairman of Women for Political Action, and Mary Cornery, co-ordinator of the Canadian Congress on Learning Opportunities for Women, and Laura Sabia, first and former chairman of the Ontario Status of Women Council.
What should the council be? First and foremost it should be an effective voice for women and women's groups. It must be, and must be seen to be, an independent and impartial advisory body. It must be viewed as a credible force in order to maintain the necessary liaisons and information ties with women's groups across the country. It must be seen as a body which can speak freely, even sometimes to the embarrassment of the government.
I would like to remind the House of the events which have led up to the discrediting of the council and to the questioning of its integrity. If we go back for a moment and think about the matter of constitutional input and discussion, we find that in September of 1980 the advisory council planned a national conference on the constitution for September 5. This was cancelled on September 2 due to the translators' strike. It was rumoured by several women's groups that political pressure caused the postponement.
I would like to move on to October, 1980. The National Action Committee's national conference on the constitution, to be held in Winnipeg, was cancelled when a request for $22,000 from the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) was refused. This was money which would normally have been made available for groups such as this. The minister was asked to intervene on the committee's behalf, with no result. In comparison, other groups were receiving funding from other government sources in order to make their presentations before the constitution committee. We find that $1.2 million is allocated to the native peoples in order to allow them to travel and prepare their representations.
Later in October the National Action Committee held a small consultation conference for members in the Toronto area only. The minister was the guest speaker at this conference. He is quoted in the press as having "misjudged his audience, pompously talked down to them, patronized them, insulted them and then had the colossal effrontery to tell them to blindly accept the proposed charter of rights in the Constitution as a 'great leap of faith'."
Moving on to December, the advisory council rescheduled its September conference for February 13 and 14, 1981. It hired an organizer for the conference and speakers were lined up. Notices were sent out across the country. The minister agreed to host a reception and a luncheon. Then, in January,
January 22, 1981

after suggestions from the minister's office, the advisory council executive invited the minister to a meeting. He suggested regional conferences might be better than a national conference, which would bring 600 women to Ottawa just at the time the House is debating the constitutional amendments.
The executive voted 5 to 1 to cancel the conference until a later date, as the date in February might embarrass the government. A few days ago, on January 20, the entire council convened and voted to cancel. The president of the council, Doris Anderson, resigned.
We have before us, Mr. Speaker, a motion calling for the removal of the minister from his responsibilities and the restoring of the integrity to the council. Before us is a case where intentions and actions do not match. There is before us evidence of the failure of the minister to represent the concerns of the women of Canada, from a variety of sources. It is ironic that such a motion should be before the House when, in the throne speech delivered to this House, there were more references to women than there had been at any time before. These references suggested an increased commitment to women's programming and the issues in Canada which affect women.
Here in the House yesterday, during question period, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave the minister credit for a number of achievements in an effort somehow to support him in his ministry. Women's groups have commented to me their views on several of the points the Prime Minister read to the House from a memorandum handed to him. I would like to reflect on several of those points.
First, we were encouraged by the Prime Minister to believe that the minister's leadership was significant and that he had introduced measures to ensure affirmative action in the public service. The minister had established affirmative action in three departments. He set up a system of accountability within these departments. He has trained affirmative action counsellors. He is doing further statistical studies, too, for example, comparing the success rate of the public service with the private sector in terms of upward mobility of women employed.
But, here is the other side of the coin. He has stated that it will take about four years to implement this program. Yet, south of the border in the United States, evidence shows that their compulsory affirmative action program with the private sector took merely two years before structural systematic changes were evident with regard to upward mobility. Why does the minister say it will take four years when only three departments are involved, compared with the entire private sector in the United States?
The second of the Prime Minister's affirmations with respect to the minister is that he reduced the minimum insurable hours for unemployment insurance from 20 to 15 hours per week. This is a move which merely returned unemployment insurance to the status quo. Under the last Trudeau government, the former minister of employment and immigration raised the minimum insurable hours from 15 to 20 hours. Since that time there have been many outcries from women's
Status of Women
groups claiming that this is unfair to part-time workers, 75 per cent of whom are female.
The third of the testimonials recited yesterday stated that the minister sponsored a $1 million ad campaign on women s employment. 1 have a copy of a December 22 letter to the minister from the National Action Committee objecting to these ads. The letter pointed out that the assumptions in the ads were, first, that women's work is trivial and, second, that women are a reserve army of labour and, third, that most employers are unaware of or have forgotten about women workers. The minister has not yet responded to this letter. We have also been told that the minister received strong complaints from the Canadian Labour Congress regarding these ads, through his affirmative action program in CEIC.
I would like to mention another item from the litany of the Prime Minister yesterday in praise of the minister responsible for the status of women. It is that the minister started a review of unemployment insurance to remove discrimination, among other things. The fact is that the minister did not start this review, but he continued the review which was in progress under his predecessor.
The minister did give the mandate to a task force, which will not be reporting until the spring of this year. So changes will not come into effect in the year 1981-82. The recommendations will be reviewed by Parliament. Women's groups suggested to me that, as a result, changes will not be ready for the fall deadline for inclusion in the 1982-83 fiscal year. Possibly the changes will be here in time for election year.
As I have consulted women's groups and talked with others about their disaffection with the minister responsible for the status of women, I have heard it rumoured that the minister has never yet visited his office at Status of Women Canada, which is symbolic of where his priorities lie. His predecessor met three or four women's groups per week in the Status of Women office.
Women's groups have expressed dissatisfaction with the minister's unwillingness to meet with him. When he does meet with such groups, one source says that he assumes the role of an instructor on women's issues, often correcting them.
A second small but telling comment is the apparent lack of support by the minister for striking government translators who were requesting improved maternity benefits. One women's group tells me that when the minister was asked to speak on their behalf to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) he refused. The minister was unable to produce from External Affairs a female diplomat or any woman knowledgeable in women's issues to attend in an advisory capacity the UN Mid-decade Conference for Women in Copenhagen this year. The minister did not attend the constitutional presentations of the advisory council, of the National Action Committee or other women's groups which have gone before the constitutional committee.
In recent weeks there has been much alarm over the introduction of a multimillion dollar program by the Minister of

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
Communications in support of office automation. Letters have been sent to the M inister of Employment and 1 mmigration (M r. Axworthy) soliciting his support for the implications of this action on women in the work force, most of whom are in clerical positions and who see an end of their employment. There was an acknowledgment today that a letter was received, one month and one week since its writing.
I mention these facts in support of the motion today which calls for a change, and to suggest that there are many things to indicate that there is not the caring or commitment there is in the words and speeches made by the minister from time to time since assuming this responsibility. The resignation of the president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Doris Anderson, and the resignation in these last days of several members of the board, members of the staff, and the questioning across the country of the allegations that the minister has applied undue political pressure to the council, instead of encouraging women to voice their views on the constitution, regardless of what may be the cost in terms of immediate political deadlines, suggest that the current crisis will undermine the confidence that women's groups have had in the past in the council, and that the issues which the council seeks to serve will be undermined.
Women's groups across Canada have lost confidence in the minister who is supposed to have their best interests at heart. There is also a need, as our motion suggests, to depoliticize the council and restore it to its former position of expertise and prestige in our communities. One of the considerations which might be given to the representative nature of that council in advising government and Parliament, is that in the future nominations for the positions on the council be solicited from women from coast to coast, that these nominations be reviewed by an all-party committee which would then make recommendations to the minister, allowing some latitude for the geographical decisions and other decisions which would be part of the final decision. This would help to restore confidence in the council as an independent, impartial body with considerable stature and effectiveness.
Such a move would return the council to its original direction and mandate, as suggested by the royal commission, that the council report directly to Parliament. We are suggesting that this council is not an advisory group to a minister on a specific subject, whether it be sports, business or some related interest group, but, rather, a council which cuts across the life of Parliament and the life of the government.
Let us be reminded that there are deep women's issues involved in many of the departments of government which require a strong and committed advocate on behalf of the implementation of women's concerns, whether they be in the areas of employment, labour, regional economic expansion, justice, the Solicitor General's department, national health and welfare, veterans affairs, fitness and amateur sport, communications, consumer affairs, industry, trade and commerce, the Secretary of State's department, and immigration. They cut across matters of Indian affairs, international development, finance, national revenue, the Treasury Board, national
defence and external affairs. These are but a few of the interfaces in terms of the life of Canada where the concerns of women and their rights ought to be heard.
In light of the rumours, the allegations and the unrest, we urge that a change be made in terms of the spokesperson in the life of government who will represent these concerns. We also call upon the government to return to the recommendations of its own royal commission and see that, as is the case with the Human Rights Commission report and the Auditor General's report, the report of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women comes directly to this House. Therefore, I have moved, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House condemns the blatant interference by the minister responsible for the status of women in the plans of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women to hold a constitutional conference, demands the resignation of the minister, and urges that the mandate of the advisory council be changed to enable it to report directly to Parliament, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1970.


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, we in this corner of the House support fully the motion introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean). Indeed, I have listened with care and interest to his remarks and can say, I am sure on behalf of all members of my party, that we agree entirely with everything he has said in his carefully prepared address. We have an addition which we would like to make to the motion, but I will come to that in the course of my remarks. It does not take away anything from the motion but, rather, adds something to it.
One of the points made just now by the hon. member for Waterloo was with regard to the incredible advertisement which the minister responsible for the status of women had put into every major Canadian daily newspaper. I do not have the headline with me at the moment, but I remember it as vividly as I have ever remembered anything. It congratulated women for having "helped out" in the Second World War. This is the advertisement, under the jurisdiction of the minister responsible for the status of women, that women were in fact a reserve labour force, that women were a secondary part of the labour force, and still are. You would not talk about them having "helped out" if you did not think that was what they were going to do once again.
I suggest, therefore, that not only should the minister resign as the minister responsible for the status of women, but he should also resign as the Minister of Employment and Immigration if his view about the role of women, who now constitute 40 per cent of the labour force and in a few years will constitute 50 per cent of the labour force, is that of a reserve force. If his view is that they are people who help out in the employment needs of this country, then he should not be the minister of employment any more than he should be minister responsible for the status of women. It takes, to quote the minister, "a great leap of faith", also pointed out by the
January 22, 1981

previous speaker, to see the minister continue in either of these capacities.
There is no question in the minds of all of us on this side of the House, and I should think in the minds of a great many on the other side, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) from what he said yesterday, that Doris Anderson was a particularly strong, effective, challenging president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I think we can all agree to that. Perhaps she was a bit too independent, too strong, and perhaps too challenging. But she brought a degree of confidence to the operations of that council-and I have been watching it, as many of us have for years-not seen since its early years under Katie Cooke.
When the minister says, as he did yesterday, that the council should be congratulated for the work it has done on the recommendations it made to the constitutional committee, he should realize that what has made the council so effective in those recommendations has been the leadership provided by the president of that council. Enormous staff work has been done by the administration which she built up, because she is a good administrator. This too is evidenced by the quality of the research she had prepared by absolutely first-class women constitutional lawyers preparing the recommendations for the constitutional committee. Therefore it is a tragedy that it is she who has resigned and not the minister.
1 think there is no question in anyone's mind, despite everything the minister has said to deny it, that the minister did make it very clear indeed that he would prefer not to have the postponed constitutional conference held in mid-February. It may be the council members dropped too quickly, like dominoes, at least 17 of them did, and I admire the ten who did not. It may be that they were too influenced because they are close friends or former campaign workers of the minister. It may be that they acceded to his request, acceded to his wishes-let me put it as wishes-too quickly. But from all of the evidence we have now seen in the documentation which is available to everyone, the minister was determined that the conference should not be held, and he was able to bring 17 members of that council into line.
On television last night we heard him say that he thought he had the support of the women of Canada in what he was doing. I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to read any of the letters or telegrams, or hear about the telephone calls which have come to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, some focusing on the importance of holding the conference as scheduled in February, many on the importance of the council's integrity and independence, and many covering both of those, as well as their support for the president of the council.
Does the minister know, when he says that he has the support of the women in Canada, who has been writing, phoning and sending telegrams? There have been well over a hundred who have done this and I would like to list .some of them for the record. Groups as well as individuals have called in. Just a few are the Newfoundland Status of Women Council; the Canadian Federation of Business; the Canadian Con-
Status of Women
gress on Learning Opportunities for Women, Women for Political Action-the National Action Committee has already been mentioned-the Women's Research Centre in Vancouver; le Reseau d'Action et d'lnformations pour les Femmes du Quebec; the Nova Scotia Association of Women and the Law; the Voice of Women; the Coalition of Women's Groups; the Social Issues Committee of the YWCA; the National Association of Women and the Law; the Ontario Status of Women Council; the P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women; the Organization of Working Women; the Elizabeth Fry Society of Kingston, and the National Board of Directors YMCA of Canada, and so on.


Mr. Nielsen:: The YMCA and the YWCA?


Pauline Jewett: Both the YMCA and the YWCA, yes.
These are just a few of the organizations that have written to support the holding of this conference, which the minister was determined to have cancelled and in which he has succeeded, that wrote to support the integrity of the council from that kind of political interference, and that wrote to support Doris Anderson as the strongest president of the council there has ever been.
This raises the question of whether a council, whose members have a political loyalty to the minister, can survive. I do not think the present council can because of what has happened. But I have every wish, as I am sure we all do, that there be an advisory council. We will perhaps have to change its name. We do not want to see the minister enfold it into his department, which I sometimes think is what he has in mind. I think what he would really like is to have everything relating to women, women's programs in the Secretary of State's department, the women's bureau in the Department of Labour, but above all, the advisory council itself, to be part of his department. He does not want them out there talking. He does not want them criticizing government policy. He does not want them giving suggestions to the government, even good suggestions, as on the constitutional proposals. Therefore, it is all the more urgent, if that is in his mind, for us all to find ways and means of strengthening the council. Surely one of the most important ways is to get away from patronage appointments.
It is really shocking that over the years the council has been, in most instances, filled with people who are there because they have worked hard for the party in power, or because they have been campaign organizers, or because they deserve some small reward. They may be excellent women, many of them are. But unfortunately their first loyalty, given the way they are appointed, or the criteria of their appointment, is to the party.
What we should have, and many of these women might qualify on other grounds, is a council structure which will ensure that the membership of the council is not appointed just because of their political affiliation, but because of their involvement, interest in and concern for women's issues. They
6464	_____COMMONS DEBATES__________________January 22, 1981
Status of Women
could come from the great broad strata of women in this society and not from the rather narrow social class they now come from. They should be working women, unionist and non-unionist, native women, immigrant women, and housewives. If possible, they should be elected and not appointed.
The minister had an opportunity in the year or so that he has been minister to get a more broad and representative council. He threw it away. For example, at least six recommendations came from the Canadian Labour Congress. Recommendations were made by excellent women such as Mary Eadie. Recommendations came from rights for Indian women, Mary Two-Axe Early. There were representations from Nova Scotia from women such as Alexa McDonough, an excellent woman in the Field of social work.


An hon. Member:: Now in politics.


Pauline Jewett: Now in politics but was not then. Actually, there were a number of people. I could mention Lee Grills from my province.


Mr. Dupras:: A Liberal.


Pauline Jewett: Actually she is a Liberal.


Maurice Dupras: It is just that you surprised me.


Pauline Jewett: She showed on the National Action Committee a greater interest, understanding and concern about women than one might expect with her political affiliation. These names were suggested. They are all active, energetic, intelligent, independent people, and they were all turned down. The cabinet did not accept any of those suggestions. In other words, the minister did have a chance. They put one woman on that council out of 29, one woman from the labour movement who, I understand, has now resigned because the minister refused to accept any of the recommendations from the Canadian Labour Congress.
The minister is not only guilty of downgrading and patronizing women, but of ignoring the women in this country who represent sectors of our society other than the very narrow band from which he made his recommendations to cabinet. Therefore it is important that we urge upon this House, specifically the government, to do those things requested in the motion, in other words, condemn the interference by the minister responsible for the status of women in the plans of the advisory council, persuading 17 of the 27 present to cancel the conference. Cancellation of the conference was basically to slow down the momentum which Anderson was bringing to the discussion, the elucidation of women's issues.
The request for the resignation of the minister goes without saying. We equally support the further recommendation in the motion that the council should report directly to Parliament. The structure of the council must be changed. It must cease to be a patronage body. With a patronage body you cannot always count on independent, spirited people performing the function of an independent council. We believe that is equally
important in order to preserve the strength which the just resigned president gave to the council.
We would make one important addition to the opposition motion. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That the motion be amended by adding, following "1970", the following words:
"and that the membership of the council be appointed or elected by and from the organizations in this country actively involved in women's issues."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member for having provided the Chair with a copy of the amendment. The Chair finds the amendment to be in order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a degree of interest and anticipation to join in this debate. I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue of the status of women, in this House. I found it somewhat disappointing, having spent almost two full days in this House just before Christmas defending the estimates of my department, that in some 16 hours of debate only 40 minutes were spent discussing women's issues. Therefore I am glad to see that the opposition members have now discovered the fact that women exist in this country and that they are now prepared to bring the issues forward. They obviously intended to bring their motion forward during this period of zeal and interest. Therefore it is important that we have an opportunity both to discuss the issues and to set the record straight.
The tone of the debate was probably set by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean). When he concluded his remarks he said, "in light of these rumours and allegations". That very much summarizes the exact nature. The basis upon which the case is being made by members of the opposition is exactly that, rumour and allegation, and not much in the way of fact.
I thank the hon. member for Waterloo for clearly defining for us the source of his argument and the arguments his colleagues will be raising. Rumours and allegations are certainly no stranger to politics and no stranger to this House, and certainly no stranger to the issue which has emerged over the past four or five days.
I welcome this opportunity to set the record straight. Perhaps the hon. member for Waterloo, an honoured and respected member of this House, will be prepared to change his mind once we get away from the rumours, allegations, mythologies, innuendos and forms of character assassination which have coloured this debate, and get down to some of the basic facts as to what has taken place, the role of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and the objectives, goals and concerns of this government as far as women in this country are concerned.
I am sorry the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett) is not able to spend some time to stay with us, because some of my remarks may be addressed to her.


An hon. Member:: I am just having a smoke.
January 22, 1981


Lloyd Axworthy: Fine. I would certainly invite the hon. member to go out and have some of her refreshment, but I would point out that there has just been a recent study I am sure the hon. member would be interested in, which indicates that smoking is not really very good for your health.


An hon. Member:: Try not to be patronizing.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us deal first with some of the initial testimonials being offered to try to demonstrate that somehow there is this great, universal sort of overwhelming antipathy or sense of frustration about the work that we, as a government, and I, as a minister, have been trying to do.
I do not have all of it here but I do happen to have within my notes a letter from the Native Women's Association of Canada, because 1 will be addressing that group tomorrow evening. That is a group representing the entire range of women who have perhaps been the most deprived and the most discriminated against, and who have perhaps suffered and been the most serious victims of society's indifference. If I might, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record what they have to say. I do not usually do this, but seeing that members opposite were so anxious to rush to the quotes from Laura Sabia, that well-known objective reporter of events, I thought perhaps they might be interested in hearing what the native women of Canada think. They said:
Dear Mr. Axworthy:
In recognition of your positive actions on behalf of native women, the Native Women's Association of Canada would like to invite you to speak to the Board of Directors in Winnipeg, Manitoba, January 23-25, 1981.
I would like to quote further, if I might:
The programs and activities you have initiated for the training and employment of Native women and your philosophy of consultation with the NWAC on this matter is of great significance to the NWAC. We would like to provide you with the opportunity to speak with native women from across Canada to elaborate on your plans and to hear from women working in the communities their concerns and ideas.
There is one example of a group which I think should be treated with great respect in this House. I do not pretend I have universal popularity with the Laura Sabias or the NACs of the world, but I do say there are a number of women's organizations I have also received communications from which do have some degree of support and some degree of good reaction for the initiatives we have tried to introduce.
I would now like to come, if I might, to the so-called record, because the hon. member for Waterloo was very anxious to read what he thought was a refutation of the kind of initiatives we have introduced, and tried to provide an ongoing commentary or criticism of them.
First I would like to explain to members of the House that part of the responsibilities of the minister responsible for the status of women is not just to take direct initiatives on his own but, in addition, to try to co-ordinate the activities of the entire government; to bring information, to make interventions, and to try to support the work of other ministers who are working in an equal way. So much of the work is not necessarily on the visible side because much of it takes place around the cabinet table, takes place in correspondence, and takes place in direct
Status of Women
communication trying to bring to their attention concerns that are raised.
In that case I think the role to be played is one that is not necessarily identifiable by achievements or track record. Even saying that, 1 think it is possible for us to demonstrate that the commitment we made in the throne speech has gone a long way toward being carried out. I would contrast it very dramatically with the record of the previous government, which also had a similar nine months in office. If you look at their exact achievements for women and the number of initiatives that were introduced, it comes up to a big fat zero. They were very good on talk, very big on rhetoric, and they made a lot of fine speeches, but when you look at the record there was not one single important initiative taken on behalf of the women of this country during that nine months in office. In fact some of the things we have done were opposed by the Conservative Party.
At the very first meeting I had with Mrs. Anderson of the advisory council, she brought to my attention the major concern women had about the issue of minimum insurability and the fact that the statute removed some 200,000 women from eligibility for unemployment insurance.
I have here a statement made by my predecessor in this position, Ronald Atkey, when he was speaking to a meeting at St. Andrews-by-the-Sea last September in which he indicated that the Conservatives did not plan to change last year's Unemployment Insurance Act, a statement which infuriated women's groups. Mr. Atkey, my predecessor, said it was not in their interest to do that.
I did make the change. I did reduce the eligibility to bring large numbers of women under the coverage of the Unemployment Insurance Act, contrary to the advice and position taken by my predecessor in this office on behalf of the then Conservative government. I would suggest to the hon. member for Waterloo that when he takes a look at the record he should begin to look at the record of his own government, and make an interesting contrast and comparison of what they did not do with what we have done.
The hon. member spent some time trying to disparage our initiatives in the area of affirmative action. I could provide you with the commitment made by the Conservative Party in the May election campaign as to what they would do in the way of affirmative action. It was far less than the steps we have taken. They would set up additional things for the office of equal opportunity. Let me quote from the news release issued by the Conservative Party on what they would do. They said that the Progressive Conservative Party would provide more clout to translate rhetoric into an affirmative action program within the federal public service. They were going to provide more clout. That was their commitment to the women of Canada.
What we have done is introduce a well-designed program of affirmative action beginning with three departments, as I have said in this House many times, because that was the limit of our resources. That program will provide the ability to make changes in the Public Service Act and to make changes in legislation and regulation to bring about substantial reform in

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
the placement of women, handicapped groups and native groups in the public service. That "put down" of hon. members who say we have hired an affirmative action council is one thing, but do they want the program administered by people who are untrained? The hon. member also said that we are now doing a statistical study. Does he want us to make major changes in the public service without knowing what facts and information we are considering.
1 would contrast that with the very callous attitude taken by the former President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) who started to slash the public service, that one area which provides perhaps the most important opportunity for women employment in this country. There was no consideration given to protecting the rights of women employees in the public service at that time. They got slashed and hacked like everybody else.


An hon. Member:: That's rubbish.


Lloyd Axworthy: Don't give me that stuff. Let us stand on the record.
1 am saying we introduced the affirmative action program as a first stage in moving toward the private sector approach. Why did we do that? It was done because it was recommended by the advisory council that before we take initiatives in the private sector the federal government should provide affirmative action within its own public service. Again we responded to those recommendations and are following them through in a very careful and managerial way.
At the same time I have stated publicly many times that I intend to initiate a discussion before my colleagues in cabinet on the use of contract compliance in the private sector, because that is one of the most important means of reducing barriers and overcoming the limitations women face in the work force. I think hon. members opposite who are honest with themselves will admit I have said that in this House, have said it publicly and am committed to it. I have said to a number of women's forums across this country that I will fight for that issue because it is a critical component of any major strategy to bring about change for women and to bring about greater equality in the workplace.
Beyond that certain things were not mentioned. We introduced a program of affirmative action in our job-creation program. Again this was based upon recommendations made by the advisory council. They pointed out, and I think quite legitimately, that job-creation programs sponsored by the federal government did not include affirmative action principles. What did we do with the job-creation program which was cancelled by the Conservatives, with the result that there was no direct job creation? We introduced affirmative action principles which are now in place and working. I ask hon. members of this House to compare the records.
In addition, we introduced a major initiative with respect to the training of women for non-traditional work. The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam produced some critical surveys of the ad campaign we introduced to encourage
employers and women to begin to move into non-traditional areas. She is welcome to her opinions, but they are not universally shared. We have received a number of congratulatory letters, which 1 will bring to this House. I will distribute their actual wording, because they do not talk about women moving into the work force on a temporary basis.
We are committed to providing the opportunity for women to move into non-traditional areas, and to back up that commitment we have introduced a training program which will provide 75 per cent of the cost of training women in those areas. That program has been taken up.
I draw the attention of hon. members to an article written in the Ottawa Citizen just after the Christmas break, telling of two young women in this city who had been going from temporary job to temporary job but who have now signed up for that program. I think one is a machinist, and the other is in some other form of skilled training. They said that this is the first chance they have had to get permanent new occupations. I am not saying that is enough, but I am committed to those goals.
I ask hon. members to remember what did not take place in the nine months of the previous administration. There were no training programs for non-traditional work. There was no affirmative action program. In exactly the same amount of time we have spent in office the previous administration produced none of those types of initiatives. If we are able to get our act together in nine months, why could hon. members opposite not get theirs together? Perhaps they could not because they were too busy making speeches about what they were going to do and not busy enough actually doing it.
I think it is important to deal with the issue of constitutional change because that is the focal point around which much of the controversy of the last four or five days has centred. Let us start with a different history than perhaps hon. members opposite are prepared to bring into this House.
From where did the original idea for a constitutional conference for women come? Did it come from Mrs. Anderson or the advisory council? No. I was the one who raised the issue with the advisory council.


Erik Nielsen: On whose suggestion?


Lloyd Axworthy: On my own. I raised the issue and asked Mrs. Anderson in a meeting whether the advisory council would be prepared to take on that responsibility. Why? I felt it was important and I felt that a charter of rights would be one of the most important steps forward for women in this country in decades. If hon. members want to ask what is important in terms of the role of women in Canada, we can point very clearly to our commitment to introduce non-discriminatory clauses and to provide guaranteed entrenched rights. Such entrenchments and guarantees have often been criticized by hon. members opposite. They say we should not be providing these and we should wait for the provinces to do it. That is the theory. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) got up and said, "No, no, we are for a charter of rights," but he
January 22, 1981

forgot to mention that they are for a charter of rights only if the provinces agree.
However, at the September conference the provinces very clearly said they do not agree with a charter of rights. Without one where would women be left? They would be left without a guarantee of rights in the constitution. We are committed to this issue. We took a step far beyond anything hon. members opposite were prepared to take, and we are prepared to take it now. If hon. members opposite are committed and really believe in the equality of women, let them stand up and say they will support this government in its move to provide a charter of rights in the Constitution of Canada. 1 do not hear them saying that. What they are really saying is that there should be provincial agreement.
Mr. Lyon of my province said we do not need a charter of rights and Manitoba would veto any attempt to include one under the formula discussed. What is the result? The result is a great big zero in terms of the position taken by the Conservative Party of Canada as far as women are concerned.
The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam said that I made statements critical of the stand taken by the advisory council with respect to the Constitution. That is quite wrong. I wholeheartedly endorsed that stand, and in fact wrote to some 40 or 50 women's groups across Canada inviting them to make representations to the committee. I wrote a letter on October 28 of last year indicating that a committee was established, and inviting those groups to appear. Furthermore,
I was prepared to meet with a number of women's groups- which I did during the fall of last year-from one end of Canada to the other and to talk with them about the constitution. I made certain comments about the stand being taken on a legal basis that in some ways it did not go far enough and that some of the legal questions should have been examined.
Is there something wrong when a minister of the Crown treats an advisory council with great respect, as 1 did, to the point where I was prepared to get into a discussion with its members? I did not treat them in a perfunctory way. I treated them with such respect that I was prepared to talk with them and give them my ideas. If that is somehow an abrogation of ministerial responsibility, then there is a very strange understanding among hon. members opposite as to what a minister should do. Surely a minister should be prepared to engage in dialogue and discussion.
I will conclude my discussion of this by asking how the recommendations which were brought before the committee were accepted by this government. Do hon. members think that they translate by magic? A number of ministers were around the table, including myself and others, who supported and represented that point of view. Changes in the constitution were made and amendments put down by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), incorporating the recommendations of the advisory council and of other women's groups. If hon. members are looking for a clear demonstration of commitment, willingness to listen and responsiveness, what clearer evidence can be provided than the fact that we did take those recommendations seriously, and did bring them forward as
Status of Women
government recommendations to the joint committee on the Constitution?
1 suggest that hon. members opposite are guilty of selective editorializing in relation to the evidence. I suppose that is a polite way of saying they really are not shaking the whole deck down.
I am very much committed with respect to this issue. When it came to the issue between the executive committee and the council, I stated all along the simple principle that it was up to the council to decide. It was not for me to decide whether a conference should be held. It was up to members of that committee to decide. If they had decided to cancel it in the first place, that was their decision to make.
The only time I became involved in their discussions was when they telephoned my office asking if I would meet with them to discuss the matter. Contrary to allegations which have been made, never at any time did I deal directly with members of the committee or members of the council. They approached me. I met with them on a Friday morning. They asked for my opinion. I gave it to them. That was the last contact on that discussion. They made their own decision. It was a controversial decision.
One of the members, the president, disagreed with the decision and took her dispute to the public charging that there was some kind of political manipulation. What is manipulation? I suppose there are enough good politicians in this chamber to know that if a politician really wants to manipulate, he must get on the telephone, twist arms, and try to persuade. I did none of those things.


Erik Nielsen: How did you do it?


Lloyd Axworthy: I did not do it at all; that is the point. Allegations have been made which have never been founded.
I will go back to the hon. member for Waterloo who seemed to say that his case is founded on rumour and allegation.


Walter Franklin McLean: I did not say that. I said it is supported.


Lloyd Axworthy: I apologize. He said it was supported by rumour and allegation.


Walter Franklin McLean: The facts are there, and there are others.


Lloyd Axworthy: There is a slight nuance there; I accept that.


Pauline Jewett: You got the mole to do it.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact is that that was a dispute between the president of the council and the executive committee. The next forum for that to be discussed in was the entire council. I recall how, with great zeal, before the council met the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam said, "I am confident that tomorrow all things will be resolved by that council."

January 22, 1981
Status of Women


Pauline Jewett: I was.


Lloyd Axworthy: There were none of the castigations, none of the insults or abuse that we have heard since then, except when the decision went against what she thought it should be. Then they became subject and victims of her wrath because they were saying at that time, "We do not have to worry, we will be vindicated." The fact of the matter is that they spent four and a half hours in secret session-secret, I guess, to all of us except to members who received some documents, which I have yet to see.


An hon. Member:: All of us have them.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am sure that the hon. member has better pipelines to the council than 1 have. Perhaps we should be asking who really is tampering with the council, because I have not seen those minutes which hon. members opposite have and, if there is political interference, then I suggest that perhaps members opposite should be asking themselves about their own role in all this business.
The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam has been very quick to make personal attacks upon members of that council, to engage in a pretty intensive form of character assassination on certain of those members. That is really reprehensible, and considering the kind of reputation which the hon. member used to have in terms of being prepared to present facts and issues in a fair way, I think that the kinds of personal attacks in which she has engaged do not befit the honour and dignity of a member of this House. She is really using the privileges of members of the House to make personal attacks which, if she had made them outside this House, might have subjected her to some very serious liabilities.


An hon. Member:: Sorry I get under your skin.


Lloyd Axworthy: But that, Mr. Speaker, is her style, that is the way she wants to conduct her business, that is the way in which she represents herself, and that is fine.
But the fact of the matter is that the council met and decided to support the position taken by the executive committee. And again, members here have said that it was not a fair decision. They are saying in effect, "We do not believe in democracy unless it happens to go our way. We only believe in the democratic process when our side wins." I know that this has been the feeling since last February and March among members opposite, because one can still see it on the faces of some of them. They still cannot believe that democracy spoke the way it did. But the fact of the matter is that that is the way a democracy works, and people make those choices. You can make all the allegations and innuendos you want, but they were the ones who made the choice. The real regret that I have, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Is that your leadership chances are shot.


Lloyd Axworthy: -is that in the kinds of charges that have been made during this debate on this whole issue by hon.
members opposite they have been far more responsible for discrediting the council, questioning its credibility and besmirching its ability to operate than anything that anybody on this side of the House has done or has contemplated doing. That is because they have used the council as their battering ram. They have tried, for their own political reasons, to use the work of the advisory council to achieve whatever political objective they have. I happen to think that the reason is that they know we are succeeding in making real reforms and changes for women and they do not like what they see. That is what really frightens them, that is what bothers them the most. They know we are making real progress in these areas and that we are going to make further progress because we have a number of other initiatives in mind. That is what gets to them really deep down, and that is what they are afraid of.
In terms of the charges that were made, I have stated in this House several times, and will continue to state, that those are the facts. I believe that it would be in the best interests of the advisory council if the issue were dealt with on the facts, not on the basis of rumour and allegations, as the hon. member for Waterloo stated, because that is the best way in which we can pay respect to that council and preserve its independence and autonomy.
I would agree that probably it is worth while to look at the structure of the council and at its role. Before hon. members say, "You are changing your tune", let me say that that is not true because, some six weeks ago, I spoke at the steering meeting of the Copenhagen conference and indicated that one of the initiatives is to take a look at the structure of the council. 1 had some concerns as well, and one of those concerns was raised with me by women across Canada, namely, that the council has become far too centralized in Ottawa and was not reaching out in terms of its regional grasp in providing a distribution of information and ideas.
Let us clear up some of the facts about the council. Members say that it should report to Parliament. It does report to Parliament. The reports issued by that council are public reports on the day they are issued. They do not go through me. I, as the minister responsible, exercise absolutely no judgment or control, and in fact I am not even consulted about them in most cases. All that happens is that I get my complimentary copy at the same time as hon. members opposite do. Those reports, which have provided the basis for some very harsh criticism of government activities over time, have been used by members opposite as a way of raising questions in the House. They are a very legitimate function of the council which should be protected and enhanced.
But there is also a certain value to the council having a relationship with a minister of the government so that there can be some contact and advice going back and forth, so that Mrs. Anderson, as she did at her first meeting, can sit down with me and say, "I am concerned about the problem of unemployment insurance, we would like you to make changes", and we are able to make changes. There is a certain tangible benefit in having this kind of connection.
January 22, 1981

In discussion with other people and in my own mind I have raised the question of whether perhaps there should be a separate ministry, but we had the experience in Ottawa with the ministry of state for urban affairs, and other groups, and we found that one thing they lacked was a line department or the ability to deliver goods and services. They were simply co-ordinating agencies which did not have the large resources and personnel which could bring about changes. One of the advantages of my particular portfolio which merges employment and immigration and the status of women, is that we are able to provide the kinds of initiatives we find in Affirmative Action, unemployment insurance, new employment programs or new training programs, because it means that some minister does not have to come to me to cajole or plead. As the minister, I can respond to those initiatives and make the changes right away.
I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that 1 am quite prepared to meet with women's groups. In fact this afternoon I wrote a letter, which I would be prepared to read here, to the presidents of six major women's organizations. It reads as follows:
I would like to have your views on the best means of ensuring an effective advisory council on the status of women. Women's groups were the catalyst for the council and it is your views that I value as I review the recognized structural problems of the council.
To that end, I would appreciate meeting with you on February 16, 1981 at 5.00 p.m., so that together we can ensure that vital independent research on women's social, economic and legal position is available to Canadian women.
We will consult with them to see what kind of recommendations might be made to bring about those kinds of changes, and I will listen to them as I have listened to them in the past in making changes. Hon. members opposite have a legitimate point when they raise the question as to whether the council with its present structure is the best means of ensuring that information, ideas, commentaries and criticisms are being expressed. I share this concern and am prepared to act on it, as I have already done in this letter which I have sent today. However, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water, let us not run the council into the ground, and let us not so degrade it and downgrade it that there is nothing left to preserve or enhance.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I accept the partisan nature in which such matters are brought before the House by opposition members, but let me make one final comment, and that is that the kind of bluster, and sometimes blasphemy, we have heard, the kind of rumour and allegation that have been expressed, will not in any way deter me from what 1 consider to be my mandate, one in which I personally believe, which is to help this government provide greater equality for women in Canada. That is an objective for which I will continue to work, regardless of what members opposite have to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
_______________________________________6469
Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties concerning private members' business and the listing of various bills on the Order Paper, and it has been agreed that Bill C-303 in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil, will reappear tomorrow on the Order Paper printed as Bill C-256, and that Bill C-256, which is now on the order paper, will appear as Bill C-303, and tomorrow at four o'clock we will be debating the new bill, C-256.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the proposal of the parliamentary secretary with respect to Bill C-256 and Bill C-303 for debate tomorrow afternoon. Is there unanimous agreement to that proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would have to add that the changes on the Order Paper mentioned by the parliamentary secretary will be made; I think that must be a House order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whatever way it must be done, we agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, it is agreed and so ordered.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please, It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Criminal Code-Amendments respecting euthanasia-Government position; the hon. member for Win-nipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Garrison diversion- Request Prime Minister discuss project with President of United States; the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper)-Municipal Affairs-Request for reconsideration of cutback of Community Services Contribution Program.

January 22, 1981
6470______________________________________
Status of Women



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McLean.
That this House condemns the blatant interference by the minister responsible for the status of women in the plans of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women to hold a constitutional conference, demands the resignation of the minister, and urges that the mandate of the advisory council be changed to enable it to report directly to Parliament, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1970.
And of the amendment-(Miss Jewett) (p. 6464).
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, first I say to the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) on behalf of my party that indeed we accept the amendment to our motion which she put forward. In fact we are glad to see it incorporated in the motion.
Then I should like to turn my attention to the minister who finished his remarks by saying that he did not want to run the advisory council into the ground. May I say to him that he certainly made a good beginning at doing so. He certainly has caused a great deal of concern in the country among men and women as to what his actions have perpetrated in the last number of days.
The minister tried to defuse the issue by referring to a questionable list of achievements. I would say they fell more into the category of rumour and allegation than anything I have heard here this afternoon. Perhaps the achievement for which he will be longest remembered by women across the country is the fact that he pressured the advisory council into a position where the chairman of the council was forced to resign. That is the achievement for which he will be most noted; that is the achievement which has caused anger up and down the country. Certainly I for one am angry, and I do not think I am the only woman in the country who is angry about it. If the minister has not felt or heard that anger, then he is more insensitive than I thought.
Seldom have so many women been united in their condemnation of a minister of the Crown and in their support for a highly-respected public servant. Seldom, if ever, has a so-called independent advisory body been dealt such a devastating blow to its credibility. We see events pile on events. Today we have seen the resignation of three more members of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women-


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They are members of the research staff, members involved with the advisory council. The reason was that they can no longer stomach the minister's interference with their activities or the government intimidation which is also part of the whole fiasco of recent days.
Today, yesterday, and all this week, we have seen hundreds and thousands of letters, telegrams and telephone calls pouring into Ottawa from women and some men all across the country offering their support for Doris Anderson, and condemning the minister. Members have referred to these, and in case the minister has any question I will give him an example of some already received from hundreds of women, and from organizations representing hundreds of thousands of women who have been appalled and angered by what has taken place. He will be pleased to know that there is even one from the vice-president of the Willowdale Federal Liberal Association.


Pauline Jewett: Good.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They will be coming in the thousands. I warn the minister that the response from women has only begun. The minister attempted to put up a defence. Since this issue broke all he has been doing is seeking to defend himself, because he has no other role but to try to defend himself from something in which he has committed a very grievous error. The minister knows that he has interfered with the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. He knows he had jeopardized the very raison d'etre of the council or its very mandate for existence, that of proffering independent advice on issues related to women.
The proof of this can be seen clearly in the chronology of events which led up to the final cancellation of the advisory council conference on the Constitution. It was scheduled for last September and postponed because of the translators' strike; then rescheduled for February 12 and 13. On December 12 the minister agreed to host the reception and luncheon at that conference. He was well aware of the conference dates at that time, and he did not seem to think then that the conference needed to be cancelled or would be embarrassing. Even if there was any doubt in the minister's mind, certainly there was no doubt in the minds of council members, not even on the part of the executive committee.
According to the documented chronology, it was full speed ahead and all systems go, until, of course, the minister decided to lower the boom. The council members were "advised" to revise the already well-advanced plans for its constitutional conference. But this advice did not come from the minister or his office until January 5 after almost a month of preparation had elapsed. What is more, the advice was not sought; it was given in that special way that ministers have of giving advice. It originated in the minister's office. It was not requested by the chairman or the council. It was tossed out like a spanner in the works from the powers on high.
On January 5, the chronology indicates the following:
Doris Anderson is away. Hellie Wilson speaks with the minister's office and reports that the minister wants regional conferences instead of a national conference. Hellie Wilson stops the press releases and letters from going out as scheduled.
There was no meeting, no vote, not even the courtesy of a telephone call to the chairman; only quick and total obedience expected by members of the council-follow along. Perhaps obedience is a sad word to use, but that is what transpired.
January 22, 1981

On January 6 Doris Anderson returned and found out what the minister suggested. The chronology indicates:
Doris Anderson phones Nancy Connolly, the minister's assistant, and explains that cancelling for a second time would be extremely damaging to the credibility of the council. Nancy Connolly says the minister seems determined. Doris Anderson asks to meet him.
In fact, it was decided that the whole executive committee would meet with the minister. They asked to meet with him not because they wanted his advice which they could subserviently follow-do not put them in such a patronizing position- at least that was not the expectation at the outset. Rather, they wanted an explanation as to why the minister should have unexpectedly interjected his determined and different course of action into an already planned conference. After all, at least some of them were mature, could make up their own minds and were used to operating in an independent council up until then. It was only natural that they should ask for a meeting with the minister. The documented chronology bears that out.
On January 9 the chronology indicates:
The executive all agree to listen to the minister present his position. They will point out the problems for the council if the conference is postponed again. Then after the meeting they will decide what action to take.
So, they met with the minister on January 9. And what was the result? I think the minutes of that executive meeting speak for themselves, as do the results. I wish to read from the minutes of that meeting on January 9. I read from the unedited, unrevised transcript of the proceedings of the executive committee of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I quoted from it in part yesterday, where the minister strongly suggested to the advisory council members that the conference on women and the Constitution be cancelled because the timing was bad, because the conference was being held at the same time that the charter of rights would be tabled in the House.
Second, he said, it would be an embarrassment to the government. That was at this meeting. And the members decided after these suggestions, this determined effort by the minister, that they would poll the members of the executive committee to find out how they reacted to his suggestion that the conference be postponed. I will read the statements of each of the members. Win Gardner, a member of the executive committee, said:
My reasons for voting for cancelling the conference on women and the Constitution has nothing to do with the fact that the minister is a dear and close personal friend of mine. I am voting for cancelling the conference because we looked like fools the last time and I am not ready to look like one again and put our minister in an embarrassing situation toward his government.
Joanne Linzey stated:
I agree with Win and vote for cancelling the conference.
Florence levers stated:
I say that it's about time that we start playing games the same way the government plays games. We should start being nice to them. So if this conference is going to be an embarrassment to them, let's play it their way and cancel it. I vote for Cancelling the conference.
Status of Women
Hellie Wilson stated:
I don't wish to embarrass our minister so I vote for cancelling the conference.
Lucie Pepin, at some length, stated:
1 thought we are doing what we are told. 1 think it is about time that we learn how to do things. This is my personal way of thinking. We have a minister. We are supposed to advise him. We try to do things our way. The way we are doing things was not very effective. We have to take into consideration we have made mistakes and we have to make compromise and start to listen.
Further on in her statement she said:
I am voting against having our meeting in February. We must keep our mouths shut, no press releases until we definitely know something.
Those statements are from the minutes of the meeting. They are exact quotes from the people who spoke at the executive committee meeting after they had met with the minister and listened to what he had to say.


Lloyd Axworthy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is asserting that this is a record from which she is reading these alleged comments. It is not as she states, since these statements have been challenged by a legal affidavit which claims false statements and misrepresentations have been introduced into those minutes. I think it would be proper for the hon. member to recognize that her so-called statement of record is not a statement of record but one which is substantially challenged by five of the six members who were at that meeting. They have filed an affidavit to that effect.


Erik Nielsen: Why did you not produce it when you spoke?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that anyone can produce an affidavit. I have not seen it. I could take out an affidavit saying that I jumped off the top of the Peace Tower this morning, but it would not be true. I am not sure just what to attribute to that affidavit.
It is quite true that, if the minister was so interested in the affidavit, and so interested in trying to discredit the document from which I spoke, why did he not address himself to it and produce any affidavit, if he could do so? I know that the minister gave advice. The people who gave in to that advice, who kowtowed to the minister, have now probably taken out an affidavit. They kowtowed once and they will probably do it again. That is what I have been trying to point out-people will give in to pressure.
What is truly disturbing about these events is how easily some of these people were manipulated. They reneged on their commitment to the women of Canada to hold a constitutional conference. That is what happened. Fortunately, there was one who would not renege, one who put principle ahead of political partisanship. That person is Doris Anderson. She assumed her role, her responsibilities, and adhered to principle in the face of pressure. That is what the minister has not addressed.
As I said yesterday, what is at stake here is not individuals, whether it be the president, the minister or the members of the council, but the future of the council itself. At stake is the existence of the council, its right to exist as an independent body, free from political manipulation. The problems we are trying to address in this debate are more far-reaching than this

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
one series of events, devastating as they are. We are not witnessing an isolated incident of ministerial manipulation but, rather, a situation which is endemic to this government's attitude toward the status of women, that is to say, to speak down to it, patronize it, and to take little heed of it. That has been symptomatic of the government throughout. Ministers have tried to put the whole council and, in fact, issues of interest to women, in a subservient role.
I imagine this is the beginning of some kind of plan which the government has which, I think, has probably got a more sinister purpose in the long run. I have no doubt that the minister's goal throughout all of this is to demolish the Advisory Council on the Status of Women completely. Elis goal is to do away with its independence, first of all, and to challenge its president and force her resignation, and then to let the council drift in limbo until such time as he suddenly emerges with a new role for it, that role to be a kind of mini-department which would, perhaps, be glossed up to say it has its own minister. Then it would come completely under the domination of political partisanship. That is probably what the minister has in mind. That means that any kind of independent body, such as exists today, would certainly disappear.
How different is that from the original intention of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, to have a powerful body speaking and operating independently within public view. 1 would like to remind the minister of what the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended back in 1970. They said:
We recommend that a Federal Status of Women Council, directly responsible to Parliament, be established to advise on matters pertaining to women and report annually to Parliament on the progress being made in improving the status of women in Canada.
We certainly did not see any sign of that yesterday when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) responded here in the House, comparing the Advisory Council on the Status of Women to advisory councils on trade, health and welfare, immigration, and sports. The Prime Minister, the minister's leader, sees no difference between the way in which government deals with the problems of women in society and the rights of women- their human rights-and the problems caused by trade regulations on manufactured commodities.
In fact the Prime Minister puts the rights of 52 per cent of the population of this country on the same level as building a sports arena. That is what he did here yesterday when he compared advisory councils to trade and sports councils. He put the Advisory Council on the Status of Women in a very secondary and second-class position. But that, of course, is to be expected from a Prime Minister who never once, in the 12 years he has been in office serving in this House, rose in his place to speak on the rights of women, in any debate on this issue.
When the advisory council was first set up the spokesman for my party, who is now the Human Rights Commissioner, warned that these things might happen. He said that, indeed, the government was ignoring what the Royal Commission on the Status of Women had recommended, by appointing instead
a committee to advise through a minister. Mr. Fairweather said the government of the day:
-ignored that good advice and took a different route appointing what is, in reality, a committee that is to report to the minister. The results will enable us to judge who is right.
That is what Mr. Fairweather said back in 1973. Judgment day has come and we are only too painfully aware of how right the royal commission was.
Mr. Fairweather made another statement seven years ago which is now being borne out:
1 hope the ACSW members never let up on their recommendations to the government and that they push this minister until he wonders why he ever made the appointments.
Every minister up until now has been able to survive the push of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women except this minister. He has not been able to take that push, to respond to it or learn from it. Instead, he dealt with it in his own inadequate fashion, which is by changing his position and using that position of power in influencing the council and directing it against the challenger, against the president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I have no doubt that he expected her to cave in. What must have surprised the minister was that the president of the council stuck to her principles and resigned.
But where does that leave us? I realize that I have only a few minutes left, and I would like to finish by saying that with the advisory council now in a shambles, with its credibility severely eroded, with women across the country condemning the blatant manipulations of the council by the minister, we must try to undo the damage which has been done. It will be difficult to find a successor of the calibre of Doris Anderson. But the government will stand a better chance of recruiting such an appointee if that person can be assured from the outset that the council will be truly independent, that it will not be manipulated, that it will in future be able to report directly to Parliament. Only then will the council's credibility be restored, but the minister's credibility will remain in limbo for much longer.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed feelings this afternoon, feelings of sorrow and anger. I feel that the two hon. members who have raised this issue so eloquently and in such a damaging way to the women of this country have also damaged me to some degree. I have always been an independent thinker. I have worked very closely with a number of women who have served on this particular advisory council and have had a number of conversations with them. I feel that there has been a great deal of damage done to all of those who serve on this committee and, indeed, to all the women in the country.
It is unfortunate that the opposition only become interested in issues affecting Canadian women when they perceive that they may be able to score a few cheap political shots.


Pauline Jewett: That is about as cheap as you can get.
January 22, 1981


Judith A. Erola: These shots are at the expense of Canadian women. We talk about principles. There are always the accusations in the business world and in the world at large that women tend to take their marbles home when nobody wants to play any more. I contend that that is part of the issue which is at stake here.
1 feel that the innuendo and gossip which have been injected into this entire debate have been, again, at the expense of a number of very credible women. Let us look at some of the women who make up the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Who are they and where do they come from? It is interesting to note that there are four teachers, a speech therapist, a linguist, a professor of sociology, a broadcaster, three communications personnel, an accountant, a city councillor, six nurses, a lawyer, a lay minister, community workers, and women with backgrounds in labour and in government. Are these women who are quickly and easily manipulated? Are these the kind of women, women who represent the women of this country, who would be subjected to manipulation and who would not think independently? I suggest that these are women of great achievement in this country and who act very independently.
Yes, there will be resignations. I expect that there will be at least ten resignations.


Pauline Jewett: Are you asking for them?


Judith A. Erola: Certainly no one is asking for resignations, but certainly they are not unexpected. I do not think, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has suggested, that there are thousands of women in this country who uphold the allegations which the hon. member has made. I think that there are a great many women in this country who are asking, "What are the facts?"


Erik Nielsen: They are in the minutes.


Judith A. Erola: The minutes are in doubt because, as the hon. minister has just mentioned, an affidavit has been filed. I personally resent the way in which this whole case has been presented in this House. I feel that the damage has been devastating and that it will be a long time before the true status of the council is regained.


Erik Nielsen: Let us have the affidavit.


Judith A. Erola: I think the affidavit can be presented. There are some things which must be said in this House on the role of an advisory council. As a minister I, too, have an advisory council and I too feel that I must meet with these people regularly and that exchanges must be as frank and as open as possible. Never at any time has it entered my mind or the minds of any of the members of that council that I would at any time attempt to manipulate their thinking or their positions. I feel that these councils must be available to us? If we wish to listen or to react positively to the people of this country, then we must be in a position to talk with them regularly and openly.
Status of Women
I would like to add that it was not the minister who requested the meeting. It was the council which requested the meeting in December and he complied with the wishes of the council. It was obvious that at that council meeting there was some frank and open discussion which is now being interpreted as manipulation. I feel that there are many, many instances in which I have met with members of my advisory council and our views have differed, and differed very greatly, but at the same time we have all walked away from that council table saying, "That is the way you see it and this is the way I see it".
I suggest that the minister faced exactly the same situation in the December council meeting. He walked away feeling that the views of all had been expressed frankly and openly, and that they were free to take their decisions based on that discussion. It is obvious that these people made some decisions. It is obvious that they, in fact, followed through and that it was a very democratic process. I feel very strongly that these women should be left free to run their organization with as little intervention as possible from this House.
I suggest to members opposite that the intervention which has taken place in this House has put the role of the council in doubt. I feel that these people must be able to contact and report to a minister very quickly and very easily. I feel that the advisory council which comes to my office regularly reacts very quickly and responsibly and tells me when we are doing something wrong. I can tell you that these women have been very quick to point out to this minister, as I and some of my colleagues in the House have, when something has gone awry.
This government, and particularly this minister who has been very sensitive to the needs of the women of this country, have made such progress. But I suggest that it is this progress which has brought on the attack from members opposite. I am very upset by what has happened, and there are women across this country who agree with my position. The general feeling in my conversations with women who are mostly in the business world and in the political world has been that the damage has been devastating, that we are acting "as women usually do", with petty bickering and arguing, which serves us no good. I suggest that we cease and desist immediately and that we get on with the business of seeing that positive and affirmative programs are put in place, programs which we are free to criticize and, if they are good, which we are free to support. It is time the women of this country began to work together. I thought, and I felt deeply, that we were doing just that. I thought that we were making progress with some of the female members opposite, that we had common causes. We must work together to ensure that we reach the goals that we share, but I suggest that has not happened. This very incident which has been brought to this House is going to do a great deal of damage in the long run to many women who have fought hard to bring their cause to the fore and who have done some positive things.
The Advisory Council on the Status of Women was invaluable to this government with its advice before the proposed

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
constitutional resolution of October 6 and during the consequent committee hearings. I can tell you that as a woman one of the proudest moments I had in the past few years was to hear the presentation these women made before the constitutional committee. It was very well done. In fact, it was brilliantly done. There were people across the country who agreed that it was one of the finest presentations made to the committee. It was a very proud moment for me, and I think it was a very proud moment for most women of this country. Furthermore, the government listened. I listened very carefully and made the changes which the council of women felt were necessary.


An hon. Member:: What about another meeting?


Judith A. Erola: There was no embarrassment about another meeting. 1 do not buy that line of "embarrassment" at all. Was it a positive meeting? Was it a meeting that was going to be useful in terms of timing since the proposal would be coming back to this House on the sixth? It was a question of timing. It was not a question of embarrassment. We are very proud of the amendments we accepted, amendments about which the women of this country feel very strongly. I do feel-


An hon. Member:: You should feel strongly.


Judith A. Erola: -and should feel strongly about them, I agree. I find it difficult to accept the fact that the council of women was not free to act. The advisory council went into action immediately and made some very profound and good changes to that Constitution. They acted very independently at that time.
When we talk about consultation I might say that during this last couple of months I have had a number of occasions to call upon these women. I asked: Is this the way we feel about it? Tell me what you feel about it. A number of people have been to my office. I feel this relationship is jeopardized to some degree because I feel, as a minister, that I must have freedom to talk to these people and to feel the temper of the women in this country. As ministers we often do not have the opportunity to reach out, to test the waters, so to speak. We must have these advisory councils ready to tell us when we are moving in the right direction and when we are not moving in the right direction. I, for one, very much resent the allegations that have been put forth in this House. 1 do feel that the cause of women has not been served well by the actions of members opposite.
I suggest to hon. members that they examine what they have done-


Erik Nielsen: What about your seatmate?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The minister should examine what he has done.


Judith A. Erola: -and that hon. members examine what they think they should be doing in a very positive way.
We are looking to the women of this country for sound advice. We want them to come to these councils to say exactly
what they want to say and up until this time I feel they have been able to do it. All of that is now thrown into question and into doubt. I think it has been a very convenient vehicle for some people to mount what I consider to be unethical campaigns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Speak to the minister.


Judith A. Erola: The time has come for the women of this country to speak up and say there is something wrong when a number of women, a very few, can manipulate the situation to their advantage and in so doing, cause a great deal of damage along the way.
It is time that we had a second look at where the women of this country are going. We should support the Advisory Council on the Status of Women as fully as we can.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: And make them independent.


Judith A. Erola: They are independent. They are an independent group answering to a minister.


Pauline Jewett: Answering to him?


Judith A. Erola: I will correct that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: who phoned and who phoned back what we have heard in this House.
It might be interesting to look at some of the accomplishments and some of the things that are happening in this country. Win Gardner said something rather important in her statement. She suggested we look at our divorce laws, at child care, at maternity leave, at the real problems facing women of this country. Lord knows we need day care centres. We have not addressed half of the problems that need addressing if we intend to look at the role and at the status of these women. We have dealt with the problem of the charter and we have dealt with it very positively. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women did that very effectively. Now let us go on to deal with some of the very real problems which I feel the women of Canada are demanding. This sort of petty bickering leads us nowhere. We must get on with the job and dispense with the silly issues which are being raised here by members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the blatant interference by the minister responsible for the status of women in the plans of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women to hold a constitutional conference, demands the resignation of the minister, and urges that the mandate of the advisory council be changed to enable it to report directly to Parliament, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1970.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote a few words heard at the world Conference on the UN Mid-decade Conference for Women which took place in Copenhagen on July 15, 1980:
We have to act right now with determination with a view to maintaining our efforts to achieve our objective, namely that 1981 will end the oppression of women at the economic and social level.
Mr. Speaker, those were the words spoken by the employment minister in July 1980 at that conference in Copenhagen.
Things have changed a lot since the minister uttered those words in Copenhagen. Anyone watching television in Canada today might have seen an interview with two writers, Joanne Kates and Eleanor Wright-Perline over the CTV network. The interviewer asked:
What kind of track record does Lloyd Axworthy have anyway? 1 mean, Doris Anderson is saying that he is the one that ought to resign. What do you think?
Joanne Kates replied:
He has got a miserable track record with respect to women. As minister responsible for the status of women, he hasn't facilitated or done anything that improves our rights in any way.
Eleanor Wright-Perline admitted that the minister had a lot of good intentions, that a lot of sympathy had been declared over and over again with a lot of "charming smiles". We have
Status of Women
seen them from over here. She also stated that he had given explanations, saying things like "you will understand my position" and "these things take time". She went on to say:
-there is no point in having the ear of the government unless you also have the government's active support. Look at the record, look to see how few of the recommendations of advisory councils have been implemented by the governments which appointed them.
Miss Kates went on to say:
-the federal government has stubbornly refused to give funding to those women's groups so that they can do things like get to Ottawa and make presentations to the government.
Those could hardly be seen as positive actions on the part of the minister who made such a profound statement at the world conference in Copenhagen just six months ago. That does not surprise anyone, certainly not those on this side.
The Liberal government in 1977 brought in a bill to make major changes to the unemployment insurance program in this country. It had far-reaching effects on all Canadians, particularly women. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women appeared before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration and told that committee that the government had not consulted the council before drafting and presenting the legislation. What is an advisory council for if it is not permitted to advise?
On the constitution, the government brought in the resolution which still has not been reported back to this House. The plight of women and other women's issues were ignored in the proposals put forward by the government. When the Advisory Council on the Status of Women was finally invited to appear before the constitutional committee, it stated it had not been asked, until the second round of meetings, to have any input into the constitutional proposals.
The members of the advisory council were not the only ones to be ignored; there were other groups such as the handicapped. In fact, many groups appeared before that committee and complained that they had been ignored. What can we expect from a government with a leader who only yesterday responded to female members on this side of the House in one way and to male members in another?
At page 6409 of yesterday's Hansard, when answering the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, "I think the hon. lady opposite-". In replying to the hon. member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), the Prime Minister said, "-as regards the preamble which the hon. lady put to her question-".


Margaret Anne Mitchell: He is a sexist.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The hon. member says he is a sexist. At page 6413, replying to the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant), the Prime Minister said, "-the hon. member refers to a news report of yesterday". Therefore, we have two classes of members acknowledged by the Prime Minister, the head of the government. We have hon. ladies and hon. members. I do not know why the Prime Minister cannot refer to all of us as hon. members.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Hear, hear!

January 22, 1981
Status of Women


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The Prime Minister apparently did not learn anything from his one-time member for Vancouver-Kingsway, whom he referred to as "the hon. lady". She took particular issue with the Prime Minister, saying she had been elected as a member of Parliament without regard to sex; that she was not here as a lady at all but as a Member of Parliament. I am not sure she won her argument, but she did take issue with him. That was at least five years ago and the Prime Minister has not learned anything.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Not on the issue of women. He just doesn't learn.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I also want to refer to the words of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) when speaking to the press today. He is quoted as saying that the only thing he regretted was that there was a "major issue made about a matter I felt should have been resolved by the council without all this publicity".
The obvious question that comes to mind is why is the minister afraid of the publicity if he does not have anything to hide? Was he worried because the council did not just take his suggestion, meekly fold its tents and go away rather than make a fuss as Doris Anderson did? Was the minister worried that his interference with the council would come out? He may have been thinking that if the constitutional committee had reported when it was scheduled to do so, on December 9, the advisory council would not yet have scheduled its meeting and he would not have had the problem. Perhaps that is what he was trying to hide. One cannot be sure with this minister and this government.

Mr. Speaker, let us reflect for a moment on the creation of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In 1973, the then minister of labour, Mr. Munro, made a statement on motions in the House. That seems strange, Mr. Speaker, because nowadays statements on motions are always heard outside and not inside the House. Let us reflect for a moment. The minister said, and I quote:
The purpose of the council will be twofold: to bring before the government and the public matters of interest and concern to women, and to advise the government on actions that it deems necessary to improve the position of women in society. These terms of reference are purposely very broad in order that the council will have freedom to take whatever action it considers necessary. The council will also have authority to publish its reports, recommendations and statements. In this way the council will be in a position to keep before the public, as well as the government, the whole question of the status of women.
In reply Mr. Gordon Fairweather, then member for Fundy Royal in New Brunswick and spokesman for our party on that subject, said, again I quote:
The royal commission, after all, recommended in 1970 that the advisory council on the status of women should be established and report to Parliament. The government, unfortunately, ignored that good advice and took a different route by appointing what is, in reality, a committee that is to report to the minister. The results will enable us to judge who is right. Despite what the minister says, in my opinion the terms of reference he enunciated today are much too restrictive.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look back upon the incident which occurred in the House yesterday. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked the right hon. Prime Minister whether there is a policy which prevents the council from reporting to Parliament as do the Auditor General, the Economic Council of Canada and the Commissioner of Official Languages. Mr. Speaker, he could have added a few more organizations, for instance the Library of Parliament, the electoral boundaries commissions for the decennial report, the internal economy commission, contested elections, the Economic Council of Canada, the Queen Elizabeth II Research Fund and the annual report of the Council on Official Languages. All those reports are tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker.
But what did the Prime Minister say? He replied, and I quote:
There are many different councils which advise the minister directly, such as advisory councils in trade, health and welfare, immigration and sports. They advise the minister so he can keep their advice in mind when introducing legislation.
I emphasize this:
-so he can keep their advice in mind when introducing legislation.
As I said, in 1977 the advisory council stated before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration that the government had not consulted them about the unemployment insurance bill, a very important measure for women.
In the few minutes remaining perhaps I could add some positive notes to the debate. The government opposite often complains that we complain too much and do not give them the real answers. We showed them what the real answers were on many subjects.
The Prime Minister was being particularly, if not unparliamentary then certainly impolite in talking about the "might have been" policies of this side.
Le me run over a few of the things that were done by this side in the short time we were in government. Let me start out with a reference to what the Minister of Employment and Immigration said. He said we had done nothing in our time in government. The records show that 24,000 women were placed in jobs in the time we were in government, compared with the
10,000	this minister has put into jobs in a similar period.
During the first six months of the government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition the profile on the status of women was greatly enhanced because of the very strong personal commitment of the then prime minister, the minister responsible for the status of women and several other ministers, most notably the minister of employment and immigration.
Increased resources were allocated to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In fact, the budget was increased by 89 per cent over the budget provided by the Liberal govern-
January 22, 1981

ment in the previous fiscal period. That budget went from $740,000 to $1,400,000, and $401,000 was added for the "statut de la femme Canada" that organization in the bureaucracy. It is interesting to note that while the government opposite gave $740,000 to the advisory council, the government of Quebec gave its women's council, le Conseil de la Femme, $1.8 million, well over twice the amount.
The legislative reality of our government's six months in power is Bill C-6, which extended the spouse's allowance beyond the death of the elder spouse; the proposed sexual offences legislation was going through cabinet committee and was ready for drafting; some of the Outreach funding which had been cut off by the former government was restored and that program was under review when our government fell; amendments to the Income tax Act to recognize women's contributions in unincorporated businesses and farms had been proposed and only because of our defeat, was stopped; an employment strategy was ready for cabinet, and the list goes on and on. I see that time will not permit me to go on with them but I have four pages of accomplishments here.
Perhaps I could just finish with one sentence. In addition to the motion which suggests that the minister should resign, with which I agree, perhaps I could conclude by recommending, among other changes, that the advisory council be given new terms of reference which would enable it to report directly to Parliament on its own initiative, that is, from time to time whenever it felt necessary, and also that new members of the council be vetted by the council itself and that present council members be given the right to veto appointments of members. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately time is limited. I am distressed today that I have to stand up in the House under these particular circumstances. I am outraged as a Member of Parliament and as a Canadian woman at what is happening today, at the way the women of Canada are being manipulated for crass political purposes and not for the benefit of the women of Canada. This is so that the opposition parties can take cheap political cracks at the minister responsible. This in no way helps the women of Canada. I want to put on record as a woman of Canada that in no way do Canadian women approve of being used for cheap political purposes.
The whole point of the argument is that women do not allow themselves to be demeaned by what is happening in the House today. Those women of Canada who preach democracy will live by democracy. The implication of the debate in the House today is that those women who preach democracy cannot bear to abide by its rules and cannot exercise their freedom of speech. By the way, freedom of speech is given to a minister of the Crown just as it is to any other Canadian. He must be given the freedom to voice his views. With democracy, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) should remember, comes the responsibility to accept the will of
Status of Women
the majority. In this case a vote was taken and a majority of that council decided to postpone the meeting. What happened? A few people took up their buckets and spades, refused to play the game and ran home. I admire Doris Anderson. I would have admired her a heck of a lot more if she had stood by her guns and had seen the fight through. What she did was provide another excuse for a very facetious and stupid debate in this House today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but, it being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the debate was interrupted at six o'clock the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) was in full flight.


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Did the hon. member who was speaking call it six o'clock?


Mr. Cousineau:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 called it six o'clock. It was in fact about thirty seconds after six. Accordingly, I interrupted the hon. member pursuant to the Standing Orders. Someone later asked me whether that might indicate that the hon. member had been deprived of her ability to continue at eight o'clock, and I know of no reason why she should be.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I hope the foregoing interruption does not mean that the Tory members, who have brought forward this motion in order to protect the rights of women, are really trying to stop this woman from speaking.
When we stopped for our dinner break I was talking about quitters and about my anger with respect to quitters. 1 was talking also about my sadness at the fact that these same quitters did not have the sense to realize that, far from making them heroic defenders of women's rights, their actions reduced them to mere pawns in this political process and this game of embarrass-thy-neighbour, particularly if the neighbour happens to be a minister of the Crown. That is in fact what happened. The whole purpose of today's debate is not to promote the status of women in Canada; it is to try to embarrass the minister responsible for the status of women. Why should we embarrass him? He was elected by the people of Canada. His party was elected by the people of Canada to govern the country. My Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in whose judgment 1 have perfect faith, appointed that man to look after the status of women. What has he done since that time?

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
Has he made self-righteous, patronizing speeches? Has he patted women on the back and used them as pawns in this House of Commons? No, he has not; he has worked for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: Far be it from me to enter into the empty rhetoric which has assailed my ears today. I want to prove how this minister has worked for the status of women.
This is a time when we are cutting back. The Tories are the first to tell us about the desperate financial state we are in and about our dreadful deficit. Hon. members opposite should not deny this. They tell us. What does the minister responsible for the status of women do at this time of financial restraint? He increases from $700,000 to $1.2 million the amount spent on women's programs to promote the status of women. That is an increase of 70 per cent in, I repeat, a time of cutbacks. The minister supports the Canadian national association of sexual assault centres and its annual conference to discuss sexual assault legislation. The list is long. I could go on, but I want to stop on that point.


Erik Nielsen: Please do.


Ursula Appolloni: This minister has not only shown interest in the status of women in Canada but, by his own initiative and forcefulness, he has also pinpointed one of the main problems of women, and if you guys are sincerely interested in what the women of Canada are facing, perhaps you could do me the courtesy of listening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Ursula Appolloni: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) said that women are offended because people call them ladies.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are not a bunch of guys. We are hon. members too.


Ursula Appolloni: The hon. member's remarks lead me to my next point. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was incensed at the insensitivity of the minister responsible for the status of women and at what he had done to women. What has he done for women? He "allowed" the Prime Minister of Canada to call the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands "the hon. lady". Is she incensed? Frankly, I would be thrilled if the Prime Minister of Canada called me a lady because, despite my anger at this moment, that is one thing I want to be. I want to be a lady.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Bully for you.


Ursula Appolloni: However, that is not the point. My Prime Minister, who recognizes qualities we sometimes wonder about-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: He recognizes qualities, and he is accused of being a sexist because he calls a female member a lady. After a tiny bit of research I found that on the same day, recorded on the same page of Hansard quoted from by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the same Prime Minister of Canada called the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broad-bent) "the hon. gentleman".
Oh my, the Leader of the NDP is called a gentleman. I do not hear the NDP standing up screaming "sexist". I do not hear anybody screaming "sexist". My Prime Minister-and I call him mine because, by Jove, I also elected him and I am proud of him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You can have him.


Ursula Appolloni: My Prime Minister, with his discerning qualities, called the hon. member for Oshawa a gentleman. Frankly, I might not agree with the leader of the NDP, but I have to agree that he is a gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: Do I hear objections? The point I am sincerely trying to make is that women in Canada and women all over the world do have problems-of course we do, and men have problems too-but we are not asking to be treated so specially that when people disagree with us, we pick up our buckets and spades and run away because we do not want to play the game any longer.
We want to be listened to, we want to have our views considered, but if we lose the argument, by Jove, we do not go running off, or we should not go running off, and giving up everything. That is not what this life is about. As members of Parliament in particular, we know darn well we are going to lose arguments. We lose arguments daily with the opposition, and even sometimes with our own party. So what do we do? Do we resign? In this case, the vote was 10 to 7. So what happened to them? The ten who were defeated resigned. If it were a case of losing votes and resigning, then I think the Tories should have resigned long ago because they have lost votes, and they will continue to lose votes long into the future. Are they going to resign every time there is a vote?
In essence, that is what we are talking about. We are talking about freedom of expression, and that freedom of expression has to extend to a cabinet minister. I hear the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands saying something that I cannot catch, but I think I have the drift of it. She too was a cabinet minister. I am sure that she too in her job-which she did very responsibly, I think-had to listen to advisory councils of various kinds. Is it because she was afraid to reject their counsel that she and her leader made such asinine mistakes as when they tried to shift the embassy to Jerusalem? Is that the kind of government we have, a government which has to accept all the advice it gets from advisory councils? What are
January 22, 1981

we making of advisory councils? What are we doing by this debate today? What we are doing is fettering them. They will no longer want to speak to a minister in case what they tell him comes to the floor of the House, which is exactly what happens. On the other hand, we are fettering the minister who could be terrified of speaking to any advisory council, again in case it comes to the floor of the House. Will all this increase the status of the advisory council? Nonsense. The debate today has turned that advisory council, which could have been, and has been in the past, a very fine instrument, into a pitiful bunch of disappointed women. That is what has been achieved by the debate today. This debate has not helped by one iota the women of Canada, and at that I am incensed, I am angered and 1 am tremendously saddened. The women of Canada do need help, perhaps not the ones who complain because they are not a Mrs; they are probably a Miss, but they do not want to be known as such so they call themselves Ms. I will defend their right to call themselves whatever they like, even if they object to being called ladies. But, Mr. Speaker, they do not have the right to speak for the millions of other Canadian women who feel, as 1 do, that there are genuine problems which can be addressed and catered for by this particular minister who, as well as being in charge of the status of women is in charge of employment and immigration.
I will tell you about some of the problems I am talking about. I am talking in particular about the problems of the unwed mother.


An hon. Member:: Oh, now we get it.


Ursula Appolloni: Now you are getting it! The opposition whip will now get it. He will get an earful because I know what I am talking about, and this is not empty rhetoric. At least half the Advisory Council on the Status of Women will have a very simple and quick solution to the problem of these women, which is to get them abortions. I have been through that. I do not think they should have abortions. I think they have the right to have their children. But I do think it is society's responsibility to help a woman not only to bring a new Canadian citizen into the world but to make sure that he or she is treated equally to any other baby, wanted or unwanted, in Canada.
And now I come to the minister in charge of the status of women who is also in charge of employment and immigration. Because of the kinds of things that women like me speak to him about, the kinds of problems he works on are such things as training programs for these women. I wonder if any members in the opposition who have entered into the debate today have gone to places like the ones 1 have gone to in Toronto?


An hon. Member:: They would not let me in.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, the temptation is great, but I shall refrain from personal comments. As I was saying, these training schools in Toronto are funded by the minister's department. In them they teach the girls skills which, in ordinary circumstances, would be marketable skills. But the minute they leave that course after graduating, the minute
Status of Women
they have learned that skill which is necessary for them and for their children so that they can earn their daily bread, what happens? They have problems with child care. There are no day care centres, and they have problems if, God forbid, the child becomes sick. Who pays for the medicine then? Ordinarily, the Department of National Health and Welfare would, but because these women have been on the training course, they are on welfare. They should be able to earn their own money. What do they earn? They earn the bare minimum. I defy any member of the House to tell me how a woman can raise a child today on the minimum wage. I say this, leaving partisan politics aside. I say that it cannot be done. So what happens? They are cut off from welfare because they have been on our training program. But there is a hiatus between the time they are on the training program and the time they start earning just enough to keep themselves and their children. They have lost welfare payments and they are encouraged to go back to work, not for a few weeks but forever.
These are the kinds of programs we have to address, the problems about which the minister has already spoken. There is the problem of sexual assault. What does sexual assault mean, apart from the rhetoric? I will tell you what it means. It means the violation of a woman's body, the most horrendous crime on our books. It means putting out your hand to that woman and helping her to retrieve her own self-respect and get rid of her tremendous fear of anyone who is male, be it her husband, her brother or her father, whom she has known for years. As sensitive as many male members may be to this subject, I honestly do not believe they understand the real meaning of this kind of crime. But I believe our minister understands this. By himself he will not be able to eradicate these horrors with which women are faced today in increasing numbers, nor will this cabinet nor future governments be able to do so because there will first have to be a tremendous change in the attitude of society. These changes will not come so long as the Canadian public just sits back and watches the debates, which they can do now because of television. What is the Canadian public worried about today? It is worried about the future of fuel supplies and about the cost of fuel. The Canadian public is worried about the children and whether they will find jobs in the future. The Canadian public wonders whether there will be a united Canada in ten years' time. On the international scene we know that entire populations are dying, not because of what a minister said to some female who resigned, but for lack of food. The Canadian public also knows that people in other countries of the world are imprisoned for exactly what the minister did; they expressed their views and they were imprisoned. The minister expressed his view and he is in a pillory today in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: I hear the defenders of women's rights applauding the act that he is in a pillory. What are they doing for women's rights? They put up speakers to say that the
6480

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
Prime Minister is chauvinistic because he calls a female a lady; I believe the lady should be thankful she was called such.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the comments of the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni). I have often listened to her observations with great respect, but this evening I listened quietly in an attempt to understand the drift of her message. I know the member is a true and faithful supporter of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the party he represents. One can always tell when the government is in a difficult position-the decibel level rises very substantially in defence of an indefensible position.


Monique Bégin: That is sexism.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A lot of people in televisionland will not appreciate that I have the great fortune of sitting directly across from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). This is one of the great joys of my life; I am able to watch her in action. I observed her rise in the House today on a specious question of privilege. I appreciate the fact that she very often says things without thinking before she speaks, so I accept the last interjection on the same basis.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think I have struck a sensitive chord.


Monique Bégin: 1 should like to point out that what the hon. member just said is an attack on the privileges of all women of the House. In the last months sexism has arisen more in the conversations in this place than when I first became a member of the House.
When I spoke this afternoon some male members opposite made vulgar references to the fact that some people have problems in certain months. Tonight the member started his speech by referring to the woman who spoke a few moments before him and by talking about decibel levels. Nature did not make all vocal chords exactly the same-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Monique Bégin: -and 1 think that type of innuendo is sexist.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, will I be allowed an opportunity to speak on that point of order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on the point of order raised by the hon. minister, but I do not think it is reasonable to suggest, with the state of the argument at this point, that the Chair can find a case of privilege in the remarks raised. I say this because it is important for the Chair to distinguish between debate which may not be acceptable to some members in some parts of the House at some times, and the actual matter of privilege. I think the hon. minister may or may not-and I make no judgment on it at all-have a point
of debate, but I do not see that I can find a question of privilege. Before a final ruling in that regard, I will listen to the hon. member for Saskatoon West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think I understand the drift of what Your Honour will finally adjudicate on this matter. I fully subscribe to the point of view that there is absolutely no point of order. In case there is any doubt that my remarks were directed toward the hon. member for York South-Weston-and I think the blues will underline this-let me point out that I did not discriminate with respect to any member on the government benches. They all speak in high decibels because their position is very weak. I say that without regard to sex, origin or location. I did not in any way suggest that it was the hon. member for York South-Weston, for whom I have the greatest respect. All members of the House are equal regardless of their sex, which is a point the hon. minister does not understand. She does a disservice to her position when she suggests that such is not the case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be somewhat concerned when I direct my remarks to a male member of the House of Commons. Hopefully she will not rise every two minutes on points of order suggesting that I am attacking the males in the House.
I should like to talk about the minister concerned, because I think he is the basis of this entire motion. We as opposition members have the right to question and look at the actions of ministers of the Crown.
During the course of this debate we will be looking at the actions of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) who is responsible for reporting to the House on behalf of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Since the minister's appointment to his portfolio, he has reminded me of a character in A1 Capp's L'il Abner. This minister is the Joe Btfsplk of the current cabinet. Wherever he goes, whatever he does, there seems to be a storm cloud crashing around his head and lightning striking everything that comes within proximity of him. The minister has the propensity to get himself and the government into absolutely unnecessary difficulty. I make my remarks today as an opposition member because I want to be constructive and help the minister. He is one of the few elected ministers from western Canada so 1 have a very deep interest in his welfare. I know the minister fully appreciates that we have an interest in things indigenous to western Canada. Liberal cabinet ministers and dinosaurs are rare objects of antiquity which must be protected. In particular members from western Canada must attempt to advise and help the minister in the pursuit of his responsibilities. The minister has become a spokesman on virtually every western Canadian topic which has crossed a cabinet desk.
I was interested in an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, a newspaper which has had a long tradition of supporting the Liberal Party of Canada. The editorial made reference to the minister's propensity for getting into difficulty. I bring this up
January 22, 1981

not for the purpose of embarrassing the minister-the Lord knows he does enough to embarrass himself-but I should like to read the conclusion of this particular editorial:
In many ways, Manitobans are fortunate that their sole representative in the federal cabinet is an active and ambitious man. There is reason for concern, however, that if Mr. Axworthy keeps puffing himself up at his present rate, one day he will simply burst.
This is the minister's home town paper, a paper of longstanding Liberal persuasion. I am concerned about the minister, so I am trying to explain the error of his ways and to put him on the right track. Hopefully, after this debate he will stand in his place and do the right thing. I will tell him what he should do. What we have today is a situation where the minister is attempting somehow to answer this very precise and specific accusation. I think it is fair to say that it is, in a sense, an accusation that he has manipulated the Advisory Council on the Status of Women contrary to the best interests of that body and of women in Canada today. As the minister responsible for that council he has taken an unprecedented step by this manipulation.
In his defence he does not deal with the particular topic. No, he has decided he will take another tack. He will rise in his place and recite for this House his many accomplishments in this government with respect to women's rights and women's issues in Canada.
When the question period started yesterday, or possibly the day before yesterday, the minister must have been thinking that maybe there would be a few questions asked of himself and the Prime Minister with respect to this issue. So, before question period, down the steps trundled the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the minister responsible to the Prime Minister for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. He handed the Prime Minister an envelope which contained a list. The list, if we can believe, Mr. Speaker, was the list the Prime Minister tried to read into the record yesterday of all the great accomplishments of this minister. It was a self-serving document which was presented to the Prime Minister to defend the minister. The Prime Minister read it. Of course, it broke the place up. The place went into chaos. There was thigh-slapping and laughing and the Prime Minister was not able to finish reading it. I am sure if he wants to present us with copies we are prepared to have a look at it. But that is not what is at issue here.
I do not doubt the sincerity and the ambition of the minister. He wants to get ahead in Liberal circles. He wants to do a job which will lead to him being perceived as a Liberal leadership candidate. We want to ensure that he moves on and succeeds, since we think there is political advantage in it for us.
I want to say to the minister that the issue here is purely and simply: What has he done to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women? What has he done to the position of women across Canada through the action he has taken? I think these actions were taken foolishly and without serious consideration being given to the implications of women's interests in our
Status of Women
country. The speakers on the government side have stood in their places and complained because we are now in this debate. Somehow we in the opposition are to be held responsible for this whole mess. What an amazing proposition that is, Mr. Speaker.
I was not aware of the fact that the president of the advisory council was a paid-up member of the Liberal Party. I was not aware that she had been a candidate for the Liberal Party in the federal election. It certainly could not be said that the president was a person who was a political partisan in opposition to the government. This woman has said in public pronouncements that there was political interference with the operation of the advisory council. This is according to the record we now have, the minutes of the meeting of the advisory council.
They can flim-flam all they want about this issue. The advisory council was intended to be independent. The royal commission recommended that it report directly to Parliament, as opposed to a minister, but in its wisdom the government decided it should report to a minister. The underlying principle was that it would be independent.
The minister has broken the trust that he had with the women of Canada by interfering with a decision to hold a conference on the constitution of our country. The minister tries to answer the criticism by saying, "Well, of course, it really is a matter of timing, since now it would not serve any useful purpose for the advisory council to have a national conference on the constitution. Really, these issues are not on the plate of the government now. The issues have all been decided and the constitutional committee will now deal with these matters."
The fact of the matter is that while the advisory council made an admirable submission to the constitutional committee this conference would have been an opportunity for the council to have the benefit of a wide-ranging point of view from a number of women and women's organizations. And what is wrong with that? What is wrong with giving that kind of opportunity to the council, even though, as a result of the arbitrary time limit imposed by the government, it was obliged to make its submission before having had the chance to hear from the women of Canada?
The chronology will indicate that the planning went ahead as early as June of last year, with the minister's concurrence. The minister was to host a reception in September of 1980 when he would speak to the conference. Elaborate plans were made to hold this convention but it apparently had to be called off because of the translators' strike. Ostensibly, that is the reason why the meeting did not go ahead in September. That premise has been challenged by many women who were involved. They said there was an understanding with the translators that the conference would not be picketed. But be that as it may, it was decided to postpone the conference until February of this year. That was all done in the knowledge of the minister at the time.
Arrangements went ahead to hold the conference and Sheila Zimmerman was hired to organize it. Lucie Pepin undertook

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
to phone the Quebec speakers. The members of the advisory council were all set to hold this conference. The minister says he was then consulted about what his view was with respect to the conference. Mr. Speaker, I challenge the minister's version of the circumstances which took place. I now have information that prior to the time the minister says he was first apprised of these circumstances, namely, on January 5, 1981, a memorandum was sent to Doris Anderson from Hellie Wilson. It said, "Talked to Nancy Connolly-". Before I read the memo I must explain who Nancy Connolly is. She is the minister's assistant who speaks on his behalf. The memo reads:
Talked to Nancy Connolly yesterday. Minister wants regional conferences instead of national conference. Phoned Win.
I will deal with Win in a moment.
She thinks executive should discuss.
This memorandum indicates the minister's office initiated the discussion with respect to this matter prior to any discussion or any request for a discussion with the minister. If I am mistaken-and I do not believe I am-then the minister should bring forward facts to show I am wrong. He says he has an affidavit as to what happened at the meeting of the executive. He says there are these phantom documents which are somewhere in the possession of some unnamed lawyer. His defence relies on that premise.
Yesterday, in question period, I suggested to the minister that the honourable thing to do would be to stand in his place and suggest the whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Then the affidavit could be produced. Evidence under oath could be given, as was done the last time that committee met. At that time we were able to get to the bottom of the issues, something which we will not be able to do here.
The fact of the matter is the minister has nothing but weak defences. He attempts to suggest that somehow these are affidavits which he is not prepared to disclose to this House. He is not prepared to table them. He is not prepared to give evidence under oath. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn when it comes to the question of who is telling the truth. That is that Doris Anderson's version is the correct one. The minister's version is incorrect.
This matter is causing serious concern to many women's organizations in Canada. The question of the credibility of the advisory council is of great concern to members on this side of the House. We want to see the minister produce the affidavit he talks about. We want him to bring it into the House.
Does the minister have the courage to table the affidavit in the House, or will this phantom affidavit be kept in his possession and in secret, undisclosed to anyone? When will the minister gain the courage to table this document in the House and to come before a committee of this House so that witnesses may be called and so that we may get to the bottom of what has exactly transpired. A very crucial issue is involved.
I have been informed that the secretary who took the minutes of this meeting of the executive which is the source of the dispute has been prohibited from speaking to anyone with respect to the taking of those minutes. She has been rendered incommunicado by the council members who remain. The council is disintegrating. Women's issues are suffering because of the serious damage done to the credibility of the council by the actions of this minister.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is intimidation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague is quite right when she says that it is intimidation. The whole affair amounts to a scandalous interference into the affairs of an advisory council which represents women's interests in Canada. Why does the government not take the very reasonable suggestion put forward by our party, which is the basis of the recommendations of the royal commission chaired by Senator Florence Bird, who was appointed by the Prime Minister, try to restore some credibility to this group and have the council report directly to Parliament?
Why does the government not take the suggestions of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) and have a wide consultation with women's groups across this country to ensure that it cannot be said that an appointment is political or that appointments are made on the basis of political persuasion. Of what is the government and the minister afraid? Why do we have this situation where the minister, the Joe Btfsplk of this cabinet, is responsible for women's affairs in the course of cabinet deliberations? Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that you did not take out of my time the spurious and specious points of order raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In conclusion, I would like to help the minister do a good job. Unfortunately, we face a majority Liberal government which has been known in the past for its arrogance and for moving ahead without sensitivity. If the minister persists with his present attitude, with attacking the president, as he did on the CBC program at six o'clock this evening, and with his single-minded determination to wheel control over this advisory council, then he has only seen the beginning of a fight. We in the opposition will stand for the interests of women in Canada and we will fight hard for their interests.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for flattering me when you called me Madam Maclnnis this afternoon. It would be very appropriate tonight if Grace Maclnnis, a champion of women and disadvantaged people, were here tonight. I know that she would speak eloquently on the subject and probably raise the quality of the debate somewhat. I would like to commend Doris Anderson, the past president of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and the staff and members of the council for their work. All of us should recognize that this group has made a considerable contribution, particularly in the areas of research and constitutional reform.
January 22, 1981

However, as many hon. members have already said, the reality is that the advisory council is a politically appointed council. It is primarily responsible to the government and the minister responsible for the status of women. Therefore, it is very difficult, no matter how well meaning its intentions, for the council to remain independent of the government. It is also difficult for this council to become anything more than a research, fact-finding group or to become involved in issues in a more active and militant way, which is what is needed if the situation for women is to change in Canada.
We know that most of the members of this group were appointed by the government through the minister and are Liberal Party members. This does not mean that they have not worked hard. The members of the council are largely a well-educated group of women who come from middle-class backgrounds. Undoubtedly they have worked hard and have produced valuable reports. In no way will I criticize the members of that council tonight.
However, I will criticize the structure and nature of this organization, which is quite impotent to act on behalf of the women of Canada and to press actively and militantly for much needed government reform. For example, there are certain groups which are noticeably absent from the council. The council is not representative of native women, although in fairness, it has spoken out on native issues. It is not representative of immigrant women who are doubly discriminated against in society today. The council is not representative of housewives, or women on low incomes, including single parents struggling on welfare. Representatives of the minority groups should be on a national advisory council and actively involved in trying to change their situation. My colleague indicated that women trade unionists are not actively represented on the council, with the exception of one Liberal appointee. Yet, a main goal of the council, and a major concern of the minister, is improvement in the situation of women in the work force.
Thousands of lonely, isolated older women, who represent the poorest group in our society, also are not represented on the council. This group has many concerns, and there is much need for assistance.
I shall not review the minister's interference in the affairs of the council because this allegation has been mentioned repeatedly and is well documented. The "haves" and the "have-nots" in society must join forces through a national women's organization, if women wish to bring about the changes which are needed. That is why our party has moved an amendment which would lead to the reorganization or restructuring of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
We believe that such a council should be composed of delegates appointed or elected from women's organizations and trade unions in order to represent the interests of women across Canada. This newly-organized group should be accountable to women rather than to the government. It would work with the government as an agent for change.
Any effective national women's organization should have an advocacy function as well as a research function. There will be times when militant action will be justified. For example,
Status of Women
many of us were on the picket lines when the workers of Bell Canada struck last year. Most of those workers were grossly underpaid women. But where were the representatives of the advisory council? Perhaps they were there, but I rather doubt it.
I would mention the women in the steel industry in Hamilton. These women are pressing very hard to have jobs opened up to women. The minister has said that he favours women in non-traditional jobs, yet I do not believe that he or the advisory council was involved in supporting those women's movements. The advisory council has, as I have said, spoken out for Indian women's rights, and particularly in the case of Sandra Lovelace.
I am not aware that the council has taken militant action on behalf of immigrant women but I will come back to that in a minute.
It is important that the advisory council distribute information to women's groups across Canada and provide sound research, and this has been done. But there must also be a direct link with local women's groups. Action must be taken and documentation must be prepared regarding the problems which face women today. If Parliament believes that women's rights must be given higher priority, and I believe speeches made since I have been in the House indicate this is what all parties endorse, we must now act to make up for past discrimination.
If a new, more representative, council were to be formed, independent of government, I would certainly hope that Parliament and the government in power would continue to finance such a group. We must expect there will be criticism of the government if reform is the goal of a future women's organization. Doris Anderson and the advisory council have been critical in a constructive way until recently when, of course, they were deprived of this right.
I want to refer to some of the women's groups which I believe are outside the power circles in Canada. These need the help of an active and well-organized women's movement with a representative national council to speak on their behalf.
First, let us look at women in the labour force and trade unions. The Canadian advisory council last year published an excellent book called "Women and Unions". The progressive steps which have been made in recent years for more involvement of women in trade unions has been well documented. But research is not enough. If more women trade unionists were involved in an advisory council they would be pressing the government to encourage participation of women in the trade union movement and to recognize the efforts being made by bank workers, Bell workers, steel workers and the many other unions working primarily on behalf of women workers. It is not enough to say we want to see more non-traditional job opportunities for women. Women are starting at a different level than men. Their educational background is different. They must have decentralized apprenticeship programs to be able to get into non-traditional jobs.

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
A second and important group is homemakers, the women who work long hours, in the home, have few holidays, no benefits, and no pay. They are probably the hardest-working group in Canada. It does not matter from which economic group they come, "housewives" lack confidence and feel they are useless. If they are asked in a survey what they do, they say, "I don't work. I am just a housewife." This is a deplorable situation this kind of negative stereotyping which society imposes on women who work in the home. These people do a very important job of raising children and managing homes.
I hope we will bring in day care so that women who want to, can go out to work. We also need pension coverage and some form of pay for parents so that some may choose to remain at home and rear their children.
I would now like to refer the minister and hon. members of the House to an interesting task force on older women conducted by a women's rights committee. This was associated with the NDP in British Columbia and it travelled to the remote areas of the province. It involves local women in a non-partisan way. They were able to speak about their concerns and their desperate conditions. They organized ongoing women's groups in their own communities. This kind of task force should be a function of a national advisory council to reach out to older women from remote communities across Canada. Action must be taken to raise the incomes of older women who are the most poverty-stricken of any group in Canada. Decent housing, adequate pensions and accessible transportation systems must be provided for them.
I talked today with some of the representatives from the Indian Rights for Indian Women movement. They said they felt the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has been great on research but short on action. The council did not make native women's issues a priority. It was too removed from local groups and issues. In fairness to the council, it cannot be all things to all people. But obviously this indicates there must be more involvement of women in local communities. Native women in particular must be represented if a national women's organization is to be effective.
Next I will speak about immigrant women. Many hon. members probably know, but if they do not know, they should, that immigrant women face double discrimination. They face discrimination as women and discrimination as immigrants. The Immigration Act discriminates against women and should be changed. Settlement services are very limited and unsuited to women's needs. I would be glad to go into this at some time with the minister. Immigrant women who are imported as domestics have no protection and should be able to become landed immigrants after they have put in a certain amount of time in Canada.
Finally I want to mention an important women's issue which has not been dealt with fairly in this House of Commons and which requires action from a national women's organization. We must work for repeal of section 251 of the Criminal Code to allow women who decide to have an abortion to do so legally and safely. I am not saying that we advocate abortion, but women must have a choice. Therefore, abortion must be taken
out of the Criminal Code. This is a highly-charged emotional issue. It has been debated twice in this House through private members' bills since I have been a member. However, I am very disappointed that members from other parties, particularly from the Liberal party, who brought in legislation supposedly in support of women, did not speak in favour of even retaining the present provisions for women to have therapeutic abortions. The members who spoke advocating a cutback and a restriction of the present policy, were all men. Reform of abortion law is an issue on which many Canadian women feel strongly. A movement for repeal should have a national voice through a democratically elected and representative national women's council. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I will leave it at that for now.
We in the NDP believe that there is an important role for a reformed Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women or a representative women's organization at the national level which perhaps should be given a new name. We believe it should not be a government appointed body. It should be a group which is truly representative of Canadian women in all walks of life. Therefore we have recommended in our amendment that the membership of a renewed council should be appointed or elected by and from organizations in this country, organizations which are actively involved in women's issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Llovdminster):: Mr. Speaker, 1 take part in this debate with a feeling of sadness that something as important as 51 per cent of our population has been poorly represented by their elected officials in government, which is what prompted the presentation of this motion by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean).
I have listened to this debate today. I have heard different sections of society mentioned. I have heard about women in the labour force, and the underprivileged, who are denied their rights, as we all know. But I would like to address my remarks to a segment of our population that has not been defended to this point in time. I refer to the women in rural Canada, not just the farm wives but the farmers; women who run independent farms, women who farm with their husbands or their sons and, in some instances, with the assistance of their daughters. The National Council on Rural Development did a study on rural women. They discovered that the average farm wife works 29 hours a week in the field, in the barns, doing bookkeeping or carrying out some other function in a very productive part of our country, that of food production. We have a growing number of farm men who are holding full-time or part-time jobs off the farm. When they leave the farm, the balance of the burden of producing food falls to their wives or daughters.
There are still very many farm women who wish to be independent and be recognized as full partners in a farming operation. In 1978, the then spokesman for our party, the Hon. David MacDonald, brought to the attention of this House a
January 22, 1981

letter, which his colleague from Medicine Hat had received from one of his constituents, which I wish to read:
I work on the farm full-time (this often means 12 or more hours per day) during calving, seeding, summer fallowing and harvesting as well as doing all the bookkeeping and helping whenever necessary during other times. You will find that this is also the case with most of the women in this area, as it is no doubt in every farming community throughout Canada-
My husband has threatened to divorce me, and then hire me as a farm worker and so claim wages for me as an expense for income tax purposes. I am only joking, but I do think that the fact that this could be a solution, points out the foolishness of the present tax law. Just as silly is the fact that I could do the same work I do on our farm for a neighbour and get paid for it and my husband could hire a neighbour's wife to do the work I am doing here, pay her and deduct her wages as an expense.
It also hurts to know that women who work at their own job can file their own income tax. I have a teacher's certificate, but when I got married I decided to give up teaching to raise a family and help out on the farm. I feel this has been a good decision as far as the family is concerned and has meant a rewarding way of life to me-
The Hon. David MacDonald had this to say:
In the face of that reasonable proposition, could not the minister urge his colleague the Minister of Finance to include a provision of the kind suggested in a budgetary announcement? If this debate today does nothing else, I hope it will wake up the minister and the government who seem to be immobilized at the present time in the face of a pressing national issue.
I wish to speak on something which everyone in my part of the country knows and of which most rural communities are aware. Included in the Crosbie budget was a provision for spouses to be paid in unincorporated businesses. The majority of farms in Canada are unincorporated. That was not a new proposal. I have heard members of the government, including the minister responsible for the status, of women, say in this House that it would present a great tax relief if women, both farm women and women in small businesses, could be paid as full partners.
Even though this was brought in as part of our budget, we are still waiting for the legislation. We have not yet seen it. As we are approaching income tax time, I daily receive correspondence from my constituents asking what they should do. They point out that they have been paying their wives on the farm a salary since February 18 and so far, they do not know what is going to be done.
I wish to refer to something else that is very important in the farm community, the use of credit. As we know, credit is very important and not just to the man on the farm. It is very important to the woman who is a full partner, or one who is trying to enter the farming enterprise on her own.
The Farm Credit Corporation, a federal organization, despite all the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) when he met with rural women in Ottawa to the effect that he would rectify this wrong, still discriminates against farm women. In fact, when most farm women apply to the Farm Credit Corporation, they do not even get to fill out the application form. The first question is, "What credit rating do you have?" With the present banking system, which is under federal jurisdiction, in most cases women are denied a credit rating of their own.
Women should be able to apply for a farm credit partnership loan. The policy of the Farm Credit Corporation entitles
Status of Women
individuals to apply for a loan up to a maximum of $200,000 and partnerships up to a maximum of $400,000. This federal organization, which is under the control of this government that is supposedly so proud of what it has done for the women of Canada, says that if a husband and wife are full partners, it will only lend up to $200,000, not $400,000 as would be the case if the two partners were men.
The Minister of Agriculture had some very encouraging words about how farm women in Canada can assist in taking their rightful place in this country. The minister, whom some of us recognize as tired, becomes very condescending. This is what he said to the rural women of Canada:
Farm women can help by opening up new lines of communication with urban consumers. Tell them that Canadian food products are of higher quality and nutritional value than almost anything we can import. Tell them why it is better to make cabbage salads in the winter than to waste their money on imported lettuce which is almost all water.
That is as condescending as what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said to the poor people of Canada, "reallocate your spending priorities". The farm women have much more to offer than merely telling the women of Canada to make cabbage salads rather than lettuce salads. The province of Ontario has credit guidelines which reflect equal credit opportunity. The federal government does not have guidelines to ensure that women are not discriminated against when they seek credit to continue in an operation, not just farming, but other enterprises as well.
We heard a representative of this government tell the farm women of Canada that if they want to make their presence felt, they must learn to lobby for the things they want. The reason this debate was brought forward is because the women of Canada were starting to lobby for what they wanted. At that time the minister said, "Don't lobby now because it may be inconvenient, it may embarrass our government and we are having another conference at that time." Is that any way of assisting the women of Canada to stand up and take their place alongside their male counterparts?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we on this side have stood and spoken for the rights of women. We have had spokesmen, spokeswomen, or spokespersons. We in this party do not have a problem. We can say spokesmen, spokeswomen or spokespersons. No member of my party has criticized me for saying that. There is no such problem on this side. I would, however, like to say that we have worked hard and diligently. We will continue to work hard as members of the opposition to ensure that women can take their rightful place among the workers of Canada. We find it very difficult to do this with the present minister. I heard a government member say that the minister is in a pillory. I doubt that very much because I do not think he could get his head through the hole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, but I think I understand something about fair play. I have known the minister for many years. Quite frankly, this motion

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
strikes me as something of a smear tactic to destroy his reputation and credibility. That is what prompts me to speak. What is the motion we have? The motion accuses the minister of and condemns him for his blatant interference as the minister responsible for the status of women, in the plans of the advisory council to hold a constitutional conference, and demands the resignation of the minister. It refers to "blatant interference". I have been reading the speeches given earlier today and I have listened to all the speeches tonight and 1 have not seen or heard any evidence of interference. We have heard a great litany about his alleged sins in the discharge of his responsibilities as minister. I am not surprised that the opposition is not impressed with his record. When have members of the opposition ever been impressed with the record of any minister on this side of the House on anything? If that were the criteria for resignation, then why stop at the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy)? Why not ask them all to resign?


An hon. Member:: Good idea.


David P. Smith: What makes members opposite happy about anything they do? It seems to me the only grounds on which they are demanding his resignation is that he blatantly interfered.
Let us have a look at what he did. What is this heinous crime he is alleged to have perpetrated? What was his statement here today? He said that the only time he became involved in their discussions was when they telephoned his office asking if he would meet with them to discuss the matter. He said that contrary to allegations that have been made, never at any time did he deal directly with members of the committee or of the council. He said they approached him and he met with them on a Friday morning. They asked him for his opinion and he gave it to them and he said that was the last contact on that discussion. Is anyone seriously suggesting that a minister of the Tory cabinet did not give his opinion on something when he was asked? I suggest not at all.


An hon. Member:: What is the point?


David P. Smith: The point being that I see no evidence here whatsoever that he blatantly interfered with anything, yet that is the only ground stated in the motion which calls upon him to resign.
The hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) says that somebody in his office called somebody or wrote a memo to somebody or somebody said this about that. That is a big deal, but is that interference? Let us get serious.
I would like to say something about Doris Anderson. I have known Doris Anderson for some years. I have a high regard for her and I like her. I supported her when she ran as a candidate in a byelection in 1978. She made a decision to resign. I regret that decision. I think it was a wrong decision and I think it was an unfortunate one. I have nothing else to say about it. She made a decision and that is it. 1 happen to
think the opposition has done her a disservice by fanning the flames of this incident into a great cause celebre which they have somehow painted as a blood feud between the minister and virtue.
What has really prompted this motion? I happen to think this is another chapter in a clear pattern by the official opposition in particular to destroy the credibility of this minister. When the hon. member for Saskatoon West suggested that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections I could hardly believe it. I am a member of that committee as is that hon. member. I sat through its hearings when we dealt with a previous matter relating to the minister.
Was the minister treated fairly by the opposition at that time? I suggest he was not. There were two issues and I think I have to make reference to them. There were two issues that came up. The first was, he was said to have made a decision concerning the entry into Canada by a person his department approved, which affected the fortunes of a small business in which he had a small interest. Very early in the evidence before the committee it was clear to anybody that the decision was made by officials in his department and he knew nothing about it. That was clear to anybody.
The second issue before the committee was an allegation that by virtue of the fact that the minister had a small interest in what you might call a family business, he was party to a contract entered into to provide employment for a handicapped person. It was quite clear very early in the evidence that he knew nothing about this decision and that he benefited in no way. Did that end the matter? No, that issue dragged on for weeks and weeks and weeks during which there were rumours, innuendos and fishing expeditions by the official opposition. It stretched the credulity of any impartial person to know that this was going on. If any group in that regard could be called impartial I would suggest it was the press, and members of the press who attended whom I spoke to said it was the biggest yawn in years and they simply stopped coming. It was a nothing story. There was simply nothing there; it was a hollow charge, a bum rap and nothing came out of it. That apparently is the route they want to go again. They want to go on another fishing expedition. They want to destroy the reputation and the credibility of the one minister this government has elected from the west.
I have known the minister well for 15 years. We worked together as ministerial assistants back in the 1960 s. He is an honest, decent and sincere man. Some of you are aware of the fact that I am chairman of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. On several occasions during our hearings we met with the minister, and I can say quite sincerely that he spoke with some passion, fervour and most persuasively about his commitment on issues affecting women. That was the conclusion I believe members of all parties who served on our committee came to.
This brings me to the next point. This motion refers to changing the mandate of the advisory council enabling it to report directly to Parliament. This issue has somehow now
January 22, 1981

been elevated to a great question of principle. Our committee looked at that idea with an open mind. It seems there are two arguments you can make. I do not think they have anything to do with great questions of principle. You can say they should report directly to Parliament, and that is fine, or through a minister. A strong argument can be made for reporting through a minister because it may well function better in that at least you know there is one person in the cabinet who is on the hot seat, on the hook, is responsible, and people look to him to perform his duties. If he does not perform the duties he is assigned, he knows he will be on the hot seat in Parliament.
If the council reports to Parliament in general, no one person is really on the hot seat or on the hook in the same way. Therefore, I think a very strong case can be made that it is preferable to have a minister responsible.
What is wrong with responsible government? We all extol the virtues of that, but suddenly there is something wrong with having a minister responsible for his duties in Parliament. This principle does not bother me at all. I welcome it. In fact, I suggest this is one with which we all agree.
If we look at what is going on we will find five points that I would like to cover. They indicate what this debate is all about and how it strikes me.
First of all, there is no blatant interference. I would suggest there is no interference at all. A request was made for an opinion. The council received the opinion and it then made a decision. As to how much its members were influenced by that opinion, I do not know. They may have been influenced by it greatly or not at all. They asked for it and they received it. That is not interference.
The second point is that hon. members say they do not like his record. What record do they like on this side of the House?


An hon. Member:: None of them.


David P. Smith: It is pretty clear to me that this is another chapter in the attempt to smear this minister. The opposition is clearly trying to destroy the credibility of the present council, and it seems to me they feel that unless the council reflects their views somehow it has gone astray, the members are lost souls, sheep without a shepherd and should be restructured and brought into line.
The clearest point to me of this whole debate is that those who are guilty of blatant interference are those who want to interfere with the decision freely made by that council, and that is the opposition. They want to interfere. It is not members on this side of the House who want to interfere. They made a decision, it is their decision, and we respect that decision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have just been treated by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) to almost as big a pile of that smelly stuff we
Status of Women
spread on the fields out west as we got from the minister earlier. The hon. member says he read the speeches and listened to the debate this evening but sees no evidence of interference. He obviously did not read the speeches very carefully. He did not listen to the debate very carefully, so 1 will put the evidence on the record again. Perhaps the hon. member will appreciate hearing the words I will read in a moment. I understand that he has some legal training. Perhaps he can appreciate facts, and perhaps he will make the logical and rational decision everyone else in the country is making, namely, that there was blatant and overt interference. I have in my hand a chronology of the events preceding the aborted constitutional conference. It starts earlier than January 5, but January 5 is where I will start this sad story of interference. In the interests of saving time I will pick it up on January 5 from a document I have in front of me which reads as follows:
Doris Anderson is away. Heliie Wilson speaks with the minister's office and reports that the minister wants regional conferences instead of a national conference. Heliie Wilson stops the press releases and letters from going out as scheduled. Two press releases-one to CTV and one to The Globe and Mail- have to be recalled by courier.
The following is a chronology of events for January 6:
Doris Anderson returns to the office and reads Heliie Wilson's memo about the minister's wishes. Doris Anderson phones Win Gardner-
I will talk about Win Gardner later.
-who agrees that the minister probably doesn't realize how damaging a postponement or cancellation would be to the Council. She says no former minister interfered with the Council this way.
Win Gardner is a Liberal appointee. She is a devoted and active Liberal and, as we will see in a few minutes from her own testimony, a close friend of the minister. She says, and I quote:
Doris Anderson phones Lucie Pepin but she is on holidays. Doris Anderson phones Nancy Connolly, the minister's assistant and explains that cancelling for a second time would be extremely damaging to the credibility of the Council. Nancy Connolly says the minister seems determined. Doris Anderson asks to meet with him.
Sheila Zimmerman-
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) knows Sheila Zimmerman.
-completes a progress report on the conference at Doris Anderson's request.
The following is the chronology of events of January 7:
Doris Anderson is home ill. She talks several times to Win Gardner and Nancy Connolly. Nancy reports that the minister is determined that the conference must be changed and regional conferences held instead. Win talks to Nancy and Heliie. Win asks that the whole executive meet with the minister. Doris and Heliie agree. The meeting is set for Friday, January 9, at 1 p.m. in the minister's office.
The following is the chronology of events for January 8:
Executive members get together for drinks and later have dinner at Nancy Connolly's. Doris Anderson learns for the first time that Lucie Pepin had not told Quebec participants that the February 13-14 date was firm.
Then we get into the meeting of January 9, of which the minutes are much more detailed. In fact, they were taken verbatim in shorthand, and I have a copy here. The minutes talk about the discussion. The hon. member for Don Valley East said there was no evidence of interference. According to the chronology of events I have here, Win Gardner said no
6488

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
former minister had interfered that way. What does Win Gardner say on January 9 after she has talked to the minister? Win Gardner's statement is as follows:
My reasons for voting for cancelling the Conference on Women and the Constitution has nothing to do with the fact that the minister is a dear and close personal friend of mine. I am voting for cancelling the conference because we looked like fools the last time and 1 am not ready to look like one again and put our minister in an embarrassing situation toward his government.
That is a quote from Win Gardner. The hon. member says he was here, paid attention and is not aware of any interference. The hon. member obviously must have about three and a half inches of skull if he does not recognize that for what it is, proof of blatant interference.


David P. Smith: Opinion.


Harvie Andre: It is not opinion; it is fact. The minister says he has not seen this, but he knows it is not true because somewhere hidden away in the bowels of some lawyer's office is an affidavit. Well, where is this affidavit? Let us see this affidavit. Pleading for his old friend, the hon, member for Don Valley East related the tale of the minister's appearance before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in relation to some questionable dealings in Winnipeg. Perhaps the hon. member remembers that at that point in time the minister volunteered. He was confident of his innocence of any suggestion of wrongdoing and anxious to prove that there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
He himself moved in this House that that matter be referred to committee so that he could prove his innocence. We challenge him to do that now. If the minister is confident that he did not interfere-I do not believe him, and nobody else in the country believes him-let us refer the matter right now to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, just as the minister did on the previous occasion to which the hon. member referred, and let us examine it. Let us bring this affidavit before the committee and find the truth. Let us examine the information and find the truth. If the hon. member is so confident about the minister's side of the story, what is there to fear? It could all be cleared up in a day. Why not have this cleared up?
The hon. member for Don Valley East says that all we have in mind is to destroy the reputation of the minister. The minister is walking from one cow plop to another. He is destroying himself with one inanity after another. It was not us who went through these machinations with regard to the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women which the minister supervises. No one on this side of the House tricked him into trying to postpone this conference in his devious way. He did it all by himself.
Was it Fotheringham who said, "The guy is going downhill faster than Steve Podborski"? He is disappearing. This man came here a few months ago with a tremendous reputation as a world-beater from the west who would revive the Liberal Party in western Canada. He was to be the hero and champion of women in Canada. He was to look after their interests. All we
see is a puff of snow down at the bottom of the hill as he disappears down the hill and into deserved oblivion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The minister stood here tonight, and even if one had not been to the same meeting Laura Sabia had been to in Toronto at which the minister talked in his pompous, patronizing manner, one could see from his manner here tonight that Laura Sabia perceived his character exactly. The minister is pompous and patronizing in his view and pompous and patronizing toward this House and toward everyone. I think it would not be parliamentary to put on the record some of the comments I heard in Calgary after his appearance there. Is this pompous minister going to save the Liberal Party in western Canada? The fact is that the minister was caught red-handed abusing his position and failing miserably in the tremendous responsibility he has as minister responsible for the status of women.


David P. Smith: Is this the best you can do for an opposition day? It is unbelievable.


Harvie Andre: Proof of misuse, interference and abuse of his position is available. It is here in the minutes of the meeting of January 9, and hon. members know it, as do the women of this country.
The minutes of that meeting of the executive council of January 9 are really something. One after another these appointees, these loyal Grits, these loyal Liberals, have said, "The party comes first. Our responsibility to the advisory council and to the women of Canada comes second. We must not embarrass the government, we must not embarrass the minister, we must put them first and foremost, and only then will we look after our responsibilities to the women of this country who count on that." The minister knows darn well he was caught red-handed. So when he stood up in the House this afternoon, what did he do, besides demonstrating his patronizing pomposity? He made some erroneous comparisons between his performance since the election 11 months ago and the performance of our party during our short tenure in office. He said that the Progressive Conservative Party is all talk but no action. He said that while we were in office, no action was taken on behalf of the women of this country, but that in the short few months he has been in office, he has put in all kinds of programs to help the women of Canada, and that he has the proof for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Let us look at the record of what happened during the PC tenure in office and during the equivalent time, the first nine months, when this Liberal government was in office with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) who is also in charge of the status of women. He has both jobs as well as being in charge of the status of women. When the Progressive Conservative government was in
January 22, 1981

office, we created 301,000 jobs-these are Statistics Canada figures-of which 218,000 jobs were for women, or 72.5 per cent of the jobs created were for women.
In comparison, this minister who says that he does not talk about these things, he just delivers, he just produced action on behalf of women as the minister responsible for employment and immigration and for the status of women, says that during his first nine months in office the government created 165,000 jobs, a little more than 50 per cent, of which 91,000 were for women, only 65 per cent of the jobs as compared to 72.5 per cent when we were in office. In other words, during his nine months in office he produced 42 per cent fewer jobs for women than did the previous government, and yet he had the gall this afternoon to speak about outperforming the Hon. Ron Atkey. If you do not believe it, ask him. We asked Statistics Canada and we find that, as a matter of fact, if he wants to catch up to the Hon. Ron Atkey, he needs to do two and a half times better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: But when your case is weak, you rely on whatever you have. You grab and you make erroneous statements, in the hope that those in the opposition will not be able to catch up with you, will not have the facts and figures, so you can make these absurd statements.
He was followed, on behalf of the Liberal side, by his seatmate, the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), who said-this shows her interest in the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and it shows her interest in the important work that that council could and should do-that she was not concerned with the fact that there had been two or three resignations, that she wanted ten resignations, she wanted the resignation of every single person who had the character to vote in support of Doris Anderson, to vote for the continuation of this conference which had been widely advertised, which had been postponed once and which was so important to the women of this country and to the groups which sponsored it. Ten women voted with Doris Anderson and the Minister of State for Mines said she wanted the resignation of them all. She thought it was absolutely intolerable to have even one single person on that council who does not put loyalty to the Liberals first. But there were actually ten people who said that their first responsibility is to the council and to the women of Canada. The minister said she wanted their resignations. That is because the government wants a really tame council; then they will be in good shape. They want a tame council who will know that what is good for the Liberal Party is good for the women of Canada. Yes, sir.
But there are a few women in Canada who do not agree with that. It might surprise members opposite to realize that. These women have been writing. Here are a few letters which they wrote. My colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) mentioned that the letter, which just happens to be on the top of the list, is from the president of the Willowdale Association. Perhaps the hon. member for Don Valley East should have a talk with this individual who
Status of Women
clearly disagrees with virtually everything he had to say. Perhaps he could get her resignation also. Clearly this woman does not put the Liberal Party first. She thinks the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has important work to do and she supports Doris Anderson. I think you should demand her resignation because one rotten apple will spoil the barrel and you cannot tolerate these people who do not put the Liberal party first.


An hon. Member:: What is her name?


Harvie Andre: It is H. D. Wells. Mark that down and get her resignation.
She is not the only one. Here is a telegram from Lynn MacDonald, president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. She writes:
-deeply concerned over possible cancellation of women's conference on the constitution. Representing over 150,000 national and regional women's organizations, we feel it essential to disseminate information prepared for the council and to receive opinion on all areas of concern to women who will be affected by constitutional change. Many of these have yet to be considered. We urge that the conference be held as planned in order that women benefit from the positive initiatives already taken by your council.
There are 150,000 organizations. That is terrible. Imagine that. They do not think that the minister responsible has the last word. How disloyal these people are not to accept that the Liberal Party knows best. For goodness' sake, you would think they would know. They should stay home and leave things in the hands of this brilliant minister because he has their interest at heart. Just believe him, talk to him, he will tell you. It is absurd.
That is not the only letter we have. There is a whole list. There is the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs which writes that they support the request to reschedule the conference on women and the constitution on the dates of February 13 and 14, 1981. The National Association of Women and the Law writes that it:
-wishes to commend your recent efforts to ensure the Canadian women's constitutional conference in February becomes a reality. The association feels this conference is necessary and supports the position you have taken.
This is addressed to Doris Anderson.
Then there is this telegram which reads:
On behalf of the 30,000 members of the Federation of Women's Teachers' Association of Ontario I would like to congratulate you on your stand that the conference on women and the constitution should go forward. It is essential that these issues be discussed in a national public forum. That your executive fails to see the urgency of this matter is deplorable. We applaud your action and hope that your council will reverse the executive decision and show that it really is concerned to carry out its mandate.
They are saying that they are concerned to carry out their mandate and not just concerned for the political welfare of the minister and the party which appointed them. These are the people who write and say they are concerned about the fundamental issue. Surely sensible members over there will recognize that the work of this council is of vital importance. The royal commission of ten years ago established that beyond a doubt. Surely members recognize the wisdom of the recommendation contained therein, that the council must report to

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
Parliament and not to the minister so that it is free of political interference.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.
[ Translation]


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised tonight to see the speakers chosen by the opposition party because we always see the same faces, people who are called hit men, people who are needed when the opposition party has no idea what to say or what to do. They call in their strong-voiced frontbenchers who during the famous debate on the question of privilege involving the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) had an opportunity to make speeches in the House for a few days and then sit in committee for nearly two weeks to rehash the same thing.
It was very obvious to members in the House and members in the committee that once again they were wasting the time of the House and of the committee because they are simply frustrated for having spent so little time in office, one in particular who did not make it into the cabinet, who feels quite bitter and now seeks in every way to get rid of his bitterness so he can relax a little.
Even more astonishing, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that every day in the first two weeks of this session we heard people clamouring for an emergency debate on the North-South dialogue, the constitution or the economy. But what is the topic for today, the first allotted day? A topic which we on the government benches recognize as being very important but which has never been one of the priorities of the opposition, if their attitude in recent years and recent months is any indication.
It will be recalled that the Minister of Employment and Immigration responsible for the status of women made himself available to members of the opposition for almost 20 hours during the study of his department's estimates. Out of those 20 hours, Mr. Speaker, we spent perhaps 20 minutes discussing the status of women because hon. members opposite felt that the subject was not that important. And now, here they are brewing a storm in a teacup, making a mountain out of a molehill because of a resignation, because the members of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women could not see eye to eye on one subject.
Of course, this decision may seem surprising, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that it is normal and to be expected on the part of the opposition. I would like to come back to the decision of the Canadian advisory council on the Status of Women to postpone the February meeting, and to refer to an article published last week in Le Devoir, which said that the Federation des femmes du Quebec had indicated to the minister and the
members of the advisory council that the mid-February date was definitely unacceptable to Quebec women, and I quote:
Once again, the Conseil du statut de la femme in Quebec did not receive any official invitation to take part in the conference to be held on February 13 and 14. The president, Mrs. Claire Bonenfant, was to present a paper on women and the Constitution at the fall conference.
As it was decided in the last minute to reschedule this conference which had unfortunately been cancelled in early September, no one had been informed and the Advisory Council had regrettably not yet taken the necessary steps to notify everyone that this meeting would be held. The Quebec participants therefore could not attend the conference, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that a debate on the Constitution without the participation of some rather important members of this federation representing Quebec, namely, the Conseil du statut de la femme du Quebec, would not have been very successful. However, I believe that many participants had advised the Council-I have here a telegram from Mrs. Gabrielle Hotte, which was sent to the Federation des femmes du Quebec, and I quote:
-sorry but cannot attend the conference on women and the Constitution on February 13 and 14, due to our inability to prepare adequately at such short notice and the previous commitments of several participants.
This telegram was sent to the minister on January 19, Mr. Speaker, to advise him that if the conference was held as expected in February, some extremely important participants would unfortunately be unable to attend. There is still an aspect that I do not like to mention, but to which a reference was made in a Le Devoir article which I feel I must read, if you allow me, Mr. Speaker. It says, and I quote:
All this confusion about the conference points to a latent situation underlying the crisis in the council, namely the type of leadership given by Mrs. Anderson, a woman used to making her own decisions and who seems to find it very difficult to work with a team.
It is not the first time that the president has met with opposition from the executive and council members.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, when five of the six members of the executive voted against the president at the meeting, the hon. members opposite should have realized that the majority of council members supported those who wanted the conference postponed to achieve success and give the participants an opportunity to examine the amendments introduced by the government.
However, the president insisted she was the president, she was in charge, and she decided on her own to convene the conference against the wishes of most members of the executive. Later on, the invitation was withdrawn, and this week, the assembly of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women decided by a majority of 17 to 10 to postpone the conference. Unfortunately, as was reported in the Le Devoir article, Mrs. Anderson is a woman who is used to making decisions single-handedly and who seems to find it difficult to co-operate with a team. However, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that an organization such as the advisory council must
January 22, 1981

work as a team and if the president was really unable to abide by the will of most members, she had to resign, even though members of the opposition and some women as well as ourselves deeply regret it; however, such was the will of most members and she did not respect the wishes of the majority.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why hon. members opposite wanted to debate the issue for five hours. Because of the opposition's inability to grasp the core of the matter accusations were made against my minister and allegations of politicalization and partisanship were laid against the Council, but naturally they were totally unfounded. There were rumors, insinuations, but no one has yet put before the House facts that would justify or give weight to suspicions of undue interference on the part of any one in the whole matter.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, let me go on to other aspects of the subject, one of which was brought up earlier by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) with regard to job creation in 1980. Again, Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote figures that do not quite correspond with those of the hon. member for Calgary Centre who was bragging about the fact that his hon. government, in which he unfortunately was not a minister, had created- almost 300,000 jobs, nearly 200,000 of which were for women.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, thanks to their outstanding competence, they managed to do many things in nine months but as the first piece of legislation was passed at the end of November, 1979, 1 doubt very much that their performance was so spectacular in 1979 that it did in fact help create jobs. Naturally, they may have felt the positive effects of the previous Liberal government and 1979 may have been a good year in terms of job creation. But 1 for one will talk about
1980.

Employment for adult women was higher by approximately
170,000	jobs in 1980, an impressive increase of 6 per cent, reflecting the strength in the service-producing sector, a sector relatively insensitive to cyclical weaknesses. It was above the annual average growth rate of 5.2 per cent for 1975 to 1979. Adult women accounted for 59 per cent of the over-all increase of 286,000 jobs in 1980. I think those figures speak for themselves as far as what this government and this minister has done in the first nine months of his mandate.
Reflecting the rapid growth of employment among adult women, the declining trend in their unemployment rate, established in 1979, continued in 1980. Their unemployment rate dropped from 7.7 per cent in 1978 to 7 per cent in 1979 and to 6.5 per cent in 1980. I think these figures are proof of the improvements taking place under this minister. Not only did members opposite ask for the minister's resignation as minister responsible for the status of women but the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) went so far as to
Status of Women
suggest he should resign all his portfolios. I think these figures illustrate the fact that the minister who is responsible for employment and for the status of women gave his department the tools to be able to act positively on the needs of women in the employment market.
1 will go a little further with respect to the performance of this government in the last ten months. Examples of this are the special measures in the employment development program, the employment tax credit, Outreach, non-traditional training under CM1TP, advertising campaigns, affirmative action in the public service and the affirmative action in the private sector. Other examples are the eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits for fisherpersons, spouses and teachers and reduction in minimum weekly hours required for unemployment insurance. 1 will go deeper into each one of these measures, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit.
The first example 1 cited was the special measures in employment development program. In particular, Canada community development projects and the Canada Community Services Contribution Program include in their contracts a section where a hiring plan must be submitted which will take into consideration the employment problems of women, natives and the handicapped. Any project proposal which does not contain a hiring plan is treated as an incomplete application and is returned to the sponsor. In addition, part of the monitoring process is an examination of the success of the project in meeting its hiring plan. The Canada Community Services Contribution Program will be of particular assistance to women. It aims to help organizations provide needed community services such as day-care, community health care, crisis and information services, and home care services.
Based on 341 projects approved to date, approximately 75 per cent of the total expected, it is anticipated that 20 per cent of all projects deal with primary and secondary services geared to women. The most frequently recommended and approved activities under CCSP to date are:
-Battered women, rape crisis, distress centres;
-Daycare centres and related activities;
-Transition/halfway houses for women;
-Integration services to immigrant women;
-Women's centres, drop-in information centres.
This summer we will be seeing a job-creation program which was announced today by the minister. We will also have positive action programs. Once again, women, the handicapped and natives will be helped by the government's programs. This is another example where the fact of having a minister responsible for the status of women and employment and immigration has positive effects.
Another measure is the employment tax credit program, which was extended by this government. In addition, under the present employment tax credit program there has been a steady increase in female participation. Under this government women constitute 38.9 per cent of the participants. This

January 22, 1981
Status of Women
represents a real increase of 4.6 per cent over the fiscal year 1979-80.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, the Outreach program is another measure. It has proven to be a useful program over the years in assisting women to integrate themselves into the labour market. In July, 1980, the minister directed that the highest priority be given to Outreach projects serving women exclusively.
I had the honour for the last nine months to work as the parliamentary secretary to the minister, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I know the time and effort which have been spent in our department to deal with these issues. Members opposite may bicker about it and can understand their frustration with respect to it. They were in power for nine months and were unable to achieve anything. They did not have the courage to come into Parliament for the first seven and a half months they were in government. I know that the actions taken by this government through this minister and his joint portfolios have been positive actions with positive results.
I would like to continue with the next measure, which is the non-traditional training under CMITP. Of major concern to educators, women's organizations and unions is the concentration of women in a relatively small number of occupations and industries. In 1979, over 60 per cent of all women worked in clerical, sales and service jobs. Yet the areas of high demand for workers are ones in which few women are employed.
We had to act on this matter, which is why we entered into the development of a manpower industrial training program. It was oriented toward giving special services to women who were training in non-traditional occupations. We paid 75 per cent, to a maximum of $178, to employers who hired women in these non-traditional occupations. In addition, up to 100 per cent of the training costs and complementary course costs, such as assertiveness training, will be paid. Some 200 occupational groups were identified as non-traditional, based on a 10 per cent participation rate in the occupation nationally.
One other aspect about which we hear criticism from the opposition is the area of the advertising campaign. I think that no matter how much we on the government side, and members opposite as well, feel obligated toward this issue and give it a lot of importance, we still have, as the government, the responsibility to ensure that the general public better understands this issue and better comprehends the fact that we, as the government, must act on it.
An area in which the commission has frequently received complaints is in advertising. Women's organizations, among others, say that women do not know about the services and programs which the commission offers. In light of this, a $1.1 million advertising campaign was developed for television and print. The English television campaign started in December,
1980,	and the French campaign has just started. In addition, a brochure entitled "A Women's Guide to Federal Employment Services" is presently being produced and should be available in the Canada Employment Centres by the beginning of April,
1981.
Another program with which the minister dealt, not as minister responsible, but as part of the cabinet, is the affirmative action in the public service program. This government feels strongly that the public service must set an example for the private sector by cleaning its own system of any systemic discrimination. Therefore, an affirmative action program has been launched in the public service. This program will include an assessment of the types of discrimination in hiring and promotion which keep women and other groups from participating fully in the labour market.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, with respect to affirmative action in the private sector. Here we tried to arrange contracts with the private sector to encourage this type of affirmative action. I talked briefly before about unemployment insurance. I mentioned the reduction in the minimum weekly hours required. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women made recommendations about this to the previous Conservative government. They recommended it be changed, but that was rejected. This afternoon the minister quoted in the House a response given by Mr. Atkey, the minister in that government. The Conservative government rejected it because they did not think it was a priority. The reduction in minimum weekly hours required for unemployment insurance allows for 15 hours of work per week or one fifth of the maximum insurable earnings. The existing requirement of 20 hours of work per week had a negative effect in particular categories of workers, especially women. The significance of this change for women is illustrated by the fact that about one in every four women is a part-time worker, whereas only one in 17 men work part time.
These are just a few of the examples, Mr. Speaker. I would like to deal with the constitutional aspect in the minute of time which remains to me. I am sure that everybody recognizes- [Translation]
-that the contributions of the advisory council with respect to amendments to the charter to the Constitution have been positive and I would like to quote a statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) before the committee:
I must admit that the accomplishments of this council have greatly influenced the government.
Such advice from the advisory council has made it possible for the government to amend section 15 on the right to equality. To ensure that the principle of equality be observed in the very implementation of the act, section 15 was amended as follows, and I quote:
The law makes no exceptions and applies equally to everyone, and everyone has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, age or sex.
This is a very important addition, Mr. Speaker, one which is appreciated by all the women of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58 (11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
January 22, 1981



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, on November 7 I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who had stepped out of the House, and in his absence, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Irwin) gave the reply. My question concerned the amendments to the Criminal Code which would permit euthanasia along the lines of the 1969 amendments which permitted therapeutic abortion. The parliamentary secretary in his reply said that the issue of euthanasia was not a major priority but that the government would take cognizance of the issue and deal with it in due course.
Euthanasia is a sensitive issue. When I endeavoured to ask a supplementary question I was cut off by Madam Speaker. 1 am sure that you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the supplementary question is really the heart of any question posed in this House. My supplementary would have been phrased in the following words: Because of the tragic toll of 450,000 aborted babies since the Criminal Code was amended in 1969, will the government take action to amend the Criminal Code and to end this violation of the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life.
The two actions, abortion and euthanasia, are closely related. They both bring about death on the pretext of improving the quality of life. 1 am sure that hon. members will agree that this is a horrible paradox. When the Criminal Code was amended in 1969, the point was made by the government that it was designed to permit abortions only when the physical and mental health of the mother was in peril. The added argument was made that it would end criminal abortions by human butchers in rooms in back alleys.
Every concerned citizen, I am sure, will agree that the killing of half a million unborn babies goes far beyond the need of therapeutic abortion. In fact, it amounts to the wholesale slaughter of the innocent. The tragic situation is an inevitable byproduct of a permissive age which ignores the Judeo-Christian ethic of the right to life and leads down the slippery slope of moral relativism. It is the medical profession which has had to bear the brunt of this tragedy. All members of the medical profession must take the Hippocratic oath and must swear that they will observe the declaration of Geneva which was adopted by the general assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva in September, 1948. One of the major points in the declaration states as follows:
Adjournment Debate
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception, even under threat. I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
There are many quotations by doctors who, more and more, are reacting against the tragic position in which they are placed by the legislation. Here is one such quote:
Some time ago-after a tenure of a year and a half-I resigned as director of the Centre for Reproductive and Sexual Health.
That title is really a euphemistic description of an abortion clinic. The doctor went on to say:
The centre had performed 60,000 abortions with no maternal deaths-an outstanding record of which we are proud. However, I am deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I have in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.
Inevitably this has a brutalizing and dehumanizing influence on human beings which is reflected in the growing problem of child abuse and in marital and family breakdown. 1 believe, and there is evidence to confirm this, that in Canada the pendulum is swinging back again. There is a growing number of concerned citizens. They are represented by many members of the House who are strongly against the abortion bill arising from the Criminal Code amendments in 1969. They come from all sides of the House and their concerns are being made known through private members bills, questions and speeches.
At a time when the government is calling for a charter of human rights enshrined in the Constitution with the right to life as the number one priority, to continue to condone the slaughter of 65,000 babies a year is the height of hypocrisy and moral schizophrenia of the most dangerous kind. I would urge the government that rather than contemplating further amendments to expand the use of euthanasia-which I presume would be in the direction of the aged and the infirm- and rather than doing this in the name of improving the quality of life, because it is justified under the pretence of social purposes and social improvement, to instead introduce amendments to the Criminal Code changes that were made in 1969, which have done untold damage to the integrity of our basic institution of family life in Canada.
I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that this action be taken at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Due to the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Irwin), I will provide the answer to this question tonight.
The hon. member has raised an issue of considerable moral and legal complexity. As a study paper written from the ethical perspective for the Law Reform Commission of Canada as part of its Protection of Life project points out, the term euthanasia is used to mean so many very different things that its use confuses and begs more questions than it clarifies and answers.
The author of that study paper entitled "Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life" points out that some writers continue to use the term to mean what the Greek word literally meant, "a good death", and intends by that what others would now more

Adjournment Debate
generally label "allowing to die with care", a form of care which excludes killing. The more common and probably fixed meaning in our times is that of directly killing the dying patient. The author goes on to note that the use of the same words in these two different senses only covers up and blurs the essential distinctions between the two approaches. He cites a study published in the United States in 1976 which reads in part as follows:
Justifies a moratorium on its use . . . Formulation of any public policy dealing with these issues will consciously or unconsciously have to make these distinctions-
In response to the hon. member's question of November 7, no work is being done by the government on the subject of euthanasia. However, the hon. member may be aware that the Law Reform Commission of Canada in its seventh annual report of 1977-1978 listed euthanasia as one area in which working papers were being prepared. The description reads, and I quote:
This paper is an evaluation of how well relevant Canadian law (particularly the homicide laws) and legal theory actually protect and affirm the various rights and values raised by the issue of euthanasia in the medical context... If the commission concludes in this paper that present law is inadequate with respect to euthanasia, specific laws or models will be formulated by way of reform proposals.
However, I must add that the latest report of the commission, which was tabled in this House, indicates that the more particular concern of the working paper which is still to be published is the question of cessation of treatment.
I am sure the hon. member knows the Law Reform Commission of Canada regards the views as expressed in its working papers as tentative only. During a period of about one year after publication, the commission consults the views of the genera! public-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but the time allotted to him has expired.


GARRISON DIVERSION-REQUEST PRIME MINISTER DISCUSS PROJECT WITH PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: I rise this evening to expand on my questioning of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) yesterday.
There exists at this moment both a very real danger to Canada that the Garrison diversion project in North Dakota may go ahead full steam, and a real opportunity to make contact with a new administration in Washington, anxious to establish early and good working relations between our two countries. Members on both sides of this House have been encouraged by the interest shown by the new administration in Canadian matters. The fact that the President phoned the Prime Minister yesterday, his first day on the job, is an indication of the priority put on Canadian matters in Washington. Our very real problem is that the new Congress is not
January 22, 1981
informed on the situation with respect to the Garrison diversion project.
It seems to me there is a very real possibility that some of these new congressmen may be asked to make decisions on Garrison from a less than well-informed position. The governor of North Dakota is claiming to have heard "nothing official" from Ottawa. In his reply to me in the House yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out that the Canadian government has indeed made numerous official representations to the U.S. government in reference to Garrison.
The newly-elected governor of North Dakota, Mr. Olson, has been making some very disturbing statements in reference to the Garrison diversion project and the effects the project could have on Canadian waters. Governor Olson was formerly attorney general of the state of North Dakota and, in his capacity as attorney general, he filed several lawsuits to force completion of Garrison in spite of Canadian objections. In a press conference held in Jamestown, North Dakota, January 15, Governor Olson threatened to bring an injunction against the Interior Department forcing it to free up the $5 million currently being withheld by the department pending clarification of the situation respecting Canadian waters.
Governor Olson told a joint U.S. lobby group against Garrison that work on Garrison should continue until the threat to Manitoba fishing and agriculture is proven. The very real danger of biota transfer and the resulting disastrous effects in Manitoba have been proven time and time again. Governor Olson has promised to resolve the dispute over Garrison in the first 18 months of his administration. His statements so far have led me to believe he is willing to keep this promise at the expense of the environmental integrity of Canadian waters.
Congressman Mark Andrews of North Dakota is a notorious supporter of Garrison. At a Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group meeting held in Calgary in August, 1979, which I attended, Andrews said that the only objectors to the Garrison project were "environmental zealots". This term would hardly apply to the government of Manitoba, members of this House, the Audubon Society on both sides of the border and top-rated American and Canadian scientists.
In a naive reaction to the freezing of the $5 million by the Interior Department, our Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) said that Canada now held a "veto" on the project. That was quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press of November 20, 1980. It is now clear that we not only have no veto, we have no voice in Washington.
It is absolutely essential that we form a parliamentary delegation to go to Washington immediately to explain our position to the newly-elected U.S. Congress. I wish to restate the need for this delegation so eloquently put by my colleague, the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) on January 13. Governor Olson seems intent on a confrontation with us and we have to get our case before the Congress now.
January 22, 1981


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the government fully intends to pursue the Garrison diversion issue with the new U.S. administration, and will ensure it is raised with President Reagan at the earliest opportunity.
In the past, the government has actively made known to the U.S. administration and Congress the serious nature of Canadian concerns about the Garrison diversion project. We believe this effort has had some positive effect. While it is disappointing that the Congress allocated new funds for the project last summer, it is encouraging that the Department of the Interior subsequently deferred spending of funds associated with parts of the project which might affect Canada until consultations with Canada had been completed. We will be actively pursuing those consultations as a means of obtaining modifications to the project which would protect Canada.
The United States has given some important assurances to Canada over the years under a number of administrations. We fully expect the new U.S. administration to abide by its previous commitments, and its obligations to Canada under the Boundary Waters Treaty.
The government will be taking steps to make clear to the new administration and Congress and the new governor of North Dakota the serious objections which Canada has to any plan which would permit the entry of foreign biota into Canada through the inter-basin transfer of water. Thank you.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CUTBACK OF COMMUNITY SERVICES CONTRIBUTION PROGRAM
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise following a question which 1 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on January 12 of this year. I asked him to reconsider his fiscal policies and the cutback in the Community Services Contribution Program by his government.
In response to my question the minister refused to reconsider either his fiscal policy or his expenditure plans in his budget of last October, yet we all know that his budget is not working. We have high interest rates continuing to plague the economy of the nation, unemployment is rising, the cost of living continues to increase and the number of bankruptcies are up. The budgetary justification for cuts from the Community Services Contribution Program is just not valid. The minister should, therefore, be reconsidering his economic strategy and the cutback in that program.
I suggested to the minister that he consider a new program of investment in communities across this country, replacing the Community Services Contribution Program in order to provide stimulus to the economy and to provide the much-needed services which the Community Services Contribution Program represents. He refused to consider that and simply referred back to his budget and his former expenditure plan. In spite of the economic facts, and we all know, and it is clear to us, that we have an economic slump and continuing difficulties with
Adjournment Debate
the cost of living and people being out of work, this government and the Minister of Finance just do not seem to be willing to take a second look, even in view of the harsh realities we are all presently facing.
If the minister and his government are so set upon sticking with their fiscal policies and expenditure plans, they should offer some substitute for the Community Services Contribution Program. If they are solely concerned with not spending more and with the threat of a rising deficit, do they not understand that spending can be an investment and can lead to further economic activity, thus creating wealth and in that way holding the deficit down? Why has the minister not substituted a program of low interest rate loans for municipal programs? If these cannot be direct loans by the federal government, why can they not at least be guaranteed loans which in no way would increase the expenditure of the government? This would involve money from the private sector and from the banks, which could be used to promote local municipal projects.
However, the minister and the government clearly have not been searching for any alternatives to the Community Services Contribution Program. They have simply shown a lack of care and concern about this very fundamental and crucial issue to all the communities of our country.
If the government had some real concern, I am sure it would come up with a substitute program and be willing to say so this evening. One of the clear strategies in the minister's budget, to which he referred when I questioned him in this House, is cutting back on federal expenditures, particularly in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This is simply a shell game, shifting the burden of the federal deficit from the federal government to provincial and local authorities and taxpayers. This game is causing real concern across the country, particularly at the provincial level. Provincial officials are concerned that this is just the first step in cutting back federal contributions to programs for people. For example, established programs financing legislation will soon be renegotiated with the various provincial governments. That program finances medicare, post-secondary education and hospitals and involves very large sums of money.
Provincial governments are concerned that the federal government will take the same attitude in those negotiations as it has taken with respect to the Community Services Contribution Program, which is simply to drop the program without any consideration of need or local authorities. The same attitude has been demonstrated by the federal government in its handling of policing costs under RCMP agreements. This government wishes simply to shift the burden from it to local governments. This does not in any way serve the people of the communities of our country.
The government may doubt that this program is needed or it may attempt to throw doubt on the need for this program, but let me tell the government and its members that I have been receiving letters from right across the country outlining the

January 22, 1981
Adjournment Debate
need for this program. There should be no doubt about the need for it.
I have one letter here, for example, from the town of Ladysmith, British Columbia. The council there passed a resolution calling for the reinstatement of the community services contribution program. The council says in this letter, and I quote:
The termination of this program will have a serious effect on the finances on the town of Ladysmith. The council is presently faced with a program of improvements to the town sewer system, which is estimated to cost $6.2 million .. . Unless further development within the town is stopped, it is essential that this program be proceeded with.
This refers to the sewer system program. Clearly, without the Community Services Contribution Program, development in the town of Ladysmith will stop. The council went on to say:
Without the expected contribution from the Community Services Contribution Program, the rates charged to the residents of the Town will be substantially higher than they otherwise would have been.
This is only one example of what is happening all across this country. This program is needed, and there is no way the government can say it is not needed and that through cutbacks in this area it is not hurting people right across the country. 1 have many other letters here, which are only a sampling. My time is up. I rest my case.


Mr. Raymond Savard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to reply to the question the hon. member put to the Minister of Finance in this Elouse on January 12.
As my colleague mentioned, the government decided not to renew the program because of its desire to maintain expenditures in line with revenues. I can assure the hon. member that this decision was not easily arrived at and that this was done only after careful consideration. First, there was the question of whether it was appropriate for the federal government to continue to subsidize services which, as far as jurisdiction is concerned, were in fact the responsibility of the provinces and the municipalities. The question was not whether this was a good program but rather who was going to pay for it. Second,
there was the question of accountability, of whether the government's responsibility was at issue; that is, whether the government responsible for collecting funds through taxation should not be the one responsible for the expenditure of its revenues. Third, the effectiveness of the program was considered from the point of view of future job creation and compared to other programs, which seemed to show a better return for the money. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, tax cuts were also a factor which influenced the decision. In an effort to achieve greater government efficiency, we studied the advisability of extending the current program with a view to allotting funds to new programs or more pressing priorities. A decision not to renew community service programs would allow more funds to be assigned to more important programs in 1982-83. The challenge lies in determining where the housing priorities of the federal government lie for the 1980s. We shall continue to hold informal discussions with our provincial colleagues and other interested parties. The minister would like to see those consultations help in ensuring continued federal housing assistance, and those programs and priorities lead to a better distribution of funds among them.
Mr. Speaker, under this program, the federal government earmarked $400 million for municipal projects, of which $150 million were assigned to 1979 programs, and $250 million to 1980 programs. Over 3,000 projects in 1,000 communities have already received federal assistance. As the hon. member can see, that is a rather significant amount to provide local services to Canadians in each and every province. The hon. member referred specifically to the number of lost jobs. May I assure him that the number of jobs will remain the same under this program because federal assistance is guaranteed until March 1982.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the Flouse is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, January 23, 1981