1983-03-07

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) moved:: This House condemns the Government for the apathy that it has shown toward issues affecting Canadian women and for its failure to promote equality for women, and its inaction with respect to pension reform for women, and its tacit approval of sexual stereotyping and abusive material in the media, as demonstrated by the Government's unwillingness to prevent pornographic films from being shown on pay television, and its lack of commitment to its own affirmative action programme within the public service, and calls upon the Government to immediately establish a standing committee of Parliament empowered to deal with issues that have a particular impact upon women and to review the progress, or lack thereof, made by the Government with respect to such issues.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a profound privilege to rise in the House today, on the eve of International Women's Day, at the beginning of this week dedicated to women internationally, and to move this motion on behalf of my Party.
The events in history from 1857 and in 1908 which are commemorated in tomorrow's celebration may long be in the past, but the indifference which gave rise to the sweatshops, to the cotton mills and to the injustices of that day unfortunately still too frequently live on. It is for that reason that the rights of women, which are given prominence on March 8 each year and indeed throughout this week, should be given equal prominence on every day of the year.
[ Translation\
Indifference to the concerns and lack of respect for the rights of half the Canadian population is continuing. That is why, we, Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, have put this motion before the House.

For make no mistake, there is still a deep-rooted apathy in Canada toward women's issues and the condition of women, whether in the labour force or in the home. That apathy, as our motion indicates, is particularly prevalent in the ranks of the federal Government, the one body which could by its leadership, its action and by its participation do so much to improve the status of women if the political will and the political determination were there to do so. Unfortunately, it has not.
We all know what the response to that criticism will be. The Hon. Ministers opposite will rise up and one after the other congratulate themselves on what they have done over the past year. They will cite the new Charter of Rights and the Constitution. There in black and white, we will be told, is proof positive of what the Government's commitment is to the rights of women. We will be told once again how certain Ministers fought for those rights to be entrenched in the Constitution. Oh, how we will be told! Forget, they will say, the original constitutional proposals which excluded women's rights altogether. Forget that the former Minister responsible for the status of women tried so crudely to manipulate the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Forget the spontaneous fury and the anger of women the length and breadth of this country against that manipulation; and, indeed, forget the tremendously successful efforts of these women, not once but twice, to move the Government from its original constitutional position. Forget, they will try to intimate, that the amendments which led to the insertion of equal rights for women in the Constitution were moved first by the New Democratic Party, and then the re-insertion, when they were cancelled, of the amendment moved by the Progressive Conservative Party. That is how those rights were put into the Constitution, by the Opposition Parties of the day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We should not be surprised at such forgetfulness on the part of the Government, the forgetfulness of a whole clutch of Ministers, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) right on down which has been shown over these past two weeks. That kind of forgetfulness is a hallmark of the present Liberal Government. But let us not forget, sir, that the Constitution requires legislation to eradicate the legal inequalities which exist under present law. Let us not forget that the Government has three years beginning last year to introduce such legislation, after which interpretation will have to be left up to the courts. And let us not forget that to date not one single piece of such legislation has come before the House.
The Government even recently admitted through a Justice official-and I have the quote here from the Ottawa Citizen of November 8-that its review of all legislation to bring that legislation into conformity with the Charter of Rights does not include a review of laws which discriminate against women

March 7, 1983
Supply
since this, the Government indicates, can be safely ignored until after 1985.
Not only is the Government failing to review its laws to determine which are discriminatory, but it is also refusing to amend laws which blatantly discriminate against women. For instance, the Indian Act: the Government has made no move to amend Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act, even though there has been international condemnation of it. As well, a special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fall of 1982 called for its immediate repeal. There has not even been one representative of the Native Women's Association of Canada invited to the Constitutional Conference on Native Rights which is to be held here in Ottawa on March 15 and 16, even though one of the major items includes the rights of native women.
With regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Government has failed to amend sections of that Act which discriminate against pregnant women. These discriminatory aspects have been brought to the attention of the Government by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its unsuccessful attempts last December to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. They were unsuccessful, Mr. Speaker, because they offended the very groups they were intended to benefit. The Government touched on the issue of discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, but only within the very narrow confines of the Human Rights Act. The fact that the Canadian Human Rights Act cannot override the discriminatory aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Act was left untouched.
These and other Acts have not even been considered by the Government in this three-year period. I could mention the Income Tax Act, the Elections Act and a great many other Acts which today discriminate against women. If the three-year period between 1982 and 1985 goes by without substantial action on the part of the federal Government to introduce and pass the legislation necessary to confirm equal rights for women, then the result is that our courts are going to be swamped. It may take decades to rule through the courts on every challenge. Now, the Government of the day may be able to afford the time, so it thinks; I am saying to the Government that the women of Canada cannot afford that time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: But if women cannot afford legal inequality any longer, how much less can they afford economic inequality?

Equality and legal guarantees are very important to women but this does not feed and clothe the children. It does not give them dignity and comfort in their old age. That is why women must also attain economic equality.

Women have the right, sir, to the same opportunity of freedom from poverty and need, to dignity and self-respect, as
any other Canadian. They have the right to those opportunities for themselves and their children. Largely, however, these rights continue to be denied.
Let me bring that clearly to your attention, sir, by these statistics which I will present. The facts make this so clear. Women in the labour force today in Canada earn less than half the income their male counterparts earn. Households headed by women earn only two-fifths of the income of households headed by men. Two-thirds of Canada's elderly who live below the official poverty line are women. That is 350,000 elderly women, sir, who live below the poverty line. Now, these are the economic realities that women in Canada face today, and they will continue to face those economic realities tomorrow so long as nothing is done to change the situation.
We have had a great deal of talk from this Government about its awareness and concern for the economic plight of women. We have heard of the soul searching and hand wringing over pensions, high technology, training programs and affirmative action. Government Departments have initiated reports, white papers and green papers without number. But when it comes to doing something, they do nothing. All the studies and papers are turning grey with age, and meanwhile women continue to receive the short end of the stick.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women published a report two weeks ago entitled "A Working Majority-What Women must do for Pay" that makes the situation very clear. The authors of the report, Pat and Hugh Armstrong, stated that they were depressed with what they found. I recommend to Hon. Members the statement on page 216 of the report, which reads as follows:
Depressed by an economy that continues to structure women into women's work at women's wages in spite of laws forbidding differential treatment of men and women:
Depressed by the nature and condition of their paid and unpaid work which structure out alternatives even though women have been flooding into the labour force and even though domestic work and technology have dramatically changed:
Depressed by women's high underemployment and unemployment rates which will continue to grow with the microelectronic revolution, in spite of women's increasing educational attainment and the recent raise in demand for women workers.
The authors said that they were depressed. They have a right to be depressed, sir. In that last statement I read lies potentially the greatest lost opportunity for women today. The explosive growth of the microelectronic industry is today a world reality.
The microchip revolution is upon us, yet what could be a fundamental opportunity for women in the labour force to obtain equality-this is the one chance for women to make that breakthrough-looks as if it will bring about disaster for women. Many jobs will be lost. Everyone that I have talked to in the industry has indicated that, in the short term, jobs will be lost, most of them in areas of employment traditionally performed by women. Many hundreds of thousands of jobs,
March 7, 1983

predominantly in the service industries, banking, insurance, communications, government, office workers, tellers, telephone operators and so on, will be lost. The Government knows this from its own reports, such as "In The Chips" which was presented to it last year, and "Employment Impacts of the New Technologies". There are similar reports from Great Britain, the United States, Japan and France. So there is adequate documentation on what will happen to women in the short run.
From its own research and from industry, the Government also knows that microtechnology may eventually lead to more jobs being created than are lost in the long run, but the question is whether those jobs will go to women. There is no indication at the moment that they will. In fact, there is every indication that these new, more exciting, better paid jobs will not go to women. That is the major problem that women are facing. No one is insisting that women get a fair share of these new jobs that will be created.
The federal Government has been called upon repeatedly to offer leadership on the microchip issue, to set priorities with regard to industry and unions and our educational institutions. These are things that the Government has been urged to do, yet research shows that women, who are the majority of displaced workers already, are going to be shut out of these new opportunities. We see that time and again, Mr. Speaker. We see it with regard to the present role of the federal Government.
I raised that question in the House not long ago with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. I pointed out that Government training places are being cut back this year and the numbers of women who are being included in training places is a minimum of the over-all opportunities. Of those training places which remain, just 27 per cent of the industrial training places-the areas of future employment-have been allocated to women and only 6.4 per cent of the enrollees in non-traditional segments of that program are women.
Now, in her cavalier reply to these questions, the Minister went so far as to imply that women made redundant by high technology are already unretrainable because they do not have the proper maths and sciences. She seemed to imply that it was no problem of ours. We in the Progressive Conservative Party are not prepared to write off up to a million women who could become unemployed over the next few years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: This is one area that I feel has to be dealt with very substantially and immediately by the Government. It should establish a task force to help the transition through this period of high technological revolution.
There are other critical areas which my colleagues will be addressing today. The Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) will be dealing primarily with the issue of pensions, a program that we know is the great social issue of the 1980s. That has been delayed and delayed even though it was mentioned three years ago by the Government as being of
Supply
immediate concern. Now we have another study to take us forward into more delay and procrastination.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) will be dealing with another area which has escaped the attention of the federal Government, and that is controlling sexual stereotyping. There is no action by the Government on the very serious issue of pornography on Pay TV. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona will be dealing with that issue, but I want to mention that in the area for which the Government itself is responsible, and that is the question of affirmative action, nothing affirmative is being done and there is no action. From 1975 to 1980 the number of women in the lowest category of jobs in the federal Government increased. It went up from 79 per cent to 81 per cent. The bulk of the women in the Federal Public Service are still being ghettoized in low-paying, dead-end jobs, many of which may soon become redundant. The minimum number of increases at the upper level does not begin to offset that. I am talking about 52 female executives against 1,250 male executives, or 699 women at the senior level compared with 12,500 men.
There are a number of issues which have to be dealt with. I know that I cannot deal with them all in 20 minutes, but I want to say that one of the most critical issues which should be dealt with on this particular day has been the comments over the last couple of months of the Minister responsible for the status of women when she hurt women, angered women and made them bitter all across the country, because she denied them the feeling of worth and dignity that they should have because of their contributions to society.
It is because of these matters that we on this side feel there should be a standing committee of the House of Commons on issues relating to women. If we can have standing committees for farmers and bankers, surely we can have a standing committee for 52 per cent of the population.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The rules of the House permit a ten-minute period of questions and answers. Are any Hon. Members rising to put questions to the Hon. Member?


Mr. Ethier:: Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I wondered at times if the Hon. Member was aware of the funding the Government has committed through the Department of National Health and Welfare for the pension conference, especially as it relates to women. Is the Hon. Member aware of the funding the Government has provided for daycare centres across Canada, or is the Hon. Member aware of the Government's commitment to shelters for battered women? Can the Hon. Member tell me how many Provinces have established Ministries responsible for the status of women across this country and how many have departments?
While the Hon. Member is on her feet, can she tell us whether it is true that during the short-lived Clark Government that administration was committed to cutting 60,000 jobs

March 7, 1983
Supply
in the Public Service, of which approximately 80 per cent of those jobs were women's jobs? I would like to have answers to those questions.


Mr. Stevens:: That is not true.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can see that unfortunately the Hon. Member did not get the gist of my remarks at all. I am very sorry about that. He needs to come to grips with the basic issues that are being raised here, especially the legal and economic equality that women should have.
Perhaps I can tell the Hon. Member that I am not responsible for the provincial Governments in this country. I would like to see all provincial Governments establish Ministries responsible for the status of women. However, I would like to see far more done by the federal Government with regard to the responsibilities it has for women through the Minister responsible for the status of women.
When the Hon. Member asks me whether I am aware that money has been allocated to pension conferences, indeed, I am. I was at many of them. At every one of those conferences I urged the people from the federal Government who were involved to take some action and to stop the talk. That is what the question is all about. We have had conferences, studies and reports, but when will we have some action?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Erola:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Is she aware that the Minister responsible for the status of women made a gesture to the native women in this country and asked them if they required assistance in their efforts to attend the upcoming conference?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister could inform me that there will be a representative seated at that table from the Native Council of Women, I would be delighted to offer her my congratulations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any other questions?


Mr. Nielsen:: Where are the answers?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it not the intention of the Government to make any kind of statement regard to the very fine speech made by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald)? The normal practice-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: It is the normal practice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not rising on a point of order. The Chair will recognize Hon. Members seeking the floor. At this point the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a point of order. The normal practice-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister, presumably, at the appropriate time will rise in debate, but at this time the Chair recognizes those Hon. Members seeking the floor for the purpose of making a speech.


Ian Deans: Is the Minister not going to speak?


Judith A. Erola: Yes.


Ian Deans: Then why don't you speak, as is the normal practice?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this very important Opposition day motion. I congratulate the Official Opposition for presenting us with the opportunity to deal with what I think is one of the most important areas of concern in Canadian politics today.
Today we will debate the issue of women, how women function in the economy, how we as Parliamentarians perceive women's issues and the importance that we place on those issues. The Minister responsible for the status of women obviously does not want to respond to the Official Opposition at this point. I think that is an indication that she really does not take her job as seriously as she would like the public, and particularly women in this country, to believe.


Mr. Campbell (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member mentions that the Hon. Minister responsible for the status of women is not prepared to answer the Opposition. She certainly is prepared.


Ian Deans: She is not prepared. Why does she not get up and do it, then?


Mr. Blackburn:: She does not have her speech prepared.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member does not have a point of order. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) has the floor.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, certainly one of the things that we cannot do in this country is to isolate women's issues from economic issues. I think we all understand just what is happening to women in the workplace today. They are usually the last people hired and the first fired from their jobs.
Let me deal with the economic issue for a moment. What is happening in the workplace? What is happening to the women in Canada under an economic program deliberately implemented not only by this federal Government but by other federal Governments around the world? We have a monetarist policy which purports to fight the causes of inflation through high interest rates. Unfortunately, it puts people out of work.
March 7, 1983

We have a situation in this country of women making far less than men in the workplace. The majority of elderly Canadian women are living below the poverty line. That situation is a disgrace and a reflection of the economic principles under which this country is operating. Nearly 39 per cent of the single parent families headed by women are low-income families. Yet less than 7 per cent of families headed by single men are poor. This shows the disparity. The average income of families headed by women is about $ 15,000 a year whereas the average income of families headed by men is $29,000. The average working woman with a full-time job earns about 60 per cent of what the average working man earns.
To compound those horrendous statistics, we had the spectre of both the Official Opposition and the Government implementing a restraint program. This may have been popular publicly. The restraint program was brought in under Bill C-124. When you look at the effect that Bill had on women, it is reflective of the attitude that the Official Opposition and the Government have concerning women. Bill C-124 is part of the infamous six and five program. It effectively eliminated bargaining rights, particularly for women. It was through negotiation that many of the necessary benefits were won. Bill C-124 prohibits negotiations on many maternity leave clauses for various sections of the Public Service. Clauses protecting women, particularly those pregnant, from the hazards of video display terminals in noisy, poorly ventilated buildings were also terminated by the restriction of bargaining rights. Clauses giving some protection against sexual harassment in the workplace were also negated. Equal pay for work of equal value clauses were also negated by Bill C-124. Clauses protecting women from discriminatory employment practices, such as recruitment, selection, training, promotion, classification and lay-off were also undermined by Bill C-124. This Bill was actively pursued by the federal Government in its dealing with the public, not because the Government looked at the Bill as being necessary or fair, but because the Government sensed that within the public there was a sense of insecurity, a fear of recession, and a fear about the size of the budget deficit. The Liberal Government felt, therefore, that it had a popular issue.
Unfortunately, the people most affected by Bill C-124 were women because of the six and five percentage restriction on wage increases in 1983 and 1984. The people most affected by that restriction will obviously be the low-income earners in the Canadian workplace, which just happen to be women. Rather than just happening to be women who are the low-income earners, 1 wonder whether it is a deliberate attempt by Governments and private industry to restrict women from gaining sufficient employment to allow them to support themselves and their families if they are single parents.
I am proud to say that the NDP took the initiative some time ago to set up a task force on older women. The Opposition, in its motion, is supporting a long-time NDP proposal for a parliamentary committee to be set up do deal with women's issues in order to determine how the Government and the private sector are dealing with those issues and what can be done to improve working conditions, pensions, restricting
Supply
sexual harassment in the workplace and how to help single women raise families.
The NDP task force visited 13 communities from coast to coast, listened to 150 briefs and received 1,300 questionnaires on the issues that were most important to women. Pension reform is a main issue that has already been discussed at length in Parliament. There have been approximately 17 different pension studies conducted in the last five years. The Government task force on pension reform recently tabled a green paper that has led to a pension task force of the House of Commons. That is a task force that we are pleased to be involved with. We certainly have some definite ideas about what pension reforms should take place.
However, pension reform is not women's only concern. Women are concerned about income, job availability, as well as those jobs that are not available to them. Income support is definitely a key issue, not only for women but for all Canadians at a time when the unemployment rate is 12 per cent and close to two million people are out of work. Income support is not only important for women but for all people in the workplace who are trying to raise families.
Another area involves women's contributions to pension plans. Obviously, women who are not working cannot become involved in an employee-sponsored pension plan. As well, if they have a low income, the pension at the end of their working life is not as high as it would be if they were earning a greater income that would give greater pension benefits.
Another concern faced by women is lack of training and the opportunity for training for new technologies or professions such as engineering, which would provide women with the leadership skills and educational training that are necessary to see them take their rightful positions in the Canadian workplace.
As well, there is a lack of job opportunities for women who attempt to re-enter the work force after they have spent some time in the home raising children. After the children have left home or have started school, women have difficulty finding employment because their educational training which they had received earlier is not sufficient.
Our task force also heard very informative briefs about such issues as discrimination by sexist and ageist employers, the problems of single parenthood and a number of other issues dealing with income. We have heard about the whole area of employment with respect to women in low-paying jobs-also job ghettos-where they have had very little opportunity in terms of negotiation with their employers. Often they are working in non-unionized businesses or shops, earning low wages with very little protection from sexual harassment and health and safety dangers in the workplace. Women are provided very little protection in those areas.
I would like to elaborate on the issue of pensions. I have been fortunate to be assigned to the pension task force on behalf of the NDP. While I have heard much of the input that will be given from reading the numerous reports on pensions

March 7, 1983
Supply
that have been published through the House of Commons, provincial Governments and private organizations, I am looking forward to hearing them again.
Pension reform is an important issue and it will be interesting to see how the Government responds to the task force recommendations. It will be interesting to see how the Conservative Party will respond to some of the input that we expect Canadians to give to the task force.
I approach the task force study in a somewhat cynical manner. We are aware of some of the underlying problems with pensions in Canada. We understand that the people most affected by low pensions are elderly women. Approximately 45 per cent of elderly women are dependent upon Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. That is a far higher percentage than men, who have had the opportunity during their working lives to have a stable job and contribute to private pension plans and the vesting provisions of those plans. As a result of their higher incomes, they have been able to contribute a significant amount of their salaries as compared to women in similar occupations. It will be interesting to see the Government's response to the task force recommendations because our Party believes that many of the decisions made by the Liberal Party are based on public consensus and Gallup polls. Their decisions are not based on the needs of elderly women and pensioners.
It will be interesting to see whether the Conservative Party will look at the pension schemes objectively and review the private pension plans in Canada which only cover about 12 per cent of the income of elderly people. Some of those employer-sponsored plans are partly public plans as well. It will be interesting to see whether those plans can be adjusted to respect working Canadians, whether they will be adjusted to give earlier vesting and be made more portable throughout the workplace. Pensions should be adjusted because women's income is low and the length of time that they work for one employer is less than that of males. Therefore, they find that when they reach retirement age they have inadequate income. They are faced with poverty income at the age of 65.
Since there is support from all Parties in the House, I suspect that the task force will make a proposal for finally getting a drop-out provision for child rearing in the pension plan. It will be interesting to see if we get complete agreement with many of the Provinces, particularly with Ontario which is currently blocking that pension reform.
Pornography on Pay TV is one issue that has annoyed all of us in the House. Our Party believes that there is almost unanimous opposition to the Playboy channel because of the way it depicts women, whether through violence or demeaning spectacles such as women clad in bikinis participating on relay teams. Apparently there is almost universal opposition to using our Pay TV channels for that purpose. However, we have been unable to convince the federal Government to enact legislation or put any pressure on the CRTC or the First Choice channel to remove that type of discriminatory and violent portrayal of women on Pay TV. I believe it is a reflection of the lack of
commitment on the part of the Government to deal with women's issues in any solid and constructive way.
I suggest that this motion points out some of the serious flaws in the federal Government's approach to women's issues. It points out some of the serious flaws as well, I would say, in the approach of some of the provincial Governments. To approach women's issues in a serious way and to allow Members of Parliament to deal with women's issues on a day-to-day basis through a parliamentary committee, such a motion could very well have been introduced in almost every provincial capital in Canada.
I suggest that the demands from the New Democratic Party over the last year and a half and, more recently, from the Conservative Party to have a parliamentary committee deal with women's issues is one way in which the Minister responsible for the status of women could give her commitment that the approach to women's issues would become an all-Party approach. It would then no longer be the domain of the governing Party who have been able to use these issues for publicity purposes and have really not come to grips with many of the problems concerning women that we have within our Canadian society. We have the problem of wife-battering, we have the problem of low pay for women, we have the problem of pension reform and the requirements for pension reform, yet we have a federal Government that simply would appear to be judging public opinion through Gallup polls and trying to develop some kind of consensus, rather than showing the leadership which is so urgently required.
Our Party, over the next six months, will be dealing with the information that we have gathered through 150 briefs and many meetings with women who are affected by Government edict and lack of opportunities. We hope to develop in Regina a consolidated policy on how this Party is going to deal with the issues that have been dealt with in this motion, issues which have been raised by hundreds and hundreds of women across Canada.
It is time we have some action on women's issues. It is time we had a parliamentary committee that could deal in a progressive way with meeting those problems head on, instead of having more and more studies asking what the problems are in Canadian society. It is time to have a Government committed to economic growth, committed to defeating the problems of unemployment rather than simply using unemployment for its own benefit and gain.
Until we have an industrial strategy and a full employment strategy, women are going to have problems trying to get into the work force; we are going to have trouble trying to provide training opportunities for women and other workers in our Canadian work force, and single parents without jobs, are going to have problems trying to raise children while depending on UIC or the welfare system. We are also going to have problems in our society with massive budget deficits, the lack of any attempt by this Government to put women to work, and
March 7, 1983

also put women in a pension scheme so that they can have a reasonable retirement age.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rules permit a period of questions and answers at this point.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that women still suffer inequities in the system which, unfortunately, we have had to carry on as a result of historical development, to hear the Hon. Member say that we need action to respond to the needs of women, one would be led to believe that nothing has been done at all by the federal Government with regard to meeting the needs of women.
I wonder if the Hon. Member is aware that the Canada Community Services Program has 38 projects representing over $1 million for funded rehabilitation centres; 31 projects related to daycare at a cost of close to $750,000; and 23 projects at a cost of some $609,000 which are similar to the Big Brother-Sister counselling, for example, which is the sort of thing that women want to get involved in because they are related to the needs of the community. I mention that 70 per cent of the employees of all such projects are women.
Another $1.7 million has been allocated to over 60 projects-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, he could be recognized to make his own speech. I suggest he make his point or put his question.


Herb Breau: I want to ask the Hon. Member if he has made himself aware of all the programs of the Government that do respond to the needs of women in the community and also create employment for women. This is one example of Government programs which do that.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for apprising me of all those wonderful programs. In my particular constituency there are 10,000 people who are on Unemployment Insurance, many of whom are women. Many others have stopped looking for work. There are probably
2,000	people on welfare. The pittance in job-creation programs that the Hon. Member talks about has no impact on the majority of the workers in my riding. There is no significant impact, compared with what this Government is spending on Dome Petroleum or Massey-Ferguson and other companies getting massive amounts of money. The same amounts of money are not being spent to improve the economy of this country.


Mr. Schroder:: Mr. Speaker, what concerns me is the implication that this Government is not interested in the plight of women. I would like to draw to the attention of the House that the New Democratic Party has not one woman Member in the House today. While there may be all kinds of reasons for that, I think it is obvious one should be careful about implying motives to this Party when at least we have two women Members present. I might also say that all women Members of the Official Opposition are not present today.


An Hon. Member:: Two out of twelve.
Supply


James Duncan Schroder: The Hon. Member made allegations with regard to the six and five program-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, reference to the absence or presence of Members is not a practice generally encouraged in the House. Does he wish to make a point or ask a question?


An Hon. Member:: The rules prohibit it, in fact.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the last Member, who spoke about the six and five program, that Bill C-131 which had to do with Old Age Security and Bill C-132 which had to do with Family Allowances both of which were passed in this House, endeavoured to get the inflation rate down to 6 and 5 per cent so that all Canadians, not only women, would find that they could cope much better.
I wonder if the Hon. Member has forgotten that that six and five program is working and the inflation rate is below 6 per cent. I agree that the plight of single women in this country is desperate, and we should certainly be doing something about it; but I do not think it does this House any good to talk about the idea that those Bills were not doing something to help the plight of women.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all convinced that it is the six and five program, whether C-124, C-131, C-132 or C-133, that has brought inflation down. I submit to the Hon. Member that the reason the inflation rate has been reduced has a lot to do with the number of people who are out of work, who are carrying the can for inflation by being out of work or on welfare. I submit to the Member that it is the lack of confidence that the business sector has in this Liberal Government that is causing inflation to be reduced, not the Government restraint program and not restrictions on the old age pension and Family Allowances. That has nothing to do with what is happening to inflation. It is the restrictions in the United States, in Great Britain and in Canada on employment that are bringing the inflation rate down, because no one has any confidence in any of those Governments.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I realize that in his speech he made reference to the fact that the NDP has strongly supported the setting up of a standing committee on issues relating to women. I know they have done that over a period of time and I commend them for it. My question is this. As we put this proposal forward once again, since we already have standing committees dealing with the problems of farmers, fishermen, miners and bankers, the majority of whom are men, committees which deal with economic issues, should we not also have one on economic and legal issues relating to problems concerning women? Does he agree that the refusal to have such a committee is in itself a form of discrimination on behalf of the Government?


Edward Allan Miller: I thank the Hon. Member. Obviously the New Democratic Party, in calling for a similar committee in the

March 7, 1983
Supply
past, has recognized this, as I have in my speech. It is not only the kind of discrimination which we find in the workplace that is important; it is all related to economic issues. Certainly the need for this Parliament to deal with the majority of Canadians-and women make up the majority-and the innumerable kinds of discrimination that influence women's rights, require that this Parliament set up a special committee.
Since we have an Opposition day today, we urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister to set up this committee and let Parliament deal with the myriad of issues concerning women, issues that women are demanding receive more attention.


Mr. Desmarais:: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member not aware that Bill C-124 is a temporary restraint Bill that increases women's and men's salaries in the Public Service by 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year? I fail to understand the Hon. Member's inference that this Bill favours one sex over another. This is clearly not so. Is the Hon. Member aware of this?


Edward Allan Miller: I am quite aware of what Bill C-124 does to the Public Service. I am also aware that six and five applies across the board in the Public Service.


Mr. Blenkarn:: No, it doesn't.


Edward Allan Miller: There is no discrimination. I have been corrected by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). If women earn a lower wage, as they do in the Public Service, 6 per cent applied to that low wage will result in much less of an increase than 6 per cent applied to a high wage. That is where we find the discrimination against women in Bill C-124. Women will get less of an increase than men, who in general are higher paid.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and answers has now expired.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to address the House today, on the eve of International Women's Day, on the subject of this Government's efforts on behalf of the women in Canada. My gratitude should be extended to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) for making this possible.
This is the first Opposition day on this subject since I was appointed Minister responsible for the status of women close to two years ago. I would like to add that I am somewhat surprised that it has taken this long to have the Opposition call for this subject to be debated.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: I am somewhat surprised as well to find that the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands has found herself to be a born-again feminist, a convert. The Random House Collegiate Dictionary describes a convert as "one who has acquired different beliefs, attitudes, especially those believed to be better or to adapt a different means or usage".
I suggest to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands that her born-again feminism is very useful to her at the
present moment, but it comes a bit late. I suggest that in her comments not only has she been blissfully ignorant of what this Government has been doing for some time, but perhaps blissfully indifferent as well.
This Government is proud of its record, which dates back to the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and of the 100 of the 122 recommendations which have already been implemented. This Government continues with participation in, and contribution to, International Women's Year 1975, the Mexico and Copenhagen Conferences, the National Plan of Action tabled in this House in 1979 and subsequent ratification of the international conventions.
I might add in this regard the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. I wonder if the Members of this House are aware of how few Western countries have signed this convention. By way of evidence of Canada's participation, I offer the Hon. Member the report of Canada's response to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. We are working very actively and Canada's international record, as the Hon. Member is very much aware, is very good.
Apathy indeed! The record of this past year has been an outstanding one, for it is replete with legislation which has immeasurably improved the status of women in Canada. I submit, however, that we must recognize that we deal not simply with issues concerning rights and claims for equality. Unlike other areas of governance, the struggle is in many cases against intangibles, attitudes, assumptions, prejudices, preconceived notions; in fact, against the host of traditional and societal responses rooted in historic and sociological causes.
Nonetheless, we have grappled with these factors and, as Minister responsible for the status of women, I can proudly say that an awareness, sensitivity and consciousness have become increasingly apparent. My colleagues in Cabinet as well as the Members of my caucus are in touch and are au courant with the pressures and demands generated by the expectations of Canadian women. I would hope that 1 could say likewise for the Hon. Members facing me on the opposite side of the House.
Let me return to the issues. What has this Government done recently? Let me begin with legal and constitutional guarantees. Section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was proclaimed into law by this Government despite much opposition. The women of Canada undertook a historic lobby. Together with a responsive and sympathetic Government, the lobby was extremely effective. We now have the clear and unequivocal principle of equality forever enshrined as a constitutional guarantee.
This event occurred at the beginning of my appointment as the Minister responsible for the status of women, and a challenging and demanding beginning it was. Indeed, it was a momentous event in the history of Canada. It was an exercise in democracy of great significance. Its reverberations will resound for generations to come.
March 7, 1983

How do we change attitudes? This Government has seen its role very clearly. We know how the printed word and images on television manufacture stereo-typical images and symbols. With the introduction of the Treasury Board guidelines last December, the federal Government effectively moved to eliminate sexual stereotyping from all Government publications and communications.
I note as well that the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders of the House have been modified to reflect these guidelines, but any set of guidelines is ineffective unless there is a group to ensure that they are implemented. To that end, I am setting up an interdepartmental mechanism to ensure that these guidelines are followed.
In this light, it is rather astounding that the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands would call this Government to task for its approval of sexual stereotyping. I am really quite surprised. She seems to be completely unaware of what has been going on in the last year. Let me cite some examples. The CRTC report on sex role stereotyping in the media was released this year. Its recommendations for monitoring programs are already in place for the prescribed trial period.
It is my privilege today to announce to this House and the people of Canada that the federal Government has just recently completed arrangements to fund a national non-governmental organization based in Vancouver called Media Watch. The funds allocated are $50,000. It will be the role of Media Watch to monitor media programming for sex stereotype content and make the CRTC and the media industry aware of their findings during the interim two-year period while the industry is developing its own guidelines. In addition, the most crucial duty of Media Watch will be its activities right across Canada to inform and educate women about sex stereotyping in the media and to forward their complaints and concerns to regulating and self-regulating bodies. Women of this country will then be able to have direct input into this area of vital concern to them.
On April 6, a year ago, the CBC office of the co-ordinator of "Portrayal of Women", released its report: "The Presence, Role and Image of Women in Prime Time on the English Television Network of the CBC". Work has already begun to address some of the problems which have been outlined in this report. For example, the establishment of a "resource bank" of qualified women to be interviewed for their informed analyses of current events, both in traditional and non-traditional areas.
Let me point out as well to the Hon. Members of this House that in the past few months six women have been appointed to the Board of the CBC and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. Therefore, we see commitment and implementation by this Government at every level. It is painfully obvious, however, that we have a long way to go until the Hon. Members of this House fully understand the effects of sexual stereotyping. Until then, can we really expect societal changes to take place? Perhaps that will not happen until 50 per cent of this House is represented by the more than
Supply
51 per cent of our society. I refer, of course, to the women of Canada.
I would like to speak about training and education. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) referred to it-and I mean this most sincerely. According to the report of the Science Council of Canada entitled "Who Turns the Wheel", statistics show that the number of girls studying physics and mathematics in high school is less than half the number of boys. The report goes on to say that as a result girls who opt out of physics and mathematics before the age of 15 deprive themselves of many career choices, including the skilled technical and computer-oriented occupations. However, this is beginning to change. The latest census statistics show that there were five times more women engineers, six times more lawyers and three times as many accountants as a decade ago. I need not, however, remind the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands that traditional elementary, high school and university education falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial Governments.
There are encouraging signs, as I mentioned earlier. Women have made some considerable gains in several of the male-dominated professions. But while there is good news, there is also a very disappointing factor. Women's wages have not significantly risen in the last 30 years.
What has the federal Government done about this situation? Let us first of all examine how much effect the federal Government has on women in the workplace. It is very clear that only 10 per cent of our work force comes under federal jurisdiction. Ninety per cent of the work force comes under provincial jurisdiction. This point must be clearly understood. I should like to quote Mrs. Cadieux, a former President of the Federation of Women of Quebec, who was speaking last week. The federal law, she said, and I quote:
-which covers about 10 per cent of Canada's work force-applies to all federal Government departments and agencies, Crown corporations and companies in the private sector under federal regulation such as the chartered banks, interprovincial trucking firms, railways, airlines and bus companies.
Quebec is the only province to incorporate a similar equal-pay provision for employees within its jurisdiction. Other provinces limit the provision to equal pay for equal or similar work.
Mrs. Cadieux also told delegates at the conference that:
-very few unions go after equal pay provisions in contract negotiations. The unions come to the commission with complaints-
That is the Human Rights Commission. I again quote Mrs. Cadieux, who said:
-and I have to ask myself why they are coming to us rather than bringing it up during collective bargaining-
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands asks us how effective the Human Rights Commission is. I would reply to her that it is very effective. We have new guidelines on equal pay for work of equal value. In December, 1980 the federal Government librarians won equalization adjustments and back pay following settlement of an equal pay for work of equal value complaint in which the librarian group was compared to historical researchers. Equal pay for work of equal value is now a standard in all collective agreements negotiated with

March 7, 1983
Supply
federal Public Service employers. Who else can boast this claim in this country?
"Canadian Women and Job-Related Laws, 1981" provides excellent analyses on the subject, and I suggest to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands and indeed to all Hon. Members of the House that they read this pamphlet. In fact, I suggest to them that they read much of what has been published in the last year. I doubt very much whether many Hon. Members of the House have read "Better Pensions for Canadians-Focus on Women", which was recently published. How many Hon. Members have read "A Working Majority. What Women Must Do for Pay", funded again by the federal Government? If Hon. Members had read this book they would know that only 10 per cent of the women in this country come under federal jurisdiction. How many have read "Reproductive Hazards at Work", again published by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women? I suggest that Hon. Members take the time to read the publications which have been funded by this Government which explore in depth the problem of women in our Canadian society.
My colleague, the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), this year had the first national conference on the impact of microelectronics on the individual work environment. Resulting from the conclusions of this conference, the Minister of Labour established a task force on microelectronics and employment, chaired by Dr. Margaret Fulton. The task force heard from a great many women's groups and women representing industry and Government. Some very important findings were reported in the task force report. We have established a commission of inquiry into part-time work, also under the leadership of the Minister of Labour. This commission, chaired by Joan Wallace, showed that 25.1 per cent of working women work part-time. This has wide-ranging implications on such things as pensions and unemployment benefits, and we are anxious to see the findings of this commission.
The Government funded a conference on daycare in Winnipeg-the first national conference on daycare-to the tune of $100,000, and I emphasize as well that while daycare remains under the Welfare umbrella, it will be stigmatized and not recognized as the universal service it must effectively become. The federal Government funds daycare centres across the country through the Canada Assistance Program and, again, showing leadership, it is establishing daycare centres for its own employees. Last year, the Department of the Environment opened its Sunburst Children's Centre in the Environment Canada building in Downsview, Ontario. This daycare centre was the second of such facilities in Canada, second only to our own centre here on the Hill for use by House of Commons employees.
As the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women stated 13 years ago:
We consider the tax system unfair, not because it over-taxes indirectly the incomes of married women who work outside the home, but because it undertaxes the incomes of those taxpayers without dependent children whose wives work at home.
The fact is, and Hon. Members of this House who are familiar with the issues know this, that the family has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. No one in this House or in this country would disagree that the family as we knew it in 1919 is not the family as we know it today. Why do I use the year 1919 as an example? Because this is the year in which the Income Tax Act came into effect. Yet when this Hon. Member suggested it was time for a change, there were howls of protest from the other side of the House and from across the country. But the fact remains that one out of three marriages ends in divorce. We have an increasing number of single parent families-something like 58,000 at the last count. Furthermore, 40 per cent more families would be below the poverty line if there were not two earners in that family.
Therefore, I would like to recommend to the Hon. Members of this House, as part of their process of education-and I suggest to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands that she has a great deal to do on her side of the House in educating her Members-that they read the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, a Commission which, I might add, was set up by a Liberal Government. I suggest for reading as well the report of another of this Government's Commissions, that of the International Year of the Child, in order to obtain a really true picture of the family in today's society. As committed, concerned Members of Parliament, we must read these reports.
It has become increasingly clear to me that there is little understanding of the nature of the role of the status of women in Canada. Let me explain briefly. It is my role as Minister responsible for the status of women, and the role of my Secretariat, to examine Cabinet documents and be involved in all discussions on policy issues, whether it be economics or social development policies, changes to the Labour Code, the Human Rights Act, or matters pertaining to the Divorce Act. Status of women in Canada is present at these discussions, and that is happening here at the federal level. But I ask Hon. Members, are there people at every level of provincial Governments, for the most part confreres of the Hon. Opposition, examining documents and questioning the impact of these programs and policies on women? 1 have seen no evidence of it. There is no such machinery of Government in place in the Provinces with the exception of Quebec. Yet without that machinery of Government we cannot expect to see the impact of provincial policies pertaining to the status of women.
It will be very interesting for me when I come to the second meeting of the Ministers responsible for the status of women, my provincial counterparts who were so hard to find last year. Once they were named or routed out, however, they came full of good intentions; but did they, in the year since that last conference, put into place that machinery we have at the federal level?
As to other alleged areas of apathy, let me merely touch on some for they are subjects which my colleagues will address more completely in the course of this day. We have affirmative
March 7, 1983

action programs in place in a number of Government Departments. In August, 1981 CEIC, Secretary of State and Treasury Board Secretariat agreed to participate in affirmative action projects for women. But where are my provincial counterparts? Any action there? Pensions for women? Yes, it is true that older women in this country live near or beneath the poverty line. Why? Well, it is very easy to say that a change in the pension system would increase their income. But we all know that while pensions are based on income we cannot realistically expect the situation will change. If women are to continue to earn lower wages, or for that matter provide unpaid services, they will continue to have low pensions. No amount of accessibility or portability will change that.
That Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs has produced an outstanding report on the issue of family violence which has generated interest across Canada and in all provincial Governments. It has exposed a social problem which has probably been around since time immemorial, but one which has never been aired before. I suggest that under the leadership of this Government many, many of these changes, such as Bills C-82, C-115, C-61 and C-127, have come to see the light of day.
In conclusion, if all this constitutes apathy, then the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands has provided us with a new and strange meaning of the term. I would like to say to the Member who suggested that we establish a standing committee on issues pertaining to women: to what end? So that once again we reduce these matters, these so-called women's issues which are not women's issues but societal issues, to a segregated ghetto status? These issues do not partake of any gender; they are societal in nature.
This Government has gone very far to lift the carpet beneath which all these matters have been swept, and I suggest to her and other Members of the Opposition that that is exactly what they are repeating when they ask for a standing committee. To suggest that we once again relegate discussions to the narrow confines of the committee room would, I submit, constitute regression and ghettoization.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if this "born-again feminist" who was busy writing papers for the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1969 and 1970 could pose a question to the Minister responsible for the status of women, I want to ask first of all if the Minister can give us any more encouraging figures than the latest produced by the Government with regard to that 10 per cent of employees who work for the federal Public Service. At the administrative support level, that is the lowest category, the low-paid, locked-in, ghettoized jobs, we are talking about 65,000 women compared to 15,000 men. The number of women in that sector is increasing all the time. So I would like to ask whether or not there has been any reversal of that situation? There had not been in the five years from 1975 to 1980.
1 would like to ask why there have been no amendments in this last year come before the House with regard to the discriminatory sections of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which blatantly discriminate against women who are pregnant
Supply
and have to take maternity leave at any time in the nine-month period, whether or not they are ill for some other reason.
Finally, I gathered from the Minister's remarks today that she is still advocating the abolition of the spousal tax exemption. That is what came through in her remarks and I would ask her to confirm or deny that.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I will take the last question first, if I may. I have never at any time advocated the removal of the spousal deduction. I said very clearly that I recommended it be included in the examination of family benefits; that we examine its effect on the women of Canada, particularly those at the lower income level. I do have some statistics, I believe, on just how that effects lower income families in our country. It is particularly interesting, Mr. Speaker, to note that those at the lower end of the scale benefit less. In fact, around the $10,000 mark it is something like $148. It is also interesting to note that at the lower end of the scale those with children benefit less than those without children, and I will be happy to provide those statistics to the Hon. Member.
On the subject of the spousal allowance, I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member her words in Hansard of July 8, 1977 where she said:
-in the ... spouse's allowance we have the demeaning situation where the older spouse, generally the male, has to give his written consent before the younger spouse, the woman, can collect the spouse's allowance. Has the Minister any idea of how degrading and demeaning this is to women? Does he have any idea what it means to women to be relegated to that second-class status? When will he come to a recognition that certain principles which reflect the self-worth of an individual are important because of what they mean in terms of human dignity and not merely in dollar terms?
I suggest to the Hon. Member that she, too, has had some concerns about the spousal allowance, concerns which I share. I should like to point to the most recent settlements of equal pay for work of equal value, and all of those situations which have come to bear in the last couple of years which have upgraded the status of women in the Public Service. I do not think the Hon. Member is aware of that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What about the other two questions?


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I think the exact words in the Minister's speech were that certain Canadians were being undertaxed. Could we have a better description of those Canadians who are being under-taxed?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I did not say they were being under-taxed. I simply said that the spousal allowance meant more to some taxpayers than to others.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The test of the pudding is in the tasting, not in talking about it or making reports about it. Will the Minister tell us how many Deputy Ministers appointed by the Government are women; how many executive or special assistants of Cabinet Ministers are women and how may Order in Council appointments of women have been made since March, 1980? In short, can she tell us what the Government has done,

March 7, 1983
Supply
specifically in the areas immediately within the control of Cabinet Ministers, to give women the role they deserve in Canadian society?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, there have been considerable improvements in this area. This is statistical information which I will be happy to provide to the Hon. Member. There is recognition by all members of Cabinet of the status of women in the country and of the commitment to improve that status.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, might 1 ask the Minister responsible for the status of women if she would undertake, on behalf of the Government, to introduce in the House within the next six months amendments to the Indian Act which would get rid of the blatant discrimination against women that exists in the Act? If not, why not?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I concur completely with the Hon. Member and I believe we will see these changes coming very quickly.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister responsible for the status of women one question. It seems to me that in quoting a number of Royal Commission reports in the possession of the Government and the Opposition the Minister has made the case that the motion calls for a committee of Parliament to deal with the reports, to see that they are implemented and to judge the activity of the Government in regard to them.
Another thing that a committee of this nature would do is something that the Minister feels is important, and that is undergo a period of education. That could be done for the House and for society as a whole. Would the Minister not admit that a parliamentary committee to deal with all these issues, such as single parent families, daycare, pensions, the International Year of the Child, the problem of increasing divorce, would not only serve the House of Commons but the women we are trying to deghettoize?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has missed the point entirely. I do not think we have time to educate the Members of the House, particularly the Members of the Opposition. I suggest to him again that the ghettoization of these women would lead to a further "hiding under the carpet" situation, as exists in society today.
Would the Hon. Member suggest that divorce is a women's issue? That daycare is a women's issue? That pensions are strictly a women's issue? Of course not. These must be studied as broadly and as fully as possible by all Members of the House. When the next report of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women is tabled, I intend that it be studied by a committee of the House or even by a number of committees.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that I should comment at this moment. One of the difficulties with the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs is that it deals with far too many issues-housing, consumer affairs, welfare, daycare and so on. We have been
pushing the Government to provide references to the Committee on a number of issues that the Minister says she is concerned about. Cabinet Ministers have not made such references. It was interesting to note that she complimented the Committee on handling the issue of spousal violence, a reference which came from a Conservative Member. In three years the Committee has not been seized with a single reference from a Cabinet Minister on one of these issues.
We would like more committees; one is not enough. We need references or else we cannot proceed. Would the Minister please indicate why she is blocking the Committee from looking at these issues?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have stated in the House and state again for the third time: the issues are too important to be relegated to a small committee. They must be examined carefully at every level available to Members of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The period for question and answer has expired.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in the debate. Before I get to the substance of my remarks I should like to give recognition to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) who opened the debate for this Party. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, she has an honourable and distinguished record for hard work and dedication, not only in the House but throughout Canada, and for helping bring social and economic justice to Canadians. Nowhere is it more apparent than in her untiring attempts to bring social and economic justice to women. She alone is responsible for this debate today, a debate that is absolutely necessary. I should like to give her recognition for bringing it before the public at this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I hardly ever agree with the Minister responsible for the status of women, but she did touch on an element of truth today when she indicated that, to a large degree, the problems of women exist because society really does not know the problems. The House of Commons knows them-certainly the Opposition does-but I am not sure that the average man and woman on the street is aware of the difficulties of a large number of women in society.
I say that from experience, Mr. Speaker. Three years ago, when 1 entered federal politics, I thought I was pretty sophisticated and knew most of the problems of society. I thought I had a social conscience and understood social concerns. At one time I spoke at a chamber of commerce meeting and dealt mainly with the budget. After that meeting two young women asked me what my solution would be to the problems of women in the work force. I am ashamed to say that 1 answered, what problems? That was not a smart answer. I just did not know the problems of the working woman but I quickly learned. Those two young women followed me around in my election campaign and they made me learn.
March 7, 1983

I did not know that every Canadian woman, regardless of economic status today, has a good statistical chance of experiencing the desperation of poverty. I did not know that two out of every three poor, single Canadians are women. I did not know, three and a half years ago, that almost one-half of single persons over 70 years of age are poor. I did not know that most Canadian women over the age of 55 are poor. I did not realize, as is reported by the National Council on Welfare, that 1,219,000 women are living in poverty in this country. That organization estimates that by the year 2000 over two million women will be living in poverty.
Sixty years ago that famous Conservative, who was also an economist, Stephen Leacock, made this comment:
To expect a woman, for example, if left by the death of her husband with young children without support, to maintain herself with her own efforts, is the most absurd mockery of freedom ever devised.
That is what he said about our society 60 years ago. Today, Statistics Canada tells us that 41.5 per cent of all femaleheaded families live below the poverty line. To my mind, those are horrendous statistics. Things have not improved at all over the last 60 years. We have not recognized that the basis of society is changed. We have not come to grips and the Government has not come to grips with the problem.
There are many economic and social issues facing women which cry out for justice and for solution. Other speakers will deal with other problems today but I should like to deal with pensions.
In spite of what the Minister said a moment ago, to a large degree pension problems are a women's issue. Effective pension reform could go a long way toward solving the problems faced by many women in our society. I think we should ask ourselves why pension reform is a women's issue. Basically, pensions and pension systems today are designed mostly by men for men. The size of a pension is directly related to the work history and earnings of the person receiving the pension.
I think it has been long recognized why pensions are a women's issue. It is basically because of their place in the work force. Women are less frequently covered by employer-sponsored pension plans, and they are more likely to lose their private pension protection because of poor pension portability and higher job mobility. They generally earn less and receive smaller pension benefits as a result. They are certainly more disadvantaged by the lack of inflation in many of the schemes because they live substantially longer.
There is a general agreement on solutions to the problem. Recently, as the Minister mentioned, we had a Green Paper proposed by the Government. It did not add anything new; it merely brought together most of the solutions. The Government in that paper, from which I would like to read, established three principles upon which it will proceed with pension reform. The first of those principles is the one to which I would like to refer at this time. It indicated that elderly Canadians should be guaranteed a reasonable, minimal level of income. I do not think anyone in the House or anyone in the country would disagree with that pious statement, which completely ignores the fact that there are over 400,000 elderly people over
Supply
65 years of age, 350,000 of whom are women, living below the poverty line.
What precisely does that mean? It means that 350,000 women do not have enough food or clothing or perhaps do not have adequate shelter. This is what living below the poverty line means. I am perfectly aware of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that there were many poverty lines, but that sophistry is nonsense. There is a poverty line and there are people living below it. Who are those people? They are people who came to this countrty from Europe at an early age. They are people who were born here 65 to 75 years ago. They are people who struggled, opened the land, built the farms and the industries. They are people who also went through the 1930s and struggled to keep their homes together. They are also the people who either went or sent their children to the Second World War. In fact, they are the people who made this country. In 1967 Canada had one of the highest standards of living in the world. It was a country in which people could achieve what they wanted.
Those are the people we are now relegating to the poor house, some 350,000 women. What answer does the Government give to this problem? The Green Paper indicated that changes were required in retirement income provided by the Government and that initiative in this area would be an increase in benefits for those single elderly living with insufficient income "as soon as resources permit".
The Government spends $88 billion per year. Perhaps this year it will be $90 billion. It has to be a question of priorities. It spends approximately $90 billion a year and it cannot bring the standard of living of 350,000 elderly women to the poverty level. If that is attempting to solve the problem faced by elderly women in our society, I think the Government has not gone very far. Then it established a Green Paper to postpone the solutions, yet it knew about the problem since 1979 and the Leger report.
There are other areas in which the Government has failed to fulfil the basic requirements of Canadian women. In the Green Paper several solutions were proposed, one of which was income splitting of pensions upon marriage breakdown. This is a solution which most people accept. There is no question with the way marriages break up today that it is not only good enough to have it split on divorce but also on marriage breakdown or separation.
Does the Government do this itself? I would like to refer to the Superannuation Act for the Public Service and the diplomatic service. It makes no provision for divorced spouses in terms of splitting pensions. In the Canadian Armed Forces Superannuation Act there is no provision at all. Many people are suffering badly because of this. I would point out that in the Armed Forces and in the diplomatic corps it is very difficult for spouses of those in the forces to earn a living because they move from spot to spot. Also it is very difficult after the age of 40 or 50 to obtain employment in a new area. The Government has ignored this aspect entirely. Therefore, I

March 7, 1983
Supply
cannot understand why it came out with this green paper which we are supposed to study for another year. The Government proposes it but does not do it itself. This complete disregard for the rights of women is indicative of the Government's lack of interest and real concern.
I would like to talk about other issues in the green paper which affect women. As I have said, employer pension benefits are generally not split on divorce or separation. This should be done and done very quickly. Virtually all pension plans, including the CPP, were designed to guarantee greater benefits to the contributor. That is really as it should be. Unfortunately that person is often male and the surviving spouse is often female. Few employer-sponsored pension plans provide satisfactory survivor benefits. Again this mostly affects women and something should be done very quickly. We do not need another study.
Women bear far greater responsibility for child rearing and because of this they have a lower participation rate in paid employment, particularly in pensions. The Government has been aware of these problems for a long time.
At this point I would like to mention the drop-out provision. This provision has been agreed to by the federal Government and the Provinces, except the Province of Ontario, in order to improve pension schemes and assist women in their pension rights. What does the Government say about it? This Government of Canada, which says that it works so hard, indicated in the Green Paper, the summary of its pension report, that it would vigorously pursue implementation of the child rearing drop-out provision with the Government of Ontario. Approximately two or three weeks ago I attended the pensions conference in Toronto, and the Ontario Minister responsible for pensions said: "We will agree to put that in right now. We have had our study and our commission". Where is the Government vigorously pursuing this? I have not heard a word. There were Members of the Government at that particular conference. I do not think they are interested. They have long since given up. An indication of this can be found in the Green Paper, in their recommendation of yet another study and in more delay.
There are several issues which this Government could put forward immediately without waiting for any further pension discussions, task force report, or anything like that. Most of the Provinces are in agreement with most of the difficulties. For instance, vesting. Everybody agrees that the present rules for vesting are bad. The Government of Saskatchewan has passed legislation improving them tremendously. The suggestion in the Green Paper is two years. From a woman's point of view the earlier the pension is vested the better. Perhaps a year would be better. Even at 25 years it is late for women who are early into the work force and early out of it to have children and to raise them.
Then there is the method of calculating annuities, the so-called unisex table. That is something which could be handled very quickly. A woman buying an annuity in order to receive the same amount as a man needs considerably more money
because it is said a woman lives longer. But 80 per cent of males and females have the same life expectancy. The difference is accounted for by 10 per cent of the men who die early and 10 per cent of the women who live longer. It is a perfectly proper thing for women to have that sort of a feature put into their pension plans.
I talked earlier about automatic splitting of pension benefits. We should also talk about the lack of portability in most pension arrangements. Again, this is something which could be changed very quickly without all the time required for a green paper.
I suppose one of the most difficult chores in this whole area is the question of pensions for home makers. This question will certainly have to be solved. It is probably the most difficult area for discussion in the months to come, but I believe it is an issue that should be addressed and should be addressed as quickly as possible.
Most pension reforms now before this House and before the task force as set forth in this Green Paper could be dealt with immediately. There is no need to wait for a long time. This Government would show good faith if it proceeded to bring in those reforms to improve the standard of living of the 350,000 elderly women who presently live below the poverty line and if it enacted legislation in that regard. It has nothing to do with pensions; it has to do with the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. There is no need to ask the Provinces for their opinion on that; this Government has the power itself. On that issue alone I think the motion before the House should be supported. The Committee could look into the reason why nothing is being done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Okanagan North?


Edward Allan Miller: I have a question for the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). I appreciate his concern that some of these pension reforms can be implemented and implemented quickly. I support him in that regard. However, I am somewhat puzzled by his statement about the OAS and the GIS. Is the Flon. Member suggesting that Parliament take action now to raise the Old Age Security and the GIS for the
350,000	elderly women about whom he spoke? Is the Hon. Member suggesting that the Government raise the income under GIS and the OAS to the poverty level? If so, is the Hon. Member's Party now prepared to support that policy, or is the Hon. Member talking about using private pension plans to overcome some of the poverty that elderly women face?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the problem faced by elderly men and women who live below the poverty level is not a question for private plans to solve. This problem cannot be solved by private pension plans. It is far too late now. These people are over the age of 65. They are no longer in the workplace. They cannot get any other pension. They get only the OAS and GIS. I believe it is the responsibility of this Government, given the first principle in the Green Paper, to ensure they have a reasonable level of income. It is
March 7, 1983

the Government's responsibility to bring in legislation right now to increase the GIS in order to rectify their situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any other questions? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State For Mines (Mrs. Killens).


Mrs. Therese Killens (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I too am a bit impatient with the way various levels of government are dragging their feet with respect to this issue. I deplore the fact that the situation of women in this country, and I am sure Members on both sides of the House are more or less agreed on what it should be, is the subject of debate on an Opposition day, since we are all aware that such days merely give Opposition Members a chance to unload their very negative thinking on a given subject.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I intend to make my comments in the same positive spirit that will pervade International Women's Day tomorrow, March 8.
This morning, we heard the Minister of State (Mines) (Mrs. Erola), who is responsible for the status of women, describe before the House the latest initiatives taken by our Government, and I must admit it is a very impressive record. To appreciate our progress, however, we must look back into the past, and when we do, we see that there was a lot to be done. There are memories of the celebrated struggle in the 20's, when in 1929, after a long fight, women finally became legal persons. In 1940, when I was still at school, I did not realize my mother was not allowed to vote in provincial elections in Quebec. That same year, the first woman to study law in Quebec had to go to New Brunswick to pass her bar examinations. She was not allowed to do so in Quebec. Furthermore, it was not until 1971 that women in Quebec were allowed to sit on a jury.
We cannot discuss the status of women in Quebec without recalling the tireless efforts of the Hon. Senator Therese Casgrain, and it is with great pleasure that I pay tribute to her here today. I am sure that if she were among us, she would denounce the injustice perpetrated on Quebec women through Bill 111, which hits women far more than it does men, since two-thirds of Quebec teachers are women. The Government of Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pass Bill 111, a bill that violates the rights of teachers in Quebec. The Federal Government trusted the provinces to act honourably, but we see now that Quebec has already shamefully abused the notwithstanding clause.
As far as pensions are concerned, however, Quebec has an exclusion clause in its pension plan which allows young mothers to stay home for seven years to raise their children, without losing any years for the purposes of the pension plan.
Mr. Speaker, today, we should take advantage of this opportunity to appeal to all Canadian women, wherever they may be, to take action immediately. Elsewhere in Canada we have a problem. In order to allow young mothers to stay home for seven years after the birth of a child, without losing pension continuity, the Federal Government needs the signature of two-thirds of the provincial Governments representing two-thirds of the Canadian population.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry I have to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Louis R. Desmarais: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that a serious injustice has been done. I am referring to a taxpayer who applied to Employment Canada for permission to add an employee to his staff. The Department agreed, the employer hired a new employee and he received the requested subsidy for two years. Madam Speaker, I think it is unfair that two years later, another department, namely, Revenue Canada, should claim the subsidy under one of the Income Tax Regulations of which neither Employment Canada nor the taxpayer were aware.
Madam Speaker, when a department unwittingly misleads a taxpayer, I think the Government should be flexible and refrain from making the taxpayer pay for its mistakes. I realize that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse, but I do believe it is reasonable to assume that a citizen should be able to rely on a department that enables him to take certain legitimate action.



BROADCASTING


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Madam Speaker, some time ago a corporation which was granted a licence by

March 7, 1983
the CRTC announced that it would be showing pornographic movies. There has been an avalanche of protest. Canadians insist that the CRTC follow its stated objectives which are, among other things, safeguarding, strengthening and enriching the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada.
Canadians are demanding to know how the showing of pornographic material fulfils these objectives. The Canadian Teacher's Federation says that, in view of the central and influential role of television in shaping children's conception of male and female roles, and recognizing that children watch the full spectrum of television programs, it protests the inclusion of pornography in Pay Television.
People perceive themselves as being cheated and robbed of their dignity and their humanity. They perceive their Government as being party to a blatant attempt by a company licensed by this Government to reap huge rewards by pandering to the lowest and least worthy appetities in our society.
One woman said that she felt like an alien in her own land, expressing her frustration and helplessness at this intrusion of pornographic material into her home. My constituents and other Canadians plead with the Government to show some moral leadership and stop this programming.

[ Translation}



AIR CANADA


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger), has done an excellent job concerning the shady activities of Air Canada. It would seem that, in recent years, that Crown corporation has slowly begun to shift its operations from Montreal to Toronto. Such action is reprehensible, all the more as the management of Air Canada has ordered the Hon. Member for La Prairie not to make his findings public.
For a few years now, Crown corporations have been accountable only after the fact and oftentimes only to have the Canadian Government pay their bills, which is unacceptable. I would therefore suggest that those corporations be subjected to more regular and tighter control by the Government and Parliament.
1 would ask Air Canada and its president, first, to make public a full report on the allegations of the Hon. Member for La Prairie and, second, to undertake immediately a thorough review of its policy aimed at moving its operations to Toronto.
As a Quebecer, I find it difficult not to denounce Air Canada for such underhand action.



MARINE TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance is now telling unemployed Canadians that their best hope for the short-term future is that his economic advisers are wrong in their forecasts. One might have expected a somewhat more positive message from the Minister of Finance over the weekend. There is just a little touch of cynicism in that.
If all the Minister can do is reduce the staggering 13.7 per cent unemployment by 1 per cent, then we are in fact in deep trouble. More discouraging is the probability that most of the funding to achieve even this minor improvement will go to so-called job creation programs and not to long-term job creation.
Instead of this, thousands upon thousands would appreciate some stimulation of our ailing marine and shipbuilding industry and a more, not less, competitive Seaway. It has become twice as expensive for U.S. grain to move through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway than it is down the barge canal of the Mississippi River. We would appreciate the cancellation of the burden of the marine fuels tax. Get on with the gradual development of the Canadian Merchant Marine. Step up the Navy's fleet replacement program, indeed that of Coast Guard and of Fisheries and Oceans. As well, restore assistance to shipbuilding.
Take measures such as these, and not only will new and long-term job opportunities be created, but they will help prevent the loss the thousands of existing ones.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Transport caved in to let Continental, an airline which does not even land in Canada, haul passengers from Canada to Australia, via Los Angeles. If we let the United States siphon off Canadian traffic to the Orient, it will only be a matter of time before American airlines haul Canadian traffic to Europe, and trans-Canada passengers as well. After this concession, there is no guarantee that the U.S. will not take Canadian passengers hostage the next time it is unable to get what it wants at the bargaining table.
The United States Government twisted Canada's arm to help bail out several American airlines left flat broke by deregulation. The banks holding the debts of these airlines have an interest in seeing the border opened up to the planes now flying half empty around the United States. Is it just coincidence that the Chase Manhattan Bank which holds the debt of Continental Airlines is linked to the U.S. administration through the influential Rockefeller family?
March 7, 1983

American airlines fly to nearly twice as many destinations in Canada as Canadian airlines fly to in the United States. The Americans had $150 million in trade surplus last year on air travel between our countries. Do we have to let them put Canadian airlines out of business as well?



FINANCE


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, the federal deficit is like an accordion; it is infinitely expandable. So says the Minister of Finance in the latest of his not so astute commentaries on national government finance.
Last year, shortly after taking office, this Minister promised us a budget early in the new year. After the calamities of his predecessor, many Canadians had hoped that such a budget would be designed to put Canada back onto a solid financial footing, but it now appears that the budget will be delayed at least until April. Then it will be no more than yet another exercise in Liberal fiscal gimmickry designed with short-term political expediency in mind, a budget with ever-increasing deficits which will guarantee high unemployment coupled with continuing inflation in the years to come. The Minister may toy with his wheezy financial squeezebox while Canada burns, but let me tell him that it will not expand forever.
Canadians must be wise enough to rid themselves of an incompetent Government that has no financial policies except to raise taxes and increase deficits, before this great nation is utterly destroyed.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Press has reported recently that some of the major U.S. air polluters are asking some of Canada's industries to support their opposition to strong acid rain controls in the United States. According to Canadian Press, the American companies made the approach to the U.S. and Canadian Chambers of Commerce and industrial representatives from both countries when they met in Toronto recently to work out a joint position on acid rain.
This move comes as the Canadian Government is attempting to negotiate a clean air pact with the U.S., including a 50 per cent reduction in acidic air pollution by American industries. Presently these talks have been stalled by the U.S. Government on the grounds that there is insufficient information about acid rain. Yet it is probable that U.S. legislation to control acid rain will be passed this year.
While U.S. companies are attempting to temper and modify some of the stricter acid rain provisions that are being promoted, I strongly urge that the Canadian companies involved continue to support the Canadian Government's request to cut back on acidic pollution and encourage their U.S. counterparts also to comply with this policy.



FINANCE


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker,
I see the Minister of National Revenue here. I hope he pays attention because this statement is addressed to his Department.
Canadian consumers pay a lot of taxes and one of the forms in which they pay is a tax on gasoline. Approximately 60 cents a gallon in tax is paid on gasoline. The Government has recognized, and I agree with it, that one of the ways we could keep down the cost of food is to lower the input cost to farmers. As a result there has been a seven cents per gallon rebate made available to farmers for fuel that is used in basic agricultural production.
What happens is that a lot of farmers have difficulty in filling out the forms and they find that it is a lot of bother to pay the tax, first, and then ask for a refund. What I am suggesting to the Minister is that he look at the possibility of not collecting this money in the first place. In my own Province of Manitoba where the enforcement procedure is in place, which is the RCMP, it is illegal to burn "blue gas" in anything other than farm vehicles.
The system for enforcement is already in place, so it would be very easy to recommend to his Department that this tax not be collected in the purchase price. That would accomplish three things. It would lower the cash cost that a farmer has to incur to get his crop in, in the spring; it would lower the cost to the Department in terms of not having to collect and then refund the money and, thirdly, it would accomplish all of this without increasing the deficit one penny.
I would urge the Minister to take a serious look at this very practical suggestion.



THE ECONOMY


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the real GNP dropped 4.8 per cent in the year 1982. This is the first fall in real Gross National Product since 1954 and it is the most pronounced decline since 1933. This was the sixth quarterly decline in a row.

March 7, 1983
The federal Government has continued to insist that the private sector should be the engine of growth, but I think those of us who come from areas where the private sector dominates recognize that the private sector's recovery is considerably slower than the Government might otherwise wish.
Last year private sector investment fell 4 per cent, and this year it is predicted to decline 6.9 per cent. In Hamilton we have seen a net loss of jobs both in the private and in the public sector. Over the course of the last two years we have seen the Income Tax office and the Veterans Affairs office all but disappear from the area. We have seen CNCP Telex deciding to close its operations and the Government determined that the Oceanography Department should move from Hamilton to Quebec City. In the private sector we have seen Harvester virtually close; Bathurst announce that it will close and the Steel Company operating at a considerably reduced level of involvement.
I say to the Government that the private sector cannot do it alone, it needs Government involvement-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a very important document on Canadian fisheries, namely, the Kirby report. On the North Shore, people are very interested in the various recommendations made in this report, and they have asked the Association des pecheurs of the Middle North Shore, the Lower North Shore and Blanc-Sablon to see to it that these recommendations are implemented as soon as possible. This is very important because the North Shore fishermen want to continue developing their industry jointly with their South Shore colleagues, and we hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) will do everything in his power to implement the recommendations in the Kirby report as soon as possible.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I have a few comments on the future of Quebecair. Some time ago, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) promised to make a proposal to the Government of Quebec, based on the financial statements of Quebecair. I hope that today, the Minister has acquired sufficient information on Quebecair's financial
situation to be able to make a proposal very soon, in view of the importance of this question for Quebec. Last week, the Member for Rimouski-Temiscouata (Mrs. Cote) severely criticized the threats made by the Quebec Minister of Transport to nationalize the company if Ottawa did not give an answer. The Minister had already threatened to let Quebecair go down the drain because of its financial situation. I therefore hope that the Minister will realize how important this question is, and that based on the company's financial statements and for the benefit of Quebecair employees and Quebec, he will be able to make a public proposal as soon as possible. That is what I am asking, Madam Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister explain to the House how the jobless workers of Canada can continue to have confidence in his Government when his Minister of Finance expresses the public view that he cannot hope to bring down unemployment by more than one per cent?
While the Prime Minister is answering that question, can he also inform the House whether his Finance Minister was expressing Government policy when he stated that all the unemployed could hope for is for economic forecasters, including his own, to be wrong?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, on the second question, the Hon. Member knows that that is not a statement of policy. It is an opinion, and probably a tongue-in-cheek opinion, about the validity of forecasting.
The first question is more serious, and the Hon. Member will realize that he is merely repeating what the Minister of Finance has been saying since his statement to the House last fall, that economic recovery is necessary and we will attempt to bring it on as soon as possible, but that the unemployment figures themselves will remain high for longer than we would like, and they will remain high even after real growth has returned to Canada. There will be a lag before the unemployment figures are seriously brought down.


GOVERNMENT POLICIES-REQUEST FOR REVERSAL
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister appears to be sharing the view of the Minister of Finance that his Government cannot hope to bring down unemployment by more than one per cent.
March 7, 1983

In view of what appears to be the total abdication by his Government, faced with 2 million unemployed Canadians and a deficit now approaching $30 billion, and without a single permanent job to show for it, does the Prime Minister not feel that the time has come for a total reversal of the Government's negative and self-defeating policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, of course the Hon. Member, when he talks about the total abdication of our duty to create jobs, is forgetting the more than $2 billion which have been brought forward precisely to create jobs in the last June budget and in the Fall statement. The two together total more than $2 billion, and it is hard to call that a total abdication.


Mr. Crosbie:: Totally ineffective.


FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister in his response seems to be overlooking the assertion I made in my question of the fact that the country faces 2 million unemployed, and not a single permanent job has been created.
While he was away last week, no doubt justifiably, I put the question to his Deputy Prime Minister as to whether he will be viewing favourably the request put forward by Premier Buchanan on behalf of the Premiers for a full day at least to be set aside for a summit on the economy. I was given to understand, as we all were, by the Deputy Prime Minister in his response last week that it was still the intent to discuss the tragic unemployment figures somewhere between the vichys-soise and the filet mignon.
Will the Prime Minister, now that he has had time to reflect over the weekend, not consider Premier Buchanan's request on behalf of the Premiers favourably and respond positively that he has the time to set aside a full day at least, or whatever time it takes, to discuss with them the solutions to the problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot understand how the Hon. Member has managed to read so incorrectly Premier Buchanan's telegram to me. Whereas I had suggested a meeting on the Wednesday night in order to ensure that we had dealt completely with the aboriginal questions before we got to the economy, a meeting on Wednesday night which I had said could go on to the Thursday in order to discuss medium-term economic issues while our Ministers were looking at the short-term budgetary question, Premier Buchanan did not answer that he wanted a full day. He answered that he wanted to have that meeting on Monday night, between the pears and the cheese. Therefore 1 do not see why the Hon. Member from Yukon prefers pears to vichyssoise, but that is a matter of taste. It seems to me, in terms of the time consumed in discussing the matter, that our propositions are pretty similar-


John Carnell Crosbie: Let them eat cake.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
INCOME TAX
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister will know that hundreds of thousands of Canadians, many of whom have lost their jobs due to the Liberal recession, are desperately waiting for their 1982 income tax refunds. Last year 6.5 million Canadians had received their refunds by the middle of May. This year the Government has stated that the refund cheques will not start going out until the middle of May. In view of the concern that is out there, and in view of the need for this money, I would ask the Minister how the Government can justify this unconscionable delay.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I wonder when the Hon. Member heard the government state that the refund cheques would not be going out before the middle of May, for it is definitely not so. As far as I know, the government has never made such a statement. What we have been saying and which I repeat now is that we are waiting for the House to approve the legislation to amend the statute law relating to income tax, in order to issue cheques which reflect the new provisions in this bill. We believe the business of the House as scheduled will make is possible for Hon. Members to approve this bill before the end of March, in which case the time allocated for issuing cheques this year would be the same or about the same as last year.


LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOR REFUNDS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, we received our information on cheques starting to go out at the middle of May, from the Director of Revenue Canada for Prince Edward Island. That is in letter form, if the Minister wants it.

March 7, 1983
Oral Questions
Since these refunds flow from the October, 1981, budget of the departed Minister of Finance, how can the Minister account for the fact that the 1981 income tax refunds have gone out if the refunds we are talking about now are based on the same budget, the same Bill? How can he account for the fact that all those 1981 refunds went out and we still have not got the 1982 refunds started?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is disregarding the fact that the tax returns for this year are consistent with the provisions of Bill C-139 which is now before the House, and therefore make it possible for many taxpayers to claim significant tax refunds. It is in accordance with past practices that we are waiting for the House to approve this bill before issuing any cheque.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. 1 am sure he is aware that late last week the Saskatchewan steel plant, Ipsco, announced that it would be closing down totally for an indefinite period of time, throwing nearly 1,200 people out of work. I am sure he is also aware it has offered to put up the steel at cost for the $100 million Lake Diefenbaker pipeline. My question is twofold. First, has the federal Government received a formal request from the Government of Saskatchewan for a contribution to the Lake Diefenbaker pipeline? Second, while he is on his feet, can he inform the House whether or not the Government has decided to contribute some money for the project and, if so, what amount?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot say. I will have to see if that request was received by the Government, and how it will be handled. But 1 am happy to see that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is now coming over to the utility of building steel out there. 1 remember when we agreed on this side to the pre-build in order to permit that plant to get into operation, the Hon. Member and his Party combated it tooth and nail. Now he is seeing the error of his ways a little. It is too bad it is so late.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps the Prime Minister would explain to the House what happened to that pipeline in the end, Madam Speaker?


POSSIBLE IPSCO BID ON BOX CAR CONTRACT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, in terms of supporting western industry I will shift my question
to the Minister of Transport and perhaps I will get an answer from him. He will recall that during the 1980 election campaign his Party promised to aid the creation of industry in our part of the country. He might also be aware that Ipsco has announced it will be bidding on the construction of boxcars for the First time. Could the Minister now put the Government's money where its mouth was in 1980, and make a commitment to use funds from the Western Development Fund to help Ipsco make a bid which will be competitive with bids from companies here in eastern Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I wrote recently on that subject and made sure that Ipsco would be allowed to compete for the steel going into the boxcars, so that is done. If the Company wants to benefit from the $75 million of economic development, as it knows, this program is administered by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and it is really accessible to all companies in the West. Hopefully, they will get in line and present worthwhile proposals.


FUNDING OF PROPOSED PIPELINE FROM MAINLAND TO VANCOUVER ISLAND
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will also be aware that there are unemployed Ipsco workers in Port Moody, British Columbia, partly as a result of the fact that the whole Alaska Highway Pipeline did not go ahead. He might also know that he has received a request from the Government of British Columbia for money to build a pipeline to Vancouver Island. Would the Prime Minister agree with me that the domestic market might best be served before the needs of the export market, and would he be prepared to give a commitment now on the federal Government helping with funding of the pipeline to Vancouver Island so jobs could be provided for Ipsco workers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question is somewhat vague. I am not sure if the Hon. Member is suggesting that we take an equity position in that pipeline, or just hand the money to the Province. He is shaking his head-hand the money to the Province, Madam Speaker. Well, I believe his home Province has some responsibility for unemployment.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I was wondering if the Minister can advise this House why, this year, the Government needs 78.3 per cent more managers in its top 11 Department to handle things than it had a year ago.
March 7, 1983


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I believe it is well known that in some cases there are additional workload demands for programs like unemployment insurance, and in other cases there are new programs. However, I would be happy to get more detailed information for my hon. friend and get back to him as soon as possible on this.


MANAGERIAL PAY SCALES
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, is the true reason for the increase in the number of management positions because the Government does not want to comply with the six and five requirements, because it can pay managers up to $88,000 a year and it is limited in other positions to $50,000 a year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I reject completely the premise of my hon. friend's question. We are applying the guidelines of the six and five program as established by this House, very strictly. I am glad to see my hon. friend's continued support of the six and five program.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In a unilateral and unfair action the Unemployment Insurance Commission is forcing horticultural employers and employees to pay Unemployment Insurance premiums for part-time employees receiving less than $250 per year, or where an employee works less than 25 days a year. Would the Minister not agree with the Canadian horticultural industry that this decision is totally unrealistic and unfair to such employers and employees, and will he take it upon himself to negate this regulation and reinstate Section 16(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act which dealt with this matter in a fair and equitable manner?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, while the Hon. Member may not, I think many Members of this House would agree that agricultural workers, who are on the lower end of the income scale, deserve the same amount of protection under the unemployment insurance system as do other workers. I would not want the Hon. Member to think that, just because the philosophy of his own Party does not recognize the needs of workers at the lower end of the scale, we would allow that course.
I would indicate to the Hon. Member that we are not taking any unilateral action at all. In fact we have been involved in constant discussions with the Horticultural Society and other groups to work out ways in which this particular program to ensure proper income security protection for horticultural
Oral Questions
workers can be maintained. Those negotiations are going very well, and 1 think the kind of statement made by the Hon. Member only interferes with them.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. The Minister will remember CFB Chatham and the disclosure that the Government intends to close that base out and the subsequent unemployment that is bound to create in the region. He will recall that that region is now suffering from unemployment figures of in the vicinity of 20 per cent to 40 per cent.
Can the Minister advise the House, has he been approached by the Minister of National Defence with the suggestion or recommendation that the Minister of Public Works take under his wing the future of CFB Chatham and, if so, what has his response been to that suggestion?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, it is a well known fact that the Minister of Public Works inherits a number of bases and buildings, some of which he is very happy to receive and others which turn out to cause him considerable headaches. This is a process which has happened in the case of other military bases, but I have not been approached. I understand the Department of National Defence intends to keep part of this base in operation. In fact it intends to keep the runway and some other components in operation, as has been explained by my colleague, the Minister of National Defence.


Robert Alfred Corbett: That is a most interesting revelation, Madam Speaker. I would make a recommendation that the Minister of National Defence deny the press reports then that he has indeed been in contact with his colleague who is supposed to be responsible for New Brunswick and the affairs of that Province, because these are certainly contradictory statements.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET LOCAL COMMITTEE
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister follows on the fact that the CFB Chatham Steering Committee has made a request to the Minister of Public Works for a meeting with him, and his colleague from Northumberland-Miramichi has asked for action, not statements of principle. We know where the Minister's principles lie, but will he give this House and the Steering Committee a commitment now that he will meet with them in an effort to resolve the problems that he, as the Minister responsible for New Brunswick, should be addressing himself to for the benefit of those unemployed people and those who are about to become unemployed due to decisions taken by this Government?
23504

March 7, 1983
Oral Questions


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, it would be perfectly normal for the Department of National Defence to inform the Department of Public Works that certain lands and facilities may be transferred in the future. If the Hon. Member is interested in the welfare of the Miramichi area, he might want to try to do what we have been doing, which is to find solutions, including a very important decision by my colleague, the Minister of National Defence. Maybe it is time that the rhetoric of the provincial Government during the last provincial election should be put to rest and that people should work with Members of Parliament like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Mirami-chi, and others, who want to try to solve problems and not score political points.


AIR TRANSPORT
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who has just bailed Air Canada out of its seat sale problems by granting an American carrier a slice of Canadian Pacific's Australian market. Since the Minister has protected the state-owned airline at the expense of the private sector airline, what slice of Air Canada's market is he willing to give Canadian Pacific?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not the way it is.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, all through the-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: -negotiations with the Americans I have been in touch with CP Air. The situation is not as black and white as described by a Member of the NDP a moment ago. For example, CP Air has an agreement with Western Airlines under which Western takes American passengers from Los Angeles, and CP Air takes them from Hawaii to Australia. So CP Air takes some American travellers from the United States.
Another thing which should be borne in mind is that Continental has had in the recent past a "funny fare" under which they accommodate with special terms Canadian travellers from the Los Angeles base. So it is not a black and white-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, indeed, it is not a black and white situation. CP Air has said in public that it thought that its route from Toronto and Vancouver to Australia was not damaged or put in jeopardy because of the action which took place last week.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You want to bet?


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that I am a Conservative Member of Parliament, not a Member of the NDP-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank God!


Pat Carney: -which shows how confused the Minister is on this issue of transportation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR REALLOCATION OF AIR CANADA ROUTES
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, the Minister's answer ignores the very clear fact that he has allocated a portion of the route of our flag carrier in the Pacific to an American carrier. He has taken 8,000 seats off Canadian Pacific's route and given them to an American carrier. So I ask again: when will he announce the reallocation of Air Canada routes to Canadian Pacific?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was trying to convince the House that the situation is not as simple as presented by the Conservative and NDP Members who have asked questions on it. I was trying to indicate to my hon. friend that Continental at the moment, because of this "funny fare", is attracting a good number of Canadian travellers to this route.


An Hon. Member:: So you sold out.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, on the contrary, I was trying to indicate that CP Air would have had to match that "funny fare" from the Los Angeles base and that the agreement we have reached will prevent that, and consequently help CP Air to maintain a viable route to Australia. It is a bit more complicated than appears at first. It requires a bit of research and a look at the complexity of the situation, instead of simplifying it to the level of children.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, my question is for the Minister of State for Mines. She met with a widely representative group here last week from Yukon regarding the reopening of the Cyprus Anvil mine at Faro. Since the workers have made a number of concessions, and a package of Section 38 UI Funds and NEED Funds has been put in place for the reopening of the mine which has laid off 600 workers for more than eight months, has the Minister found support among her colleagues and on Treasury Board to provide the $25 million loan guarantee to Dome to see that this mine reopens now before those workers run into difficulties regarding their existing benefits?
March 7, 1983


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, we had a very good meeting with representatives from the community of Faro. The matter is now being considered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


IMPENDING RULING BY UNITED STATES ON CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. As he knows, a ruling regarding countervailing duties is being made today in Washington. Since within the next couple of hours we will find out whether or not certain federal policies which have been put in place will be judged by the U.S. Department of Commerce hearings as being subsidies, would the Prime Minister commit to this House that by tomorrow on motions, earlier if possible, he will make a statement to this House on what steps he intends to take should it be found that there are subsidies and countervailing duties will be applied against our forest industry which will affect one worker in ten in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question is hypothetical, Madam Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. He will be aware of his Department's intention to require compulsory grading of beef carcasses crossing both the provincial borders and the U.S. border. The grade is applied both as a stamp and roller brand. It is applied with a colour code. The difficulty with export carcass grading is that our red roller brand indicates the top grade in Canada, while blue is the United States top grade colour. Will the Minister explain why it is suddenly necessary to require compulsory grading on Canadian export carcasses?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, if I remember correctly, I believe it is because of a legislative change that took place. It is restating this regulation that has always been there. That is why it has been published and gazetted.
Oral Questions


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: With the greatest respect to the Minister, Madam Speaker, there have been regulations that allowed for voluntary use only, not for a compulsory run.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVIEW SITUATION
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Madam Speaker, in view of the March 9 deadline for receiving objections to this current proposal, and in view of the special problems this grading change makes for Lakeside Packers at Brooks, Alberta, which presently exports the largest amount of carcass beef from Canada to the United States, would the Minister look into this matter before we lose a very good beef export order, and reinstate the optional grade standards listed in Section 11 of the regulations?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we are reviewing this clause as well as mechanisms to provide quickly for approval of ungraded shipments when the importing country desires it. It is the importing country that desires the stamp. We are going to make sure that it is done properly. It is they who want it.


AIR CANADA
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. He is aware that the transfer to Montreal of Air Canada Headquarters last December at a cost $10 million higher than the price quoted in the second best offer is being investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the request of the Minister of Justice with the approval of the Minister of Transport. Can the Solicitor General now tell the House how this investigation is going and what was its nature?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, it would be quite improper for me to make a statement about an investigation which has not yet been completed.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I thought that the Solicitor General was responsible for the RCMP. However, I shall put my question to the Minister of Justice. Can he tell us when we will be able to make this investigation public and, since Canadians will pay $10 million more than they should, whether he intends to make its results public? The Minister will agree that the taxpayer has the right to know why we should pay $10 million more for new Air Canada headquarters.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, my reply to the Hon. Member has to be the same as to his first question.

March 7, 1983
Oral Questions


CANADA INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the Minister explain why a delay of nearly five months has occurred in filling the presidency of the Canadian International Development Agency, and tell the House if special criteria are being applied this time? When does the Minister expect to make an announcement?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether the question is addressed to me. There are no special reasons for the delay except that we are making a very careful scrutiny of possible candidates so that this agency will have the best possible leadership.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, I do not know why the Government does not appoint Bill McWhinney as permanent president. He has been doing a splendid job for five months as acting president. I hope I have not put the kiss of death on him by commending him in the House of Commons.


CLASSIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, can the Minister confirm that the 1982 CIDA Annual Report falls into the classification of a parliamentary document and will therefore automatically be referred for study to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that Mr. McWhinney is doing an excellent job in the leadership of CIDA at the present time.
I can tell the Hon. Member that I am not quite sure whether the annual report is one of those documents that is automatically referred to the Standing Committee. That is a question of fact but I shall look into it and certainly, if it is in that category, I will welcome the opportunity to have it examined by the Committee.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. For two years the Minister has been promising to turn over the $9.6 million in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund to the Western Grain Research Foundation. I wonder if he can advise the House when the money will be turned over.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, soon.


REQUEST FOR ACCELERATION OF TRANSFER
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, a year and a half ago I received the same answer from the Minister of Agriculture. He does not seem to understand what soon means. This is a non-interest bearing account and, in the past two years, probably $2 million in interest has been lost to research. Can the Minister explain to the House what he means by soon?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, it will be sooner than soon.


THE ECONOMY
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. For the majority of Canadians the only measure of economic recovery that will matter is whether they have a job or have the prospect of getting a job. There are probably two million Canadians presently unemployed. According to Statistics Canada the number is 1.6 million, but considerably more are out of the work force. There are umpteen thousand young people looking forward to finding employment but cannot find it at the present time.
Does the Prime Minister not believe that, since indirect investment by the Government it costs 48 cents for every dollar spent in stimulation in public works, it would make sense now, rather than later, to go ahead with a major public works program in order to stimulate that confidence that most people need, that somehow, somewhere, some day soon they will be able to go back to work and earn a living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that it is important to take initiatives to create jobs. I would remind him of my answer to a question a moment ago, of the $2 billion that the Government allotted to the creation of jobs. Whether it is in public works, housing, or other forms of expenditure to encourage consumer demand and provide investment is, I think, a little bit secondary from the point of view of the unemployed worker. He wants a job. He does not necessarily think it has to come from the sole source that the Hon. Member suggests, but it is one of many sources.


REQUEST THAT PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS BE EXPEDITED
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, if it were possible to project with any degree of accuracy or confidence that the private sector is about to make a massive
March 7, 1983

recovery, 1 think we could give these people some hope. It is quite clear from the recent statistics that private sector investment will be down this year over last year, and it was down last year over the year before. The only hope of recovery in the short run is the massive involvement of the Government.
Is the Government prepared to take that inventory of public works that it claimed some months ago it had undertaken, and authorize the various municipalities and provincial agencies, together with federal agencies, to go ahead and begin the projects in order to create the economic stimulation necessary to put tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people, back to work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am agreeing with the Hon. Member. As a matter of fact in one of my more recent statements on the economy I said that that was one of the ways in which we could create jobs, using federal money to lever the municipalities, the Provinces, and also the private sector into investments now which otherwise would be made at a later date. I am in complete agreement with the Hon. Member. I can only say that hopefully the budget will bring down the kind of mix which the Hon. Member will find fit to approve.
 * *


OFFSHORE SAFETY OF NEWFOUNDLAND WORKERS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Energy was wired on Saturday about a meeting which is taking place in St. John's today in connection with safety in the offshore. He was wired by the Minister of Mines and Energy of Newfoundland, Mr. Marshall. There is a meeting with Mobil Oil and all companies involved in the offshore. The Newfoundland Government says that, after a prudent assessment of all the facts, it has concluded that winter drilling should be halted for the remainder of the season, and it invited the Minister to a meeting of all these companies and the Government which is taking place this evening.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether his Minister is attending, or whether arrangements have been made to have somebody else attend with respect to this very important situation?


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. There was a telex forwarded to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has responded to that telex of Mr. Marshall and, yes, there will be a senior official of the COGLA office attending the meeting this evening in Newfoundland.
Oral Questions


CLOSURE OF SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE STATION AT SHOE COVE, NFLD.
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was sent a telex by Premier Peckford in connection with the closing of the satellite surveillance station located at Shoe Cove on the east coast of Newfoundland in St. John's East. That is a federal station. As a result of that closure Canada will no longer be able to track down properly the weather or ice conditions on the East Coast offshore. The replacement station in Churchill, Manitoba, will only reach across part of the Island of Newfoundland, not the offshore oil and gas area. Premier Peckford has offered to pay part of the costs of that satellite receiving station, if necessary.
In view of the very dangerous situation in the offshore now and the importance of developing oil fields offshore the east coast of Newfoundland, is the Prime Minister prepared to agree to that suggestion and stop the disgraceful dismantling of this satellite tracking station which is under way now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe I had occasion, in my answer to Premier Peckford, to deal with that matter. The Hon. Member is incorrect in stating as he does that the closing of that satellite tracking station will result in less information. On the contrary, we are doing that so that we can have better information on the whole area.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nonsense. You are being misled, Mr. Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member has a different opinion on that. That, of course, is his right. I am not an expert in satellite tracking, but I understand that this question has been looked at very carefully. It should not be a question of territorial possession. It should be a question of where the best information can be obtained from, and that is what the Department is doing.


ESTIMATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Now that we have all had an opportunity to review the Main Estimates for fiscal year 1983-84 and to compare them with the Main Estimates of the previous year, would the Minister agree that the Main Estimates this year are up over 17 per cent in total expenditures compared with last year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, certainly the Main Estimates for this year compared with the Main Estimates for last year are up in the area my hon. friend has mentioned. On the other hand, if one wants to compare total outlays, total expenditure by the federal Government in the 1982-83 fiscal year, which includes more items

March 7, 1983
Oral Questions
than the Main Estimates, with the total outlays forecast for the next fiscal year, then total expenditures are up only 9.6 per cent, the lowest rate of increase in four years.


PRESENTATION OF FUTURE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In order that we may get a fair overview on spending in the coming year, would the Minister assure the House that there will be no more Supplementary Estimates or additions to the Main Estimates he has already tabled?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, as far as I am aware there will be no further Supplementary Estimates for the current fiscal year, 1982-83.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: With respect to the next fiscal year, as I said in my statement in the House on February 22, there will be, as in the past, Supplementary Estimates, but it is our intention to accommodate them within the envelope reserves which I made public at the time of making my statement. They are included in the total expenditure outlay figure forecast that I brought before the House which will involve an increase in expenditures compared with total outlays last year of 9.6 per cent, the lowest rate of increase in four years.


COST OF PROPOSED PRESS COUNCIL
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that one of the key proposals being made by the Minister of State for Mul-ticulturalism to control Canada's press is a government sponsored press council which would be funded to the extent of $4 million per year over four years, could the Minister confirm that money for this has not been included in the Estimates and that that $4 million per year over four years will have to be added in the form of Supplementary Estimates?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, first I want to say that my hon. friend is quite wrong when he said the Minister of State for Multiculturalism proposed a press council to control Canada's press. That is not the intention of the Hon. Minister or of the Government at all. It is my recollection of the proposal that essentially it is for a voluntary body. In any event, if there is a proposal brought before the House to set up such a body, the expenditure in question will be requested in Supplementary Estimates that will be accommodated within the total expenditure figure I brought forward and tabled in the House on February 22. As far as I am aware, it will not be an addition to the total expenditure forecast which I made known on February 22. In any event, the expenditure will have to be voted on and accepted by the House.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister who is also in charge of the Western Development Fund. The Minister knows that the Ipsco steel plant in Regina will be totally shut down by March 18 of this year. He also knows that there is a desire and a need on the part of the citizens of Regina for a water pipeline to Lake Diefenbaker. Could the Minister inform us, as the Minister in charge of western Canadian development, whether there has been any proposals made to the federal Government by the provincial Government regarding the Water pipeline to Regina from Lake Diefenbaker?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should point out that there is no Minister specifically in charge of the Western Development Fund, but as the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Western Affairs, I would be glad to answer the question and point out to the Hon. Member that the largest percentage of allocation of that fund was put toward the modernization of the railway system in western Canada. Part of those funds were directly targeted toward western Canadian industry to help it prepare for a more modern, up-to-date industrial base in that region so that it could take advantage of the major opportunities and potential that vast undertaking will provide for the creation of permanent jobs and economic activity across Canada.
I want to point out to him specifically that Ipsco is in a position to make proposals under that fund. Considering the very strong interest of the Hon. Member, I hope he convinces his colleagues to go along with the proposal put forward by the Minister of Transport to agree to that major modernization of the Crow rate so that we can get on with the business of developing railway lines in a proper way in western Canada.


SAFETY OF NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE OIL RIG WORKERS
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I can put it fairly specifically to him because I am sure he will be aware of what I am getting at. Did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at any time seek professional ice or weather advice, or direction with respect to the safety of offshore drilling rigs before he entered into his current round of debates with the Government of Newfoundland? Was the Minister's departmental advice sought? Did he give it? If it was not sought, who on earth is in charge of marine transport matters in the country? Is it he or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, because we are talking about the lives of hundreds of men on those offshore rigs?
March 7, 1983


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the responsibility for rigs is that of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The responsibility for ships in the area is that of the Minister of Transport. There is no discussion on that subject. That is why most of the initiative in these matters has been taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the four hundred and seventh report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) on Friday, March 4, 1983, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
Madam Speaker:: Presenting Reports from Standing or Special Committees; Tabling of Documents; Statements by Ministers; Petitions; Introduction of Bills; First Reading of Senate Public Bills; Government Notices of Motions; Motions.



Madam Speaker:: The Minister of State for Finance.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, did I understand the Chair to call Government Notices of Motions?


Madam Speaker:: I will call it now. We will go back to Government Notices of Motions.


Erik Nielsen: Only by leave.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the Parties and it has not been possible-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Paul James Cosgrove: -to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 80 or 81 -
Business of the House


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Paul James Cosgrove: -with regard to the allocation of time for the second reading stage-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Paul James Cosgrove: -of Bill C-143-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Could I ask the Minister to resume his seat for a minute. The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) is rising on a point of order?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, you went through Routine Proceedings as you do every day. You are now calling Motions. The Minister missed Government Notices of Motions, and we do not give leave to revert.


Madam Speaker:: I wonder under what practice I am not allowed to go back?


Erik Nielsen: Only by leave.


Madam Speaker:: I do it every day. When Hon. Members want to present petitions and I have already called Petitions but they have not heard, we revert in that very flexible way.


Ian Deans: You do it by leave.


Madam Speaker:: It might be that the Speaker did not see the Hon. Minister when he rose. I cannot ascertain that. Perhaps the Minister might tell me if he was rising when I called that item.


Some Hon. Members:: No, he was not.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I did rise at the appropriate time under the appropriate section, but unfortunately the Chair did not recognize me at that point.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: At any rate, I do not think there is any problem. The Hon. Minister, I believe, wants to move a motion. Therefore, I am now presently at Motions and the Hon. Minister may make his motion at that time.
The Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe is rising on a point of order?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I assume that you have not ruled on this point as yet. It is a very critical issue. The Speaker follows a set procedure every day. After we passed the particular piece of business for which the Minister has responsibility, he sought the consent of the Chair and the House to revert to the previous piece of business. Any time this is done, Madam Speaker, it must be done with the consent of the House. Consent of the House was not requested. Certainly on this side of the House we would not have given consent to

March 7, 1983
Business of the House
revert to Government Notices of Motions. I suggest the Minister does not have the ability today, without the consent of the House, to return to the item he missed.


Mr. Ouellet:: Madam Speaker, 1 merely wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Hon. Minister was on his feet and was trying to get your attention to be recognized. I find it rather strange that Opposition Members should raise the issue now. I myself was looking around and trying to get the Chair's attention to have my colleague, the Minister, recognized so that he could put his motion. In my view, it is entirely appropriate that the Chair should recognize the Hon. Minister and allow him to finish reading his motion.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I do not want to make the matter more complicated than it has already become, but when the Minister gained the floor he asked whether we had passed that part in Orders where Ministers may make motions.


Erik Nielsen: That is right.


Ian Deans: The Speaker said, "I will revert to that." I think quite clearly the Minister asked whether we had passed that point; the Speaker, having recognized that we had, indicated that the Chair would revert to that stage. 1 heard the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) distinctly say, "Only with leave". I suspect on this occasion, at least at this point in time, that unless leave is forthcoming, I do not see how we can revert.


Madam Speaker:: I will accept that judgment of the House. If the House does not want to give leave to revert, I just warn the House that that is a change of practice.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Constantly we have reverted. However, we were at Motions. May I read to Hon. Members Standing Order 82:
A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 80 or 81 in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee and has given notice of his or her intention so to do, may propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage;-
This can be done now under Motions.


Mr. Andre:: With notice.


Madam Speaker:: We are under Motions. It may be done under Motions at the usual time at which those notices are given.


Harvie Andre: With notice.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, with great respect, the Chair is being ill advised. I say that to the Officer who is advising her. Standing Order-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: In order to protect the Officers of the House from any interpretation which Members might have, the fact that this Officer is standing next to me does not necessarily mean he is advising me and the Hon. Member does not necessarily know what that Officer is telling me. Therefore, that comment is not welcome.


André Ouellet: Withdraw!


Erik Nielsen: I withdraw nothing. I have the greatest possible respect for every Officer at the Table and I stated so before that comment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: If the Chair will study Standing Order 81, it refers to notice being given by a Minister rising in his or her place. The item which the Chair had reached in Routine Proceedings was Motions. The proper time for notice to be given under Standing Order 81 is on the item "Government Notices of Motions" which precedes the item in which the House is now engaged. The Minister knew that himself. He rose and asked whether we had passed that item. The Chair said yes, indeed we had, and that the Chair would revert.
With the greatest respect, Madam Speaker, it has always been the practice in this place that when we revert from an item reached on Routine Proceedings to another item preceding that item, it has always been by leave or with the consent of the House. The Chair has never arrogated to itself the discretion to make that decision.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that there might be a procedural argument as to whether or not the Minister has a right to move such a notice at any stage of our proceedings in this House. That is another matter. I would maintain, of course, that the only place the Minister can give that notice is on Government Notices of Motion. We have passed that stage. We are on another item. We can certainly revert to the previous item of Government Notices, but only by leave of the House.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, as with everything, it becomes more complicated as we proceed. I suggest, however, that for a Minister of the Crown to give notice he is required to gain the floor legitimately. He cannot rise under the pretext of doing something else and then give notice pursuant to Standing Order 82. I suggest that there is no provision for a Minister of the Crown, during this part of House business, to rise and give notice under Standing Order 82. What they would be doing is simply indicating that agreement could not be found to proceed under Standing Order 80 or 81.
While I think it wrong, on the basis of precedent I think it would be appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to rise in the afternoon during debate, as did the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) some time ago during the middle of debate, to indicate quite out of the blue that he or she wanted to give
March 7, 1983

notice that agreement could not be achieved. I thought it was wrong at the time but the Speaker ruled in favour of it, so I accept it. However, it certainly would not be appropriate for the Minister to rise under the guise of giving notice of something to indicate simply that there was no agreement.


Madam Speaker:: For clarification, may I remind Hon. Members that I only went back to Notices of Motions because the Hon. Minister asked me to go back to Notices of Motions and 1 said yes. We do that very often and we can go back.
However, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is right. A Minister might give notice in the course of debate this afternoon, but he may also do it now because the only restriction upon that is a Minister "in his or her place". That is the only restriction. A Minister may do it at any time. He can do it under Motions, Notices of Motions or during debate. Therefore, I feel the Hon. Minister can give notice at any time.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in opening my remarks I indicated that I wanted to inform the House and give notice that consultations have not been successful among the Parties and it has not been possible to reach agreement pursuant to Standing Order 80 or 81 with regard to the allocation of time to the second reading stage of Bill C-143, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority. Therefore, at the next sitting of the House, I shall propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82 to allocate one sitting day to the said stage of the said Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister first sought to smuggle in a Government Notice of Motion under Motions. Now the Minister is trying to do it on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: 1 hope the Hon. Member agrees with me-I will repeat his term but I cannot accept it-that the Minister could have smuggled it in at any time. I repeat that the only restriction is that a Minister of the Crown be in his or her place. That is the only restriction. He may give that notice of motion at any time. He has now given it, not under a point of order but under Motions.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,587.


Mr. McCuish: 1.	How many public servants are located in the Place du Portage office complex in Hull, Quebec?
Order Paper Questions
2.	How many parking stalls are allocated for public servants there?
3.	What is the monthly charge for parking permits?
4.	Are person-hours lost each month due to public servants queuing up during regular working hours in order to purchase parking permits and, if so, how many?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1.	Place du Portage, Phase I, II, III, IV	8,900
Place du Centre	1,400
10,300
This is an approximate figure based on NCC survey and update.
2.	In all garages servicing the complex:
Public servants-normal working hours	691
(This figure includes 159 spaces provided to employees working in Place du Centre and Terrasses de la Chaudiere.)
Public servants working shifts outside the normal 8 to 5 base
hours	172
Total	863
(In addition, 39 spaces are provided for Crown-owned vehicles.)
3.	It is $28.05 for public servants qualified under the Treasury Board parking policy; $38 commercial rate.
4.	The sale of monthly parking passes at the Place du Portage is normally implemented five days prior to the parking month. The sale at Laurier-Tache Garage commences at 7:30 a.m. and is normally sold out by 9 a.m. the same day. The passes at Notre-Dame Garage have never been sold out; hence, the sale there starts at noon and continues during normal working hours.
The person-hours lost due to these sales are not readily available. The only means for Public Works Canada to obtain the information would be to write to all Departments located in Hull. The time and cost of such an effort would be excessive and there would be no way of verifying the information.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 4,222 and 4,421 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 7, 1983
Supply


Mr. Gilchrist: How many Crown corporations does Canada own and how many persons are employed in each corporation?
Return tabled.

Question No. 4,421-Mr. Malone:
How many federal Crown corporations presently exist in Canada and what is the name and headquarter address of each corporation?
Return tabled.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):
That this House condemns the Government for the apathy that it has shown toward issues affecting Canadian women and for its failure to promote equality for women, and its inaction with respect to pension reform for women, and its tacit approval of sexual stereotyping and abusive material in the media, as demonstrated by the Government's unwillingness to prevent pornographic films from being shown on pay television, and its lack of commitment to its own affirmative action programme within the public service, and calls upon the Government to immediately establish a standing committee of Parliament empowered to deal with issues that have a particular impact upon women and to review the progress, or lack thereof, made by the Government with respect to such issues.
Mrs. Therese kMiens (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)): Madam Speaker, before the House adjourned at one o'clock, I was talking about pensions, with specific reference to the exclusion clause for the raising of children, which is in effect in Quebec. Quebec women are extremely lucky in this respect. However, there is still a serious problem in the rest of Canada. In order to enable young mothers to stay home for seven years after the birth of a child without losing their pension continuity, the Federal Government must have the signatures of two-thirds of the provincial governments representing two-thirds of the Canadian population. Our Government has tried several times to obtain a joint agreement with the other provinces. Several provinces refused, including Ontario, which holds the balance of power because of its large population. As a Member of the Government, I am
willing to accept criticism when it is justified, but in the case I have just described, I am afraid the provinces are at fault.
If we really want to maximize the benefits of this Opposition day, Mr. Speaker, we should refresh our memory with respect to a number of problems affecting the status of women. If there is one subject that does not deserve to the subject of bickering by the House, it is indeed this one. The study on battered wives has revealed one more injustice among so many others. If only there were enough time to discuss pension problems, equal pay for equal work, daycare, exploitation of women, sexual harassment, sexual stereotyping in the media, discrimination against Indian women, and there are many more.
I can assure the House and the Members opposite that we on this side of the House are fully aware of the very difficult problems women have to face. In enumerating these problems, I also want to make it clear to Hon. Members that in many cases, although it would like to do so, the Government is prevented from improving the situation. For instance, under Section 56.1 of the non-profit housing program, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has set aside 151 units for use as transition houses, but here again, the initiative must come from the provinces and the municipalities.
Regarding the issue of equal pay for equal work, women must learn to submit complaints to the Human Rights Commission when their rights have been abused. I had the honour of sitting on the Committee on Wife Battering, and before that I sat on the Committee on the Handicapped, and I am pleased to say that both committee reports have been followed up by our Government. We tabled our report on Violence in the Family in May 1982. I must say that the Government acted on the recommendations that were within its jurisdiction, but unfortunately, here again, many of the seventeen recommendations fell under joint federal-provincial jurisdiction and we are still waiting.
The Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) has instructed the executive of the chiefs of police of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to set up immediately a training program for policemen on family violence. Alberta and Manitoba policemen can now put assailants under arrest.
As I said, it is now up to the people to make strong representations to the provincial authorities so that this practice will be extended to the rest of the country. The Department of National Health and Welfare of Canada has established a national information centre on family violence, and the Minster of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has sent a pamphlet on battered women to all those who receive family allowances.
Last August, our Government passed Bill C-127 to amend the Criminal Code as it relates to sexual assault. This new
March 7, 1983
[Stage Direction]
legislation gives more protection to women who are victims of violence.
In the limited time I have left, I would like to give Hon. Members some idea of the Green Paper's proposal to improve pension protection for women under the pension system.
First, the Government recognizes that the current elderly, those already retired from the active labour force, would benefit little, if at all, from changes in work-related pension plans. We know that the combined Old Age Security Guaranteed Income Supplement Program already guarantees pensioner couples an income which is generally sufficient to meet their basic needs. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the single pensioners, the large majority of whom are women. Many of our single pensioners, those who have no income other than their Old Age Security Guaranteed Income Supplement, have to get by on an inadequate income, an income which is low relative to pensioner couples and to other groups in Canadian society.
The Green Paper clearly identifies the problems of the single elderly as a key social policy priority of the Government of Canada. We are committed to raising the Guaranteed Income Supplement for this group as soon as resources permit. Of course, in a time of economic restraint such expenditures are difficult, but there are indications that the economy is improving. For example, in January the annual inflation rate was 8.3 per cent, well below the annual rate of 11.2 per cent which was evident when the six and five restraint program was first announced last June.
In future years, of course, it is our hope that fewer women will have to rely so heavily on GIS benefits. That extent to which this goal can be reached will depend, in large measure, on improvements made in other aspects of the pension system.
[Stage Direction]
The Green Paper advocates a number of changes to private pension plans designed to better protect retirement income. Some of those suggestions are of particular interest to women. For instance, protection against inflation is especially significant for them because in their lifetime they usually earn less than men and generally live longer than men do. The same can be said about the suggestions concerning compulsory vesting of pension contributions after two years, and the measures to be taken so that their transfer from one employer to another might be particularly worthwhile for women since they have more mobility than men and their work schedule is more often interrupted.
The Green Paper proposes the introduction of a new tax free retirement savings mechanism which would be called the Registered Pension Account. As in any Registered Retirement Savings Plan, the Registered Pension Account would make it possible to deduct contributions from the income, except that the employer could contribute directly to the RPA on behalf of
Supply
a wage earner, provided certain conditions were met. This provision would make it easier for small businesses to pay retirement benefits to their employees. In addition to these general improvements to the employer's plans, which will be particularly beneficial to women, the Green Paper recommends special provisions to improve the situation of the spouses of contributors. Among these, I would first like to mention pension benefits based on the income of the surviving spouse with survivor benefits amounting to at least 60 per cent of the initial benefits; second, the sharing of pension entitlements in the case of divorce or separation; and third, the continued payment of survivor benefits after remarriage.
I would now like to examine briefly the proposals of the Green Paper to improve the protection offered by the Canada Pension Plan to women who are now or will later become members of the labour force. Two suggestions have already been debated at length and seem to have many supporters. One would be to increase the maximum earnings covered by the plan to the same level as the average industrial wages over the last three years. The other would be to implement as soon as possible the clause of exclusion for the purpose of child raising which I mentioned earlier, and which is now applied in Quebec but nowhere else in Canada. In this regard, I was very pleased to hear that the Ontario government might be willing to accept this clause. Canada as a whole would benefit from this improvement. I understand that Ontario is willing to support the other recommendations of the Green Paper as soon as an agreement is reached about long-term financing conditions of the plan.
The Green Paper also contains recommendations to improve the situation of non-working spouses, which would involve an extension of arrangements for pension entitlement sharing and would be one way of recognizing that both spouses have contributed to the accumulation of Canada Pension Plan entitlements during their marriage and that both own these entitlements equally. Since 1978, such arrangements have applied to divorced spouses. It seems to me that there is no reason why spouses with a lasting marriage should be denied access to entitlement sharing. I see some heads shaking, which might mean that everyone does not agree. This is why we will have public hearings. The fact is that the sharing of entitlements could take place when the younger spouse reaches 65. When either spouse dies or when the non-employed spouse or the lower wage earner, where both spouses work, becomes incapacitated, benefits would be paid on the basis of entitlement sharing. However, the entitlements could be divided on request in cases where the spouses have been separated for more than three years.
The Green Paper also recommends that changes be made to survivor benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. For spouses over 65, the Green Paper suggests that the lifetime survivor benefit be equal to 60 per cent of the accumulated retirement pension of the deceased spouse after entitlement sharing. Still
[Stage Direction]
March 7, 1983
Supply
on the assumption that the entitlement sharing provision is enacted, whether the spouse is a contributor or not, he would also receive a personal retirement pension based on half the pension entitlement. I am certain that people find this complicated and confusing, but we shall have some answers after the committee has heard submissions from interested parties during its meetings throughout Canada. The surviving spouse would therefore receive up to 80 per cent of the Canada Pension Plan benefits paid to the couple before the death of the other spouse. The present ceiling of combined benefits would cease to apply. As for the spouse under 65, the Green Paper recommends a two-level structure which would involve transition benefits and a lifetime pension. Permanent benefits would be the same as for survivors over 65, namely 60 per cent of the accumulated shared pension. The transition benefit could be a more substantial amount, for instance an amount equal to the Old Age Security Pension, and could be paid to the survivor for either three years or until the age of 65 is reached, whichever is shorter. Survivors with children could be entitled to the transition benefit for a longer period, for instance, until the youngest child reaches seven. A two-tier structure would help young widows in re-adjusting their lifestyles immediately after the death of their spouses, and would provide them with some kind of help for later on. The Green Paper further suggests that marriage should no longer put an end to the benefits paid to the surviving spouse.
As I said earlier, the special committee will soon initiate its consultation process, holding hearings all across the country. I would ask Elon. Members from both sides of the House to encourage women groups in their constituencies to avail themselves of their freedom of speech and submit presentations at those hearings.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope my remarks on pensions reflect the Government's concerns on this issue.
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Parliamentary Secretary, for whom 1 have a good deal of affection and respect. Does she feel that the federal Government should invest any money in the film Videodrome which, as she will know, advocates pornography and violence against women, and also, since she referred to battered wives as if there were a link between pornography and wife-beating men, does she feel that the law should be clarified respecting pornography?


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: I believe that most Hon. Members know my feelings on this. I must agree with the Hon. Member that pornography is conducive to violence and even rape, and I could not support any kind of active participation by this Government in the promotion of pornography. This goes without saying, and certainly there can be no doubt that I am sincere when I stress that were it proven that this Government in some way or another is helping to promote pornography with the knowledge that this is conducive to violence, I would be the first to denounce it. Until I have such proof, I must be on the alert.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Parliamentary Secretary. The implication of her comments about pension-credit splitting was that she is content with the view that married persons shall be entitled to half the pension to which they would be entitled if they were single. Was that the thrust and intent of what she was saying?


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. There were 60,000 women who participated in the regional conferences. I attended many of them in Montreal. I heard women come to the microphone and express the wish that the pension be divided, asking why they should be penalized if they stayed married and yet if they were divorced, they got half the pension. Some men in the audience became so excited that I thought they would have a heart attack because they were so much against it. The question is not settled at all. A committee will be studying it along with other items.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question. 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's concern regarding pensions. I understand that she will be on the Pension Committee. I look forward to working with her on that Committee.
How does the Hon. Member feel about Government intervention in pension schemes? In particular, does she believe that the pensioners in this country should have any confidence in the Liberal Government in view of the fact that, under the six and five program, the basic Old Age Security Pension was capped at six and five? In the Public Service, the RCMP and the Armed Forces, not only were those pensions capped but additional funds which individuals had specifically put into those programs to protect themselves from inflation were also capped. The Hon. Member was critical of the private plans because they are not protected against inflation. I would rather not have the reply from the Hon. Member that because inflation is down to 8.3 per cent, the impact will not be as severe. The principal point is that those pensioners expected to be protected against inflation. Those pensioners paid an indexation fee. They expected to be protected against inflation, not undermined by Government decree, as was implied and in fact as occurred under the six and five program in Bill C-124.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: The Hon. Member asked whether I thought the people had confidence in the Liberal Government. They have proven that. They have demonstrated it for the last 11 years and will do so again. Therefore, they do have confidence in us.
I am glad to answer that question. When the Hon. Member spoke of Bill C-131 this morning, I was going to raise a question with him. He seemed to imply that the Government was imposing six and five on pensioners. Last week the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) was asked a question about this in the House. She replied that with the rate
March 7, 1983

of inflation having dropped since the June, 1982 budget, she was pleased to announce that for the next three-month period, commencing April, 1983, Old Age Security pensions will be paid at the fully-indexed rate. That is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said last week. I believe that answers the question regarding pensioners.


Mrs. Hervieux-Payette:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could indicate to the House just how much money the government has earmarked for the promotion of women's rights through various programs initiated by the Secretary of State. I know that the federal government has made a major effort, but for the benefit of the House, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us the extent of the financial commitment of the Secretary of State.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question. In my own riding, there is "La maison de l'ancre", which is a sort of shelter for women. Also, I have just contacted the Secretary of State to try and obtain financial assistance for battered or raped women. Last year, the Secretary of State provided $3.2 million to help Canadian women in emergency situations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Any more questions?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the motion of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), I think that perhaps the clearest-cut statement that there is a problem in this country, and this is the thrust of the Hon. Member's motion, is that equality has not been achieved, we are a long way from it and there are immediate problems. There is a proposal for a long-term possible mechanism to help us reach a solution over time.
In the context of that motion, my biggest disappointment to this point is that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary stood in the House and indicated that they were proud of the record of this Government. If I were a Member of a Government that had a track record like the one this Government has, I could not stand in this House or on a platform anywhere in the country and feel proud. There really is not a record to be proud of.
The most solid achievement which Members have referred to is the constitutional provision on equality for women. That is not an achievement of Government; that is an achievement of the Opposition and of the women of this country. There was no provision in the original Constitution that was laid before this Chamber that would make women equal to men in Canada. In committee, through the protests of people around this country and the good work of the Opposition, which forced the Government to open the committee to the public in the first place, that equality provision was put in the Constitution. Then the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) bargained it away on a weekend. He threw it out, and the Opposition had to dig in its heels again and work in concert with the women of Canada to get it back in. So when the Minister stands in this House, Mr. Supply
Speaker, and says to Canadians, "That is our prime achievement in the last three years", I will say that that is an achievement for which the Minister should hang her head in shame. The Parliament of Canada has reason for pride in forcing that provision back, but not the Government. The Members of the Government should hang their heads in shame. Fifty-one per cent of the people of this country have had to organize, to protest, simply to have a provision included in the Constitution of Canada which makes them equal to other persons. The Government has forced them to do that, and this is an achievement in which no one should have pride.
The Minister responsible for the status of women is rapidly acquiring a reputation as the Minister responsible for the buffer, the Minister responsible for bafflegab, the Minister responsible for making speeches on behalf of women and sounding sympathetic, for trying to portray a Government which is supposedly sympathetic, when in reality we have a Government which clearly is not sympathetic and does not believe in the equality of female persons. That is a track record which is abysmal. That is a track record which should cause all Members of Parliament to feel some sense of shame about participating in a Parliament with a Government so consistently and so clearly violating the basic sense of equality.
The Minister of State responsible for women stood in this House earlier this day and announced a new program under an interdepartmental committee to enforce her guidelines relative to Government action, and if you read the speech in Hansard tomorrow you will find that she said, "What is the point of guidelines if you do not have an enforcement mechanism. I stand in this Chamber and 1 proudly announce a mechanism to enforce guidelines." 1 must draw the Minister's attention to her behaviour on the previous Opposition day, Mr. Speaker, when she stood in this Chamber and voted against a motion which would have referred the Coalgate-Gillespie affair to the individual responsible for enforcing guidelines. The Hon. Members of this House spent almost a week in the Question Period on the issue of guidelines, the possibility that guidelines had been violated, and we stood in the House and had a whole day's debate on the need to refer the issue to a body which could reach a judgment on whether or not guidelines had been violated. Nothing in the Minister's behaviour today exemplifies to me more clearly the consistent pattern of this Government, which is to say one thing and do another. To say you need an enforcement of the mechanism for guidelines on one issue and, then, as they did a week ago, to beat down the Opposition in its atempt to have guidelines reviewed by an enforcement body, is first-rate hypocrisy.
Every backbencher on that side who supports a Government which says one thing and does another is equally guilty of the same hypocrisy. The judgment of the Canadian public will come. One day there will be a general election and that hypocrisy will be headlined on platform after platform. You

March 7, 1983
Supply
cannot say one thing and do another day in and day out and retain any credibility for your Party, for the Parliament and for the whole governing process in this nation.
The second major item of which the Minister said she was proud in terms of Government achievement was the provision of equal pay for work of equal value. She apologized for it saying that the federal Government had the power to legislate and control over only 10 per cent of the work force. But she was proud of the progress made by the Government. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board President of this Government, day in and day out, with all the legal resources of this Government, fought the general service workers through the court system when those general service workers wanted equal pay for work of equal value. This Government took them to court and said they could not have it. It was the court and not the Cabinet, not the backbenchers, which said the Government had to pay those general service workers equal pay for work of equal value. Thank heavens, Mr. Speaker, for the courts. And for a Minister of the Crown to stand in the House and try to take credit for what the court made the Government do is hypocrisy of the first order. This Government did not do that. The courts did it.
That is the record of this Government, Mr. Speaker. We get announcements about programs, and most of those programs are an insult to the women of this nation. They are token programs for the most part, and to stand in the House and brag about reports and conferences, is to help us all identify the fact that, yes, this Government funds talk-fests, this Government funds reports, but then this Government never acts, never does what those conferences and reports recommend.
I have in my possession, Sir, a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) addressed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, dated October 7, 1982, and that date is important, Mr. Speaker, because it deals with the report on violence in the family. I was a member of the Committee which drafted that report. We gave that report to Parliament in May, 1982, and here is a letter of October, 1982, six months later, in which the Minister is saying, "I have agreed to meet with the Minister responsible for the status of women, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, to discuss your Committee's report." Six months later the Minister has agreed to a meeting to discuss these matters. "We intend to go into questions and proposals that may be raised by our provincial counterparts at future federal-provincial conferences".
There were a lot of recommendations in that report, Mr. Speaker, but essentially it reported a couple of things. One of them was that the nation was in a state of emergency on this issue. The problems are here now, they are real. The committee had spent some time in investigating these matters and action needs to be taken now. Here we have a Minister of the Crown writing back to the Committee Chairman six months later saying there was to be a meeting sometime in the indefinite future. Taxpayers' money was spent on that investigation which resulted in that report, but far too little has happened. It is almost one year later and I do not even know if that meeting
ever took place. As I look around the country, I know that the recommendations we made have not been implemented, whether that meeting took place or not. But when the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister responsible for the status of women say they are going to get together six months later to talk about it some day in the future, then that tells us as clearly as we ever want to hear that the purpose of reports and conferences on behalf of the Liberal Government is to give the appearance of action without the reality of action.
You must always look at what they say and contrast that with what they do. Never in the history of a nation have we had a Government which says so much and does so little of what it says. Never have we had a Government which says one thing and does another with so much consistency. If you look at the record, Mr. Speaker, it is a modern-day phenomenon that today young women have made remarkable progress in the law faculties of this country. In many cases they make up over 50 per cent of the enrolment. That is modern Canada. Women have broken through in the legal profession. Some day down the road they may dominate the legal profession.


David Kilgour: They do dominate it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: But then you look at what this Government has done in the last 365 days. It has appointed 47 judges, and only two of them are women. Women are achieving parity and equality in this occupational field, except in the area over which the Government has control. In that area we have two females appointed out of 47, and those two are at the lowest level of court appointments.


David Kilgour: Four per cent.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Fifty per cent of the people in law school, 4 per cent of the judicial appointments.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Minister repeated a promise about Section 12(b)(1) of the Indian Act. A promise, a promise, a promise. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) stood up and asked if there would be a woman at the conference table to look at native rights with the Premiers and the Prime Minister. Well, we got a lot of bafflegab, which when you cut through it, means the answer is no. The future of Indian women and their relationship to the Constitution of Canada may or may not be decided at that conference, but we know one thing about it: there will be no female person at the table looking at the fundamental law of this country and at probably the most glaring human rights violations of which this nation is guilty, to be found in the Indian Act. We will not have a single female person at the table, that is what the Minister responsible for the status of women told us this morning.
Then we heard this morning about retraining, Mr. Speaker. The Minister talked about the fact that 15-year-old females are dropping out of physics and mathematics. That is true and relates in part to our culture, in part to the counsellors in the school system and to many other factors. But the context in
March 7, 1983

which the Minister talked about that was the issue of retraining. The problem today for women in large measure is a retraining problem, but at 15 years of age we are not talking about retraining, we are talking about initial training. At 25, 35, 45 and 55 years of age we are talking about retraining, and we heard no new announcements about retraining today. We have some token programs out there but that is what they are, token programs. There is no sincere, large-scale effort on behalf of the federal Government to provide retraining for women. That is the reality.
Now, Mr. Speaker, recommendations in that area were made by an all-Party task force back in September, 1981. The report of the Work For Tomorrow Task Force brought to the attention of this Parliament that there was a problem and something needed to be done about it. However, when you look at the budget of the Minister of Finance which followed soon thereafter, there was nothing in it which told us the Government paid any attention to any of the recommendations. The record of this Government is to fund a study, a report, and now we have the referral of that report to Donald Macdonald for three years at $800 a day so he can read it.


David Kilgour: He has to eat.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, the man has to eat. What about pensions for widows, Mr. Speaker?
This morning the Minister responsible for the status of women stood in the House and quoted some remarks of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands which dealt with spouse's allowance. If you read that very closely, the Minister was talking about the spousal deduction in the income tax system, and she was reading a speech of the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands who was speaking about spousal allowance. It is time the Minister learned the difference between an income tax deduction and the spousal allowance. The spousal allowance is something which goes to women between the ages of 60 and 65 because their husbands are 65 years of age and over. The converse can be true. It provides income support to married couples when one of the partners has hit the age of 65 and the other has not. That is what the spousal allowance is all about. That is what the Hon. Member was talking about. We have a Minister responsible for the status of women who does not understand that very basic, universal program and the difference between it and income tax deductions. There is a massive difference, Mr. Speaker, and after two years it is time that the Minister learned the difference.
This is a good time, Mr. Speaker, to remind Members of the House that the Clark Government, in its brief nine months in office, took that spousal allowance and put it into the law of this country so that if the older spouse dies, the younger spouse still gets the allowance. That was an achievement on behalf of women, indeed on behalf of all Canadians. It was an action which was promised, and it was an action which was taken.
I see you rising, Mr. Speaker, so may I just conclude by asking Members opposite to look at what their Ministers have done with planned parenthood. There are two female persons
Supply
in the Cabinet, only two out of some 30-odd. Look at what your own Ministers do; be critical of what your Ministers do. If you truly believe in equality, we have a long way to go and no Member of this Chamber should be proud of the progress we have made to this point. We should not be proud, we should be ashamed.


Mr. Tardif:: Could the Hon. Member tell this House whether he is aware of the amount paid to the National Action Committee, and if not, whether he feels that $191,000 is something considered marginal?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If the Government did listen to the Council, that money will be of benefit to women, but in this case the Government did not listen to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. That was so much money wasted.


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask a question from the Hon. Member who just resumed his seat. In his statement, he suggested the Hon. Minister was making pretty nice speeches but that the Government never took any action either on them or on representations made by various committees that have been meeting these last few years. Is the Hon. Member aware that in the Department of Employment and Immigration, there are programs that have been introduced in recent years? I will list a few that are known as-

-the Women's Employment Counselling Centre, the Outreach Programs, wage incentives to the private sector for nontraditional job training, institutional training incentives, and Affirmative Action Programs in the Public Service.

It is the responsibility of the Canadian Government to look after on-the-job training, or post-university training. In his speech, the Hon. Member has apparently suggested that the Canadian Government should call on community colleges and universities in order to dictate to the provinces what kind of courses they should give women so they could later on be accepted in the work force and find employment. He also referred in his speech to the new Constitution adopted last year, right here in Canada, as enacted by this House and Parliament. Is the Hon. Member not satisfied with the training programs we put forward? Is he suggesting we should amend the Canadian Constitution in order that we might then dictate to the provinces what courses should be given in universities and colleges?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think it is about time the Liberal Government began to respect the Constitution of Canada. That would be a big improvement. That is the first thing.
Second, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member. I can tell him he has been doing an excellent job of reading the

March 7, 1983
Supply
propaganda of the Department of Employment and Immigration. However, I recommend that he read the proceedings of the Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s. Officials of the Department of Employment and Immigration and other Departments testified at the hearings. The task force travelled the country, met the people and made over 200 recommendations on what should be done. Most of them have not been implemented. It carefully drew out the difference in jurisdictions, federal and provincial.
Members of the Government recite a litany of federal problems, but I sit here and say tokenism, tokenism, tokenism. Small amounts of money are made available to very few people in programs designed to get the maximum media exposure and the maximum public relations coverage but do nothing about the problems.
One of the programs mentioned by Liberals was Outreach. As the task force travelled the country-four Liberals, two Conservatives and one NDP-it saw that this was an excellent program but, Mr. Speaker, a year and a half later it is smaller, less well funded and is not being used. That is because the Government was not getting the credit for it. It was a private sector program operated by private agencies with Government help. But the Government could not brag about the program because civil servants were not involved.
We find that the low cost, effective programs are being cut out and replaced by higher profile, public relation gimmicks that do not help the people find jobs.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member a question about the jurisdictional responsibilities raised by the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr). Under the National Training Act that was introduced last year, the federal Government has authority to inaugurate these very vital retraining programs that we are talking about. Has the Hon. Member seen any sign of that being done in any part of the country he has visited in recent weeks or months?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: No, I have not. I participated in drawing up the legislative framework as I was a Member of the Committee. It was a reasonable framework and could be helpful.
Earlier today, the Minister responsible for the status of women tried to leave the House with the impression that no one in the Provinces has any concern for women. There are women's bureaus and Ministers responsible for women's issues in most Provinces, not just in Quebec.
It speaks to the difficulty in the country when a Minister of the Crown tries to mislead the House. There is then more difficulty working co-operatively with the provincial institutions, to try to solve the problems.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member outlined a catalogue of problems with regard to the non-equality of women in the marketplace. I understand that he did not finish his speech so he did not have time to outline solutions to the problems.
I have only a limited scope of observation of women's issues as I did not participate in that Committee, but I see what has been going on in my own Province. Since the change from and NDP to a Conservative Government, I note that many of the affirmative-action programs for women and native people that were in place, are being chopped, apparently as part of the "open for business" theme. Would the Hon. Member be prepared to tell the House how he and his Party propose to get men and women back on an equal footing in the marketplace? Are they going to propose new Affirmative Action Programs? Are they going to tell business that they must pay all female employees the same as male employees for equal work?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think there are three female Cabinet Ministers in the Government of Saskatchewan now. I do not think that the previous Government had so many.
In terms of an ultimate solution, that was available to Members of the House in December 1979 when there was a Clark Government and a Clark Cabinet. That was a group that believed that women were equal and it was acting on that assumption. This was borne out by the appointment of women to the posts of Secretary of State for External Affairs and High Commissioner to Great Britain, both high public profile positions. It was a true commitment to the principle of equality. You lead by example, Mr. Speaker: you lead by doing. I was proud to serve in a Government that made so much progress in such a short period of time, and I look forward to doing it again.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to a reduction in Outreach Programs. I should like to ask him if he is aware how many Outreach Programs were in place when this Government came into office and how many are in place now under this Government. Is he aware of the figures?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it sounds as if the Minister were aware. It would be a nice surprise if she was aware of something in that Department.
In return, I would ask the Minister if there are as many today as there were a year ago when the all-Party committee said that there had to be a lot more. Today there are fewer than there were at the time we made the report.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for question and answers has expired.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleagues on this side of the House in stating the very positive record of this Government since 1980 on questions relating to women in Canada. I believe my colleague spoke earlier of hypocrisy. I do not intend to be as hard as that on the Opposition, and I would rather call their attitude one of ignorance.
If we look at the record, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Government must base its actions on a set of basic laws such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Constitution. In fact, the Charter of Rights, with its equality
March 7, 1983

clause providing for the right to have affirmative action programs and recognizing the principle of equality, was adopted by the Parliament of Canada at the initiative of a Liberal Government. Mr. Speaker, we must remember that no Conservative Governments ever suggested we enshrine a charter of rights in the Canadian Constitution. We must remember that Conservative Governments across the country objected to the Charter and obliged us to include a notwithstanding clause which is now being used to abuse the rights of female workers in Quebec. Finally, let us not forget that, thanks to a Liberal Government, the basic rights of women in Canada are now enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I also believe the Government broke new ground a number of years ago by appointing a Minister responsible for the Status of Women. In the Conservative Governments in Canada today, there are no ministers responsible for the status of women, a position that exists only in the Pequiste Government in Quebec. Granted, some departments have a director of the status of women but as far as having a ministerial spokesman for women in Conservative or NDP cabinets across the country, I am sorry to say that the provincial record is pretty negative.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a series of measures that have been taken. In only three years, we now have a Cabinet that includes two women, we have a woman as Speaker of the House, on the Government side, and ten women as Liberal Members, compared to three Conservatives and three New Democratic Party Members. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have to apologize for our record.
It was also a Federal Liberal Government that formed a special committee to examine the question of violence perpetrated on women in Canada. Following the committee's impressive report, that same Government provided funds through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I must say that I am pleased to be able to take advantage of this program, which will provide a transition house for women in my riding, that is, the Maison l'Escale for the women of Montreal-Mercier.
I would also like to mention that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has prepared special courses for officers who may be called in to intervene in the case of violence in the family. I think that excellent work has been done by our colleagues within the committee, but a number of measures must be taken by the provinces, because social services fall under provincial jurisdiction. I am still waiting to see all these provincial programs that will address the problems of women in Canada.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, we had a number of consultations on pensions. In fact, I think that all studies on the issue have clearly demonstrated that in this area, women are not being treated equally. I think it is a controversial issue which is difficult to raise and even more so during a recession, but here
Supply
again I hope that the provincial authorities will see the light and realize that women in Canada must have decent living conditions when they reach retirement age.
Since my colleague from Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) raised the question of vocational training, Mr. Speaker, 1 must point out that the new legislation does enable us to offer courses. However, we must not lose sight of provincial jurisdictions and section 93 of the Constitution which provides that education is under provincial responsibility. We cannot offer courses unless they are authorized by the province. I know what I am talking about because I am from Quebec where I was member and president of a school board for six years. God knows that my school board did organize many vocational training courses, and since the new act is more flexible, we will be able to offer courses which will enable women to apply for jobs in the years 2000 in the fields of computers, automation and other sciences of the future.
Another thing to the credit of our Government, Mr. Speaker, is the part-time work committee chaired by Mrs. Wallace. I am looking forward to the findings of that committee, Mr. Speaker, because I think that the Canadian women who want to continue to raise their children will have a means or a mechanism to combine work and child rearing without being deprived of the benefits derived from work when time has come to retire.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is also the launching pad of several affirmative action programs now in force in various Departments. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has taken a leading role in that field, and I hope that the provinces and the private sector will benefit from the experience of federal Deparments. Still, I would remind my colleagues opposite that the initiative was again taken by the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I come now to a delicate question for women in Canada-family allowances. We are aware that the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), who is a candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party, has already mentioned the possibility of establishing a selective program. I would remind Hon. Members that the family allowances program is a universal program for all Canadian women for as long as married women fail to achieve equal status within the family. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that it is because this comes under provincial jurisdiction that married women are still considered dependents legally.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to deal with current issues such as pornography on television which was raised because one station decided to broadcast programs which Canadian feminist groups consider pornographic. While this issue has become very emotional, I must say that, without violating the Charter of rights, which provides freedom of speech, we shall be able to develop in co-operation with Canadian producers a code of ethics without bringing us back to the Dark Ages

March 7, 1983
Supply
which prevailed in Quebec during the 40s and 50s, will enable producers to show programs which respect women. For the enlightment of Hon. Members who have much to learn about women, I would like to give a short definition of pornography.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, pornography is not a question of nudity but simply of women being treated degradingly and humiliatingly in a relationship of dominator to dominated, while eroticism involves equal adult partners in no humiliating circumstances. I believe that it is important in the present debate that we understand exactly what we are getting into. Who applies our laws? Who applies the present Criminal Code? Who interprets the definition of pornography? It is the provincial governments, male attorneys, male judges and male policemen. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if there had been equal representation of both sexes in our legislative assemblies in Canada, we would long ago have passed laws which would quite simply have prevented such a situation from developing.
I shall deal with another current issue, in my capacity of member of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has raised the issue of sollicking on Vancouver streets. I recognize that it is difficult to solve this problem without tampering with the freedom of movement of individuals and individual liberties. But what the mayor of Vancouver and the Hon. Member for Calgary West are asking us to do to help solve this problem is pass a law to amend the Criminal Code and empower the law enforcement authorities to arrest, imprison and condemn prostitutes, thereby committing an even more serious crime because they are the victims of the system Mr. Speaker. Moreover, the mayor of Vancouver has very naively told us: "To make an arrest, we simply must have undercover agents, and of course, they are policemen. You can imagine that the customer is very seldom arrested since he is always a policeman."
On the other hand, my colleague for Burnaby, who has very avant-garde ideas, simply suggests that we legalize prostitution at large and adopt a laissez-faire attitude. The government would be nothing less than responsible for brothels. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that such a solution is quite unrealistic or shows a profound ignorance, because, as I understand, this approach has been used in France, and we are all aware of the problems now facing French women who are beaten and mistreated, and the problem of procurers and of women being victimized by the system has not yet been eliminated.
My suggestion to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is quite simply to amend the Criminal Code and put an end to prostitution, which is essentially a degrading way to sell an individual, by simply providing for a criminal trial and summary conviction for the customer. My colleagues from the Opposition who support private enterprise know that it is a matter of offer and demand. I believe that if there were no demand, there would be no offer, there would be no more poor women on the streets, there would no longer by any prostitutes on the sidewalks of Vancouver and women would no longer be
harassed on the sidewalk if the customers were arrested. We could then have a situation where undercover police officers impersonating prostitutes would arrest customers. For hundreds of years, Mr. Speaker, legislators have only sought ways and means to eliminate prostitution from public places and rid the world of this degrading trade which is being plyed most everywhere behind drawn curtains ... of course I am not referring to the curtains in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize for this digression. There is also this major step which this Liberal government took during the Christmas holiday to curb sexual harassment within the Civil Service, setting a procedure whereby an official found guilty of abusing his authority could be forced to resign.

I would also like to discuss the matter of Indian women because I worked on the subcommittee for two weeks last summer. I heard over 100 hours of testimony from Indian and Inuit women throughout the country. 1 was surprised that my colleagues from the Opposition, both Members of the Conservative Party and Members of the NDP, were there to vote against the report. The report recommended that we amend Section 12( 1 )(b) and restore the rights of women who have been deprived of those rights for the last 100 years. Those Members were there and they voted against that. Why? Because they were afraid of the Indian men who would vote against them.
When we talk about rights, we do not talk about the electorate and votes, we talk about fundamental rights and the right to be equal.
I am surprised the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) did not outline the problem of women in prison in her motion. When she was in Cabinet and making decisions, why were the programs not available for the women in the Kingston federal penitentiary? Why were these programs to give people the opportunity for rehabilitation and retraining given by a federal Liberal Government?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Where are they now? Come back and see how it is working.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Why is it that provincial Conservative Governments are not signing agreements in order that women may stay in their own Provinces and thus receive the subsidy being granted by the federal Government? We have been waiting for months for Provinces like British Columbia to sign these agreements so that women can move from Kingston to British Columbia and be close to their families.
I am proud of the record of our balance sheet. We now have a report which was voted for by the Liberals. The Conservatives and NDP were against the amendment of Section 12(1 )(b). We have adopted Bill C-82 regarding widows of veterans. We have Bill C-127. It is not our best record because
March 7, 1983

it is an amendment of Bill C-53 in which child pornography was removed by the Opposition. I do not yet know what the real reason was behind that. But if we are going to clear the record, I want this to be on the record. As far as the equality clause in the Charter of Rights and the Positive Action Program is concerned, 1 want the women of this country to remember that this law was introduced by a Liberal Government, and I am proud to be a Member of this Government.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Hon. Member. The first is with regard to a question I posed in the House, both to the Minister of Indians Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which I did on two occasions. I asked whether or not the Government would bring in an immediate amendment to the Indian Act, which would be supported on this side of the House. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development refused. What did the Hon. Member do in that case when the request to make that change all in one day was turned down?
Second, since the Hon. Member has said that the Government of the day was responsible for Clause 28 in the Charter, does she not remember that that Clause was not in the original Charter of Rights? It was proposed first by the New Democratic Party, supported by this Party. It was then questioned at the time of the First Ministers' meeting in October, 1981. Clause 28 came back to the House and the Prime Minister was asked whether or not the override power pertained to it. He did not know the answer. On November 2, 1981 the Prime Minister was asked that question. Responding to the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) on November 6, 1981, the Prime Minister said, "I have conferred with my officials and we have decided that this Clause is subject to the override power." It was the Prime Minister of Canada who took away the right to equality that had already been given to women in this country. It took an amendment from this side of the House, moved by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead and seconded by myself, to reinsert it in the Constituton of Canada. Is the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Her-vieux-Payette) denying that is what took place?


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Indian women and the amendment to Section 12(1 )(b), I would like to submit respectfully to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands that it is not only a matter of amending Section 12(1 )(b), it is a matter of giving rights to women and children. It is not just making an amendment and removing that provision. Over 20 Orders in Council have been passed for several bands in the country who have requested that amendment. It is already in force.
As far as removing Section 12(1 )(b) is concerned, every band in this country has been advised what can be done. The Hon. Member was signing the document when we requested that from the bands. It can be done. The Hon. Member is willing to have a paper signed by all Members of her Party as well as Members of the NDP so that not only will we remove Section 12(1 )(b) from the law but that we grant the rights. Of
Supply
course, it would be done with the money and the additional funding needed to make sure that these rights can be exercised on the reserves. I will support that, and I am sure the Whip of our Party will support that.
As far as the equality clause is concerned, I would just like to remind Hon. Members that if the Bill were changed over the time, very often it was changed as a result of negotiations with the Provinces. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that regardless of whether or not one article was there one day or the other, I remember sending telegrams to Mr. Blakeney asking him to give rights to the women of this country.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is the one who made the decision.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: To my great regret we have to live today with a notwithstanding clause, and that clause is there because of the Provinces. It will be there for a long while. If the Hon. Member wants to convince somebody that we have acquired rights, I will not enter into debate on whether that was done by the Government or by some amendment. I will just say it is there. Now we need a withstanding clause. We can go one step forward and instead of debating the merit of whom did it, let me say that first the Charter of Rights was there, which was introduced by our Government, and that the Hon. Member was doing her job when she introduced an amendment.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I have three questions to direct to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier. First of all, is she for or against the pornographic and violent movie "Videodrome", in which the government has invested quite a large amount of money? Second, is she for or against what First Choice is doing with Playboy's program? Third, following the many meetings she has had with me and other Hon. Members, she must be perfectly aware that pornography is one of the major reasons for the somewhat large number of teenage prostitutes; I am told that there are some 5,000 of them-that is an estimated figure-on Montreal streets alone; is she in favour of doing something to stop the current trend? As proposed by this side of the House, the idea would be to put an end to the situation which has developped since the Westendorp and Hutt decisions.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: I have not seen the "Videodrome" movie, Mr. Speaker. My position concerning pornography is well-known, and I suggest to the Hon. Member that if the right definition of pornography had been applied by our law enforcement authorities, something he knows quite well as a lawyer, we would not be faced withe the current crisis. If it is now an offence under the Criminal Code, he knows full well that the Attorney General can file complaints and that legal proceedings can be started. As it happens, the people with a rather accommodating conscience who so far have had the last word in defining pornography will not get away with it. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we intend to take action with respect to First Choice. As for the "Playboy" films, I have not seen them

March 7, 1983
Supply
because I do not travel in the United States. I live in Canada and I must say that I was one of the first women to side with the feminist groups and state quite simply that they are unacceptable and that we will not play that dirty trick on our daughters and on Canadian women.
As for underaged prostitutes, I can tell Hon. Members that we are still waiting for the Provincial Governments to take action because within the purview of Bill C-61, they continue to negotiate most shamefully. They could sign agreements with the Federal Government to enable us to implement Bill C-61 respecting young offenders specifically to solve the problem caused by juvenile delinquents under age 18. That, Mr. Speaker, is another suggestion I made to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I think that a criminal offence by a client, man or woman, seeking to corrupt a child sexually should be jailed for at least five years.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion of my colleague-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Are there any other Hon. Members who wish to ask questions?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan)-Canadian National Railways-Transfer of heavy freight operations from Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick, (b) Request that Minister investigate transfer; the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes)-Health-Canadian Medical Association task force-request that Government co-operate, (b) Funding for health care system; the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Energy-Price of natural gas exported to United States, (b) Linkage to price of oil.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):
That this House condemns the Government for the apathy that it has shown toward issues affecting Canadian women and for its failure to promote equality
for women, and its inaction with respect to pension reform for women, and its tacit approval of sexual stereotyping and abusive material in the media, as demonstrated by the Government's unwillingness to prevent pornographic films from being shown on pay television, and its lack of commitment to its own affirmative action programme within the public service, and calls upon the Government to immediately establish a standing committee of Parliament empowered to deal with issues that have a particular impact upon women and to review the progress, or lack thereof, made by the Government with respect to such issues.
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I think I will start over again. I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague from Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald). Since you did not read the motion in French a moment ago, perhaps you will allow me to do so rapidly:
Que la Chambre blame le gouvernement d'avoir fait preuve d'apathie a l'egard des questions qui affectent les Canadiennes, de ne pas avoir assure la promotion de l'egalite des femmes, de n'avoir rien fait au sujet de la reforme des pensions pour les femmes, d'approuver tacitement les stereotypes sexuels et les abus auxquels se livrent les medias, comme le prouve le fait qu'il ne veuille pas empecher la telediffusion de films pornographiques a la television a peage, de ne pas donner suite a son propre programme d'action positive a l'interieur de la Fonction publique, et qu'elle exhorte le gouvernement a creer sur-le-champ un comite permanent du Parlement qui aurait le pouvoir d'examiner les questions qui ont des repercussions particulieres sur les femmes, ainsi que les progres realises ou non par le gouvernement en la matiere.

I would simply say how much I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, with respect to the important question of legal inequalities which she mentioned this morning. She also mentioned the deep rooted apathy to the issue which she indicated was particularly prevalent in the ranks of the Government. I think she is absolutely correct. She mentioned the original constitutional proposals and how the Government was dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing something about the matter that we are talking about today. The Indian Act was discussed, and I also agree with what she said about the Unemployment Insurance Act.
She spoke of the economic inequality of women in our country. I can only agree with everything she said about that concern. It is absolutely devastating to realize that female heads of households earn about two-fifths of the income of male heads of households.
She also spoke about the 350,000 older women who are living below the poverty line. She talked of the role of the Government in terms of its own appointments. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) pointed out that the Treasury Board literally fought tooth and nail against giving the female general service workers equal pay for equal work. Of course, it was the courts, not the Government of Canada, that effected that necessary change. The point was also made that in the last year the Government of Canada has appointed two women judges out of 47 appointments. This reflects the old saying, "Judge by what I say, not by what I do".
March 7, 1983

My role today is to speak on pornography and sexual stereotyping mentioned in the motion. I would specifically like to speak to the Government's indicated attitude with respect to pornography on Pay TV and other media. There are a few Canadians who still believe that pornography is a victimless product. Pornography is defined here as a visual representation of a sexual behaviour that includes a degrading portrayal of a human being. Does it result in increased crimes against women and children? I think that the evidence now is overwhelming that it does. Time is short, so I will give just a couple of reasons for saying that.
One police superintendant in Detroit was asked a number of years ago about the connection between pornography and sex murders in his city. Ele said, "There has not been a sex murder in the history of our department", that is the City of Detroit Police department, "in which the killer was not an avid reader of lewd magazines."
The question of wife battering was raised today. Let me quote Irene Diamond from Purdue University who cited a number of police reports indicating that wife batterers are frequently devotees of pornography. She quotes Dr. James Bannon of the Detroit Police Force as saying:
-often we find that the man is trying to enact a scene in some pornographic pictures.
Dr. Diana Russell of Mills College, California, has recently conducted research in this area. She surveyed 929 women living in the San Francisco area and asked them if they had, "ever been upset by anyone trying to get you to do what they had seen in pornographic pictures, movies or books." There were 89 of these women whom she surveyed, or 10 per cent, who indicated that they had been upset at least once when they were asked to describe experiences that concerned them the most. The list of replies included 15 sexual assaults. She concluded, on the premise that the sample was representative of the area, that:
-10 per cent of the women interviewed felt they had been personally victimized by pornography.
Unfortunately, we have not had the same amount of research done in Canada up to now, but I submit that the more recent research indicates a similar connection in Canada. Some studies which were conducted by Dr. Neil Malamuth of the University of Manitoba have indicated, for example, that repeatedly exposing adult males to violent pornography has resulted in self-generated rape fantasies. His conclusion is that there is a causal connection between pornography and crimes against women and children.
I think it is no accident that we have seen a 20 per cent increase in the number of sexual offences across Canada between 1976 and 1980, rising from 10,000 offences to 12,000 offences. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that this increase in Canada appears to track the increase of sexual violence in soft and hard core pornography magazines during the same period. Some will say that it is a coincidence. I say that it is not.
Finally, I would cite Dr. Susan Penfield who announced last fall that in about 50 father-daughter incest cases that she has treated, there was a wealth of pornography in the adults' home. She concluded that, indeed, there was a connection
Supply
between pornography and incest in these cases. 1 put this to someone whom I might call a pro-pornography acquaintance of mine some time ago, and his reply was: "Well, you would find pornography in any fifty homes". I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we would.
The second issue I would like to deal with is the question of the Government of Canada putting taxpayer money in to what by any definition is a hard-core pornography movie, namely "Videodrome", which is now playing across Canada. I asked the President of the Canadian Coalition Against Media Pornography, Maude Barlow-and I might add that her coalition now appears to be represented in 19 cities and seems to have enormous and rising support from people across the country-what was her opinion of the film, "Videodrome"? I would like to quote part of the letter she wrote about it recently. I quote:
I watched nude women shackled, being whipped by men in leather masks; I saw the heroine burn her own breast with a lighted cigarette to get herself in the mood; and I watched the audience, watch and moan, as the hero making love to the newly burned heroine, rammed hat pins through her ear lobes, licking off the blood, all to heighten-
-the experience. She called it, and I quote:
-a brutal little movie, with little plot and dreadful acting, and it is part of a growing trend to treat women as willing victims to male masochism in the mass media.
So we have the incredible situation where the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) is pretending to be against what First Choice is doing with Playboy movies, and at the same time we have the Government investing taxpayers' money to produce garbage films like "Videodrome."
Last week, the Minister of Communications announced a new policy in which he explicitly barred the CRTC from dealing with "any restriction on freedom of expression." So the Minister of Communications, while seemingly against what First Choice is doing with the Playboy program, last week brought in a new policy to prevent the Government from telling CRTC to bar this type of thing in the case of cable pay television.
I go back to what the Coalition Against Media Pornography is saying, and I am told that these four recommendations that they have, none of which the Government has accepted, have recently been accepted by the Advisory Council for the Status of Women and was adopted by 60 national women's groups across Canada.
First, the National Coalition is calling for legislation which would in effect bar, and I quote:
-all media images that equate sex and violence. The Criminal Code definition of obscenity would have to be changed from an emphasis on morality and sexual explicitness to one dealing with the repression inherent in violent pornography;-
Second, the Government should:
2.	Establish guidelines for the C.R.T.C. and the Canadian Film Development Corporation who are at present in the business of licensing a pornography market in Canada, and have those guidelines apply to federally funded films and pay television. The C.R.T.C. guidelines on sex-role stereotyping are, I believe, excellent and would serve. As well, the Broadcast Act which must also be applied

March 7, 1983
Supply
to pay television, must be changed to include the protection of women and children.
Third, the National Coalition Against Media Pornography asks that the Governments of Canada:
3.	Implement local by-laws to limit access to pornography by children. While this will not erase the problem, at least it will say to the next generation that this generation cares about it, and it is not okay when they go to buy candy at their local store to flip through magazines showing the bondage and rape of women, who are of course, "loving it."
The fourth recommendation of the Coalition is:
4.	And finally, and permanently, education. We must confront pornography, talk about it, protest it, boycott stores carrying it, fight about it in our homes, include courses dealing with it in our schools and understand it. For to continue to turn a blind eye to pornography,-
I add parenthetically "as this Government is doing":
-is to never confront what we need to know. What we need to know about pornography is painful, but until we see that truth, we will continue to live a lie.
Those are the recommendations of the Coalition Against Media Pornography. I understand that that coalition has the support of something like three million Canadians. Churches have supported them, as well as women's organizations and other organizations right across Canada.
My time is running out, but I want to repeat some of the things that have been said by the National Association of Women and the Law which held its biennial conference in Victoria recently on February 23 to 25, which made the following recommendations.


Judith A. Erola: We funded that.


David Kilgour: First, that Canada's pay television licensees should be bound by the sex-role stereotyping guidelines recommended last September by the CRTC task force. You might be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters strongly supports these guidelines but no pay TV licensee is a member of that organization. This Party has already indicated through its cultural spokesman, the Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), that it supports this recommendation, and we supported it at the time of the controversy over the licensing by the CRTC of pornography on pay TV.
The second recommendation of the National Association of Women and the Law was, and I quote:
(2)	That the Regulations under the Broadcasting Act which prohibit the broadcasting of "any abusive comment or pictorial representation of any race, religion or creed" be amended to include ABUSIVE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF SEX (i.e. abusive material against women) and that these Regulations be made to apply to pay television licensees;-
Again I would state for the record that this Party has already urged that this be done through its cultural spokesman.
Third the National Women's group recommended, and I am quoting:
(3)	That the hate propaganda section (281.2) of the Criminal Code prohibiting the incitement of hatred against identifiable races, ethnic and religious groups be amended to include hate propaganda against women.
How has the Government replied to all this? The Minister Responsible for the status of women (Mrs. Erola) interjected
that they had funded the conference. Very good, but what is the Government going to do about the meat, as compared to the icing on the cake? What is going to be done about the substance of what is recommended as compared to funding, with the $89 billion budget this year? Instead, as I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Communication brought in a new policy last week, and I have already referred to how that policy explicitly bars the CRTC from doing anything about content. In his policy statement the Minister said that the issuing of a broadcasting license to a particular applicant or the amendment or renewal of a particular broadcast license, the specific content of programming, any restriction on freedom of expression are not to be the business, it would appear to me, of the Governor in Council. In other words, the Government is opting out of the problem created by the pay television Playboy broadcasts.
Why can the Government not do something in its new broadcasting policy to prevent the Canada Film Development Corporation from making anti-women, anti-humanity, antichildren films like "Videodrome"? They will come back and tell us that it is freedom of expression and they want total freedom of expression whether it involves the disembowelling of women or children or whatever. That is total freedom of expression. That is one of the altars at which this Government worships, unfortunately.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I am simply saying to the Government that it is easy to talk, it is easy to fund. It is harder to act, it is harder to do, when one knows that it is, I gather, one of the chief tenets of 1980s liberalism that the community has no rights, families have no rights, people with any sense of decency have no rights because the only people we listen to are those who call for total freedom of expression. If a producer calls for a movie such as "Videodrome" which requires disembowelling or sticking a pin in a woman's earlobe, that is okay because there is a minority who think that is just fine. I submit that times have changed. People are getting concerned about the causal connection between pornography and crimes against women and children. I tried to cite some evidence showing that it is becoming more and more obvious that there is a connection.
I simply ask the Government for once not to talk about its concern but to get up on its hind legs and do something about the problem that will make this country fit for all Canadians and finally break the connection between crime and sex and violence which has become so endemic to our culture at the moment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, answers, comments.


Mr. Tousignant:: Mr. Speaker, whenever the Hon. Member refers to violence, pornography and so on, I must first assure
March 7, 1983

him that I wholeheartedly share his concerns. He stated earlier that what was needed was something besides speeches, that is action. But to introduce a positive element in this debate, I would like to hear the Hon. Member make suggestions to this House. If his party were in government, what concrete steps would he suggest and advocate, because he said indeed that action was needed besides speeches? Concerning, for instance, the cable distribution of pornographic films and so forth, I would like to know what concrete steps his Government, were they in power-


An Hon. Member:: Impossible!


Henri Tousignant: -would take specifically to avoid this.


David Kilgour: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for asking those questions. I am quite happy that he shares my concerns about pornography. It just happens that I introduced a bill, two weeks ago, that dealt with child and adult pornography. There is no secret about this. If he wants a copy, I can send him one. I can say very briefly that my bill is quite similar to that introduced by Senator Kennedy, from the State of Massachusetts, in the U.S. Senate, and I suggest without hesitation that Mr. Kennedy was no great conservative in the ethnological sense of the term. 1 think he now knows that pornography has become a problem so big that something must be done, especially with respect to child pornography. If he wants a copy, I will very gladly send him one.
Briefly, this illustrates three aspects of the subject. First, the film was clearly offensive to the vast majority of the people. Second, it has no scientific or serious purpose, and, third, for a citizen, this is something unacceptable; those are three arguments against adult and child pornography. Clearly there can be no right, as we now have in Canada, to involve a child under 18 in a sexual act, and it is my sincere hope that he can speak with the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), because action is needed now in that area.


Henri Tousignant: Once again, Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to congratulate the Hon. Member and I want to say that I fully share his concern. I also wish to take a few moments to congratulate him on his French which has been excellent these last few months. He has made tremendous progress and his French is really very good now.
However, to get back to pornography, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether, considering Canada's geographical location with respect to the United States ... Yes, I think we could easily oblige the CRTC to ban those programs if we really wanted to. But when we consider that fairly soon, our neighbours to the south will be broadcasting 100 or so television programs which we will be able to pick up here in Canada, what is Canada going to do about that?


David Kilgour: Once again, I understand perfectly well that there is a problem with our neighbours to the south. However, not long ago I was told about a conference held in Great Britain some months ago with 25 countries participating.
Supply
Among these countries, 23 or 24 were terribly concerned about pornography. Only the United States failed to show any serious appreciation of this problem. But after all, we cannot allow First Choice to broadcast Playboy films on rape, for instance. The Hon. Member probably saw the fragment we were showed two weeks ago on rape and similar subjects.
I realize there is a problem with the United States. However, we must not grant a licence. We must tell First Choice that they may not broadcast films dealing with violence against women.
Today I happened to have lunch with someone who had just arrived from India. We talked about this subject and he mentioned that if the Indian film industry, which is very large, shows anything that represents an attack against women, the Supreme Court will not allow it to be shown. So in India, there is respect for women, in fact for both sexes, and I wonder why Canada is incapable of taking the same attitude towards people of both sexes, just as Indian and many other countries have done.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I really would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona on his excellent French and the progress he has made in the course of the years, and I also want to congratulate his French teacher. That being said-

-having said that, I now want to say that this very important subject dealing with the status of women in this country, which we all know is not what it should be, is not being treated by this House with the seriousness it deserves. I say this because as I look across at the Official Opposition, I see only five Members sitting there while this motion which they brought before this House is being debated. We have ten on this side, and it is not our day. It is not our responsibility to have Members here. It is shocking that the galleries are empty except for a few people at one end. It is shocking that there is no one here from the press.
Is this levity the way in which we should be treating this situation today? Is this the seriousness with which the Opposition Parties treat their own motion? There are three Ministers here who take these issues very seriously, as do the majority of Members in this Party, even on an Opposition day.
If the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is so concerned about pornography why, when this matter was before the Justice Committee last year and we were dealing with a Bill on child pornography so that children could not be exploited for pornographic purposes, did we not have the support of all Members of the Opposition? I know that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona was in favour of changes at that time, and 1 congratulate him, but why were the other Members of the Opposition not supporting us at that time on that important piece of legislation?

March 7, 1983
Supply


David Kilgour: I believe, Mr. Speaker, your colleague this morning ruled we should not make a comment about the number of Members here or not here, and I think that is the question. There are a lot of Hon. Members not present on this side, and a lot of Hon. Members not present on the other side. I do not think the Hon. Member can expect us to fill the galleries this afternoon. That is not our responsibility.
The trouble with the Bill which was proposed last summer, although it was a step forward by the Government, and its heart was in the right place-I admit that freely and openly- was that it was not as good as it should be, and I believe the Hon. Member will also recognize that fact. I looked at that Bill and I looked at the Bill of Senator Kennedy in the United States Senate, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will go to the new Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and persuade him that Senator Kennedy's Bill is much better than the one the Parliamentary Secretary brought in last summer. I hope that the Government will do something about it quickly because child pornography is not a joke in this country. It is something, I submit, which should be a priority of Government. I believe we could pass it in the House in a day, if the Government brought in a Bill which fights child pornography. I am sure that the Hon. Members of this House would pass such a Bill very, very quickly. We in the Opposition cannot bring forward Bills, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. It is something that this Government should do with all maximum speed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will take my theme from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), that the resolution deals with a range of issues which are of very critical concern to the well-being of this country, that is, the status of women and the ways in which we must define their opportunities for greater equality and a definition of their role in society. I would like to change, though, if I might, the focus of the day from that of the previous Hon. Member who dealt exclusively with questions of pornography, and speak about an issue which I believe is very much at the base of the issue of equality for women, and that is the question of employment.
There is no question but that the economics of women in this society is one which must be faced, and faced with a great deal of candid scrutiny, both in terms of where we have gone in the past and where we should go in the future. I would like to begin by refuting the assertion made in the resolution that this Government has not attempted to respond to specific questions. Certainly it is true we have not solved the problem but it is not true to say we have not cared. There has been a great deal of time and attention paid as to how we could address ourselves to the very long, traditional and conventional biases and discriminations which have existed in the system for generations, in fact, for centuries. I would feel that Hon. Members of the Opposition might be kind enough to accept and acknowledge that those underlying hard, obdurate elements of discrimination which have been around for so long,
are not subject to a miraculous panacea which can be implemented in a matter of weeks or even in some cases years. It must be something which is worked at in a very diligent way.
I would like to address those issues, in part, because I believe many of the other areas mentioned in the resolution, such as pension reform, pornography and relations of families in society, are matters which are now receiving a high level of leadership from our present Minister responsible for the status of women. Perhaps no one in this House can speak better than I about the volatility and sensitivity of those issues, Mr. Speaker. But I would like to indicate that I feel the present Minister has accomplished a great and significant step forward in those areas and does provide in our Government a high degree of sensitivity to those issues in a way which I think is exemplary, and is providing all of us with a very profound and a very useful set of directions in which we must go.
However, I would like to point out my own continuing concern and interest in the issue of women's employment because in our own Department we have a special responsibility to provide some sense of leadership in this area. I would like to take the opportunity in the House to outline what I see the problems to be and to share the kinds of concerns I have, as well as to indicate to Hon. Members of this House the initiatives which we are taking and where we would welcome their support and involvement in trying to make those initiatives work.
To begin with, we must face the ageless problem which women have always faced, that of being in the job ghetto. For a long period of time women were basically confined in society to a role which did not even permit them to work in occupations which were considered to be the natural preserve of men. Fortunately, that is beginning to change. We have gone through a really remarkable and critical transformation, if you look at the history of this country. In the 1950s some 20 per cent of women in this country worked. That figure is now closer to 60 per cent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what is even more dramatic is that in the rest of the decade of the 1980s, women will make up close to 70 per cent of the new workers coming into the new work force. They will represent almost two out of every three workers coming into the work force and, therefore, will represent the best potential we have in terms of new people with new skills, aptitudes, and a freshness of approach, who will help this country adapt to the very profound changes which are taking place in our industrial structure. In order for that to happen, Mr. Speaker, there must be ways in which women can break out of the conventional mould. It is still true and still very tragic that about 60 per cent of women working are working in fields which are classically considered to be the preserve of women, primarily in service and clerical occupations. There continue to be limits to a high degree of access to the non-traditional areas for women. I can point to the apprenticeship programs which are administered by our provincial Governments where they consider it to be a great achievement if 5 per cent of the enrolment in machinist courses, electrician courses or high technology courses are women. That is not the way they are going to break out of the ghetto trap they are in now.
March 7, 1983

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, we are also facing, perhaps, a new shadow on the horizon which again will have a very, very dark impact upon the occupational role of women, that is, the changing of our industrial structure. My colleague, the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), has commissioned a major task force which has reported on the technological change which we will be experiencing in this area. What is pointed out very clearly is the way in which women will be, perhaps, the group of society most profoundly affected by that change, because the occupations which will be altered and adjusted are those which are susceptible to the new microchip technology. That makes it all the more imperative and critical that we address the employment occupational role of women in our society. We must help them adjust to their new jobs, their new training and their new employment opportunities.
I believe that that particular exercise is one which we tried to address almost three years ago at the beginning of this new Government. We recognized that we would have to start a number of initiatives on a number of fronts in order to address that problem. The first area where we attempted to meet the issue was on the basic support which we could give to women in terms of their entry into the work force and their adjustment to new jobs. It was quite clear that many of the systems of guidance and counselling which were available to women were not sufficient because in many respects the ability of younger women in the school system to gain that kind of information was simply non-existent. These women were in fact preparing themselves for occupations which were not going to be there in the future, which simply would no longer exist. Furthermore, women coming into the work force after their families had grown up also did not have the proper skills, the orientation or know-how to go and get that first job or take advantage of the opportunities which might exist.
One of the critical issues we tried to face was to improve substantially and to upgrade the counselling, guidance and employment information system available to Government. Let me just point out two major initiatives we have taken. I think this does reflect in part on the Opposition resolution. We decided that one of the most important things to do was to develop a network of specialized counselling centres for women which would be able to concentrate and specialize in the problems women have in the work force, and make sure they were available on a much wider basis. When I took over this ministry, Mr. Speaker, the number of Outreach Programs available to women, instituted by the previous Government, was 14. 1 am proud to say that there are now 32. We have virtually doubled the number of Outreach projects, and we will continue to increase those numbers as time goes on. So when Hon. Members talk about sensitivity, I ask, where were they in 1979 when they had the opportunity to do the very same thing but did not do it? There was no increase in Outreach Programs to help women.
Similarly, we recognize that in our own network of employment centres we had to establish a system which would provide specialized centres and a source of information which could radiate out through the other employment counselling centres
Supply
across Canada. So what we have done is to establish a series of nine specialized women's counselling units in major centres across Canada. Their job and responsibility is to work with other employment centres, the school system and provincial Governments to provide that specialized counselling, training and information, and make it available to women.
I have a sheaf of correspondence which I received from a number of women who have gone through those programs, benefited from them and have now been able to gain a new or different kind of employment as a result of the services offered. I simply point out that those pilot projects can provide the prototype that we would like to apply across the board to ensure that we are able to take the initiative. I think that indicates that indeed we are responsive and sensitive to the employment concerns of women by putting that network in place.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, going beyond counselling and guidance, you must provide the link in the chain which will ensure that women have adequate and proper skills to take the jobs that will be there. I cannot over-emphasize the critical importance of training as a key element enabling women to cope with the present ghettoization they face, but also to adjust to the new world of work they will be forced to face as this decade proceeds. The ability to acquire new skills and move into new occupational areas is really at the centre of our employment strategy, and one I think which provides the greatest opportunity for women to make a major leap forward in obtaining new occupational opportunities.
So the question is, what have we attempted to do under this particular category of initiatives? Again, the most important step was the passing of a new National Training Act. That Act had the support of Opposition Members, and 1 am still appreciative of that response. It has also been well received by all the Provinces, which have signed agreements under that Act and are now working jointly with us in its implementation. There are a number of initiatives in that program with special relevance to women. First is the establishment of the COPS program, which will really be a future navigational system to detect and determine the occupational changes in the labour force. We have been flying blind for so long in this country, not knowing what jobs will be there and the skills required to meet them. So we now have established a pooled information system, using all the modern techniques of forecasting, to enable us to begin to forecast and look ahead to the kind of jobs that will be there. Once we have that information in place we will be able to transmit it back into the school system so that young men and women can begin preparing themselves for the jobs that will be there. The school program will then anticipate, not merely react, and then share that information with employers, trade unions and provincial Governments so that we have an early warning system so that young people will not be caught in an occupational trap. They will be able to anticipate and therefore prepare themselves.
A second element of that program is the establishment of the skills growth fund, because we recognize that in order to

March 7, 1983
Supply
meet the demands of new occupations we had to modernize the training system in Canada. We cannot continue training people in old occupations, obsolescent jobs; we have to prepare them for the new world of work. We have to be able to work with community colleges, non-profit organizations and business groups to begin new training centres. In particular, we have openly invited women's groups and non-profit groups to start specialized training centres for women in those new occupational requirements. I have on my desk now a series of very useful proposals from the YWCA to establish new training programs for women in the new high-skill, high-tech trades. We have been able to open up right across this country, for example in the community colleges in the riding of the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald), new areas of computer and machine technology which will increase the number of places available to men and women. But then we have gone beyond that and established reserve places for women in those occupations so that they will not have to compete, that they will in effect have an advantage to make sure that their previous disadvantages could be overcome.
The third step we have taken, Mr. Speaker, is to provide for special subsidies under the National Training Act, again to ensure that the employer of a woman in job training would receive up to a 75 per cent subsidy to help break down the barrier so that women who have not had the opportunity to be trained as a heavy duty mechanic, millwright or pipe fitter will get on the job training. We have been able to put close to 5,000 women in those training positions over the past two years. This will substantially change the scale of non-traditional training of women in those areas. Under the National Training Act we have tried to reorganize and reform the programs available for pre-trade and occupational training. Again we have something like 2,000 or 3,000 specialized places, 85 per cent of which are occupied by women who can receive the three or four-week sort of initial skills preparation so that they are in a position to chose which kind of new technical skills they would like to occupy.
What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to use this Act as the instrument by which we can shift the direction, focus and orientation of training, and open up new opportunities for women. We will do this partly by allowing them to be selfsufficient and establish their own training programs; partly by reserving places for them; and partly by providing fiscal incentives for employers, community colleges and others to break down the existing training barriers.
The third area I would like to address is that of job creation. Again, we recognize that it is important to provide for programs which would enable women to get first-time experience in the job market. Perhaps one of the most difficult and agonizing problems faced by women coming into the labour market is that first-time job, getting the track record to be able to demonstrate competence in certain fields. It is there that we have tried to refocus our job creation programs. We have a highly specialized Canada Community Services Program which provides direct employment grants to a large variety of
service agencies, partly to help the agencies directed toward women, such as abuse centres and day-care centres, but also to provide an avenue in which women can get that first-time employment. Close to 85 per cent of people employed in that program are women, and through the program we provided for first-time job experience in areas that are crucial.
As Hon. Members know, in the application forms for the Canada Community Development Project sponsors are required to list an affirmative action plan as part of their submission. The validity of the submission is judged upon the demonstrated ability or willingness of the sponsors to hire women. In the past, that particular facet of the program had been ignored or not properly utilized. We are now trying to reorient our job-creation programs in that direction.
Third, the special program for employment of the disadvantaged is working very well through providing direct employment incentives and subsidies. These will pay up to 85 per cent of the employment costs, to employers of women who have special problems. Immigrant women, first-time women workers or women who have been out of the work force for a long period of time are all eligible. We are trying to use that employment disadvantaged program as a vehicle to break down employment barriers and open up opportunities that did not exist previously.
We have put in place a number of initiatives and support, Mr. Speaker. Beyond that, we recognize that there are special categories of women who must cope with problems beyond the normal frustrations and anxieties of women. A good example is native women. Perhaps no group in our society is more deeply discriminated against than they are. We work very closely with the Canadian Native Women's Council and we support them in the development of a number of employment co-ordinators for native women across Canada. They are now working with employers, with native organizations and community organizations to try to find a special employment role for native women.
We also took notice of the fact that domestic workers- women brought in to provide a service function which Canadians in large part are not prepared to provide-are being discriminated against in a number of areas. We gave them the option of choosing to settle in Canada as part of the benefit they would receive because they are prepared to do a job that many Canadians do not want to do. The preliminary assessments of that program made by the organization representing domestic workers, shows that in large part it has been successful.
I want to point out that the Government is trying to initiate a number of proposals to provide employment opportunities for women and to break down barriers. In order to be totally successful we need the support of all Members of Parliament. It is important that they work with us in their constituencies to help make these programs effective. If we can work in partnership with the other major players in the economy, we will be
March 7, 1983

able to take a long step forward to discount or eliminate many of the hard or unyielding areas of discrimination that have existed up to now. 1 am confident that we can break this barrier down if we find ways of working in a partnership.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) took part in the debate. I want to express to him now, as I have before, the concern that the Government does not seem to be aware of the magnitude of the problem that confronts us, and not just today but that will confront us in the next number of years. As the Minister knows, employment amongst women increased 41 per cent last year. The Minister responsible for the status of women said that that was not very substantial, but I consider it to be substantial.
I am concerned as well that every study, every document, every analysis shows that one million additional women may become unemployed in the next few years as a result of the technological revolution that is sweeping over us. The Minister made some very encouraging comments with regard to training younger people. The question that has not been addressed is what happens to these millions of women who are presently employed and are going to see their jobs vanish in the next few years. These women hold the jobs that are considered most vulnerable to the high technology revolution.
These things are not going to be resolved by increasing the number of Outreach Programs or putting in nine new counsellors, or whatever number the Minister mentioned. That is fine, but it is not the major issue. The question is, what is being done about this major problem? It is being addressed by other countries in different ways. The problem is not just the number of people who will be unemployed; it is also that women, more than men, are reluctant to come to grips with the high technology revolution. That has been proven in studies in France and Japan where public information and educational programs have been carried out in a television series so that people can be educated while their jobs still exist.
Is this sort of thing being considered by the Government? It is of such magnitude that it goes much beyond anything the Minister said this afternoon. I am not arguing with what he said, I am only asking him to address a much larger question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Member asked for elaboration. I was trying to cover a number of topics in my response and did not take time to address the issue she raised, which, unquestionably, is of great magnitude.
I point out that not only the numbers of women coming into the labour force, but the adjustment of many women in their present occupations, represents one of the major challenges the country faces. The question is, how do we respond to this challenge?
1 believe we have to start with a new training system and a way of transmitting new skills. If we do not have that framework in place, all the other information and education programs would be of no avail. If a woman is prepared to change and wants to know how to go about it, we would not be in a position to help her if those programs were not in place. That is why I put such strong emphasis on the modernization of our
Supply
training systems, such as helping community colleges to buy new machinery or facilities in order to open up new hi-tech training opportunities.
I can give an example in the Province of New Brunswick. About 25 per cent of the training offered was in high-skill trades. In one year, with the skills growth fund, that has been increased to 38 per cent. This dramatic leap is owing to the strategic allocation of funds and to help given that college to buy the new simulator it needed.
I should like to tell one small anecdote, Mr. Speaker. I went to Holland College in Prince Edward Island which has a training program for deck officers in the offshore industry. We are still required to import people from offshore because not enough Canadians have been trained. By sheer coincidence I found a young woman from my riding in Winnipeg taking the course. A year ago, the college could not train people in the high-skill navigational jobs because it did not have a navigational simulator which cost $900,000. It had been trying to get one for ten years. We made the grant from the skills growth fund, and two months ago the college bought the simulator. It is now in a position to train 60 or 70 additional deck officers, and they will be able to find instant employment in the offshore industries on the East Coast. Women are being trained because that is part of the agreement.
I recognize that once the framework is in place, we must take the next step. We recognize that the essential ingredient is to provide ways for people to train while they are on the job. A special task force has been established in my Department, involving business and labour, to look at the whole area of skill development leave. That is so that workers presently employed would be able to take a month or three months or six months off to be retrained for a new occupation.
There is one other area that I would like the Hon. Member to consider, although it is not yet policy. We are looking very seriously at the way in which the work-sharing program that has been very successful across Canada-we have signed
11,000	agreements with private sector firms-might be utilized to enable workers on the job to be retrained in new skills, new technology and new machines on which they will have to work, so that they can still maintain their income while on the job and gain a new skill. This would require some very serious co-operation from business and labour, who are both quite nervous about it because it will break many of the old rules of unions, of hiring and of doing business. It will take some basic restructuring of our industrial fabric in order to respond to the problem.
We cannot provide a major reform or change simply in a unilateral way. We have to bring people along with us. We are using that particular task force and the work done by the Minister of Labour to try to develop a consensus on a new form of paid educational leave in the country which will allow people to be trained on the job for the new skills they will

March 7, 1983
Supply
require. That is another area in which we are taking a major step.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct three questions to the Minister, if I may. First, does he feel that the six and five program has borne more heavily upon men or women? Second, is the women's Affirmative Action Program of his own Department in the action stage or in the assessment stage? Third, could he tell us how the 1.5 million to two million unemployed Canadians break down in terms of sex; more women or more men?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the six and five program has had a very dramatic and positive impact upon the employment of women. The hundreds of millions of dollars we were able to realize from that program were reallocated into direct employment programs which have put many people back to work, including a lot of women.
On the issue of Affirmative Action, we decided very clearly that it was important as a way of demonstrating to society at large that the Public Service of Canada must incorporate and implement its own Affirmative Action Programs before it could ask them to do the same thing.
We are not moving into the action stage. We have completed the first two phases of that Affirmative Action Program. A full assessment of numbers has been done, the comparative figures in terms of the work force, across the board in the Department of the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), in Treasury Board, my Department and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The program is now in the implementation stage. 1 believe the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) has a number of new proposals to expand substantially the program, but they are really within his responsibility. 1 do not want to interfere. I believe in that particular area we are supplying another initiative to show how we can bring down work barriers.
On the question concerning the division of the unemployed, it is not a simple division between men and women. I believe the group most seriously affected by the recession, the group about which we should be most preoccupied, is young women. They are the ones who are most dramatically affected by the lack of jobs at the present time. This is why Members of my caucus and myself have been working very diligently to try to provide a new youth employment strategy. I hope we will have an opportunity to present it to the House in very short order.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that 1 have just returned from British Columbia where there were a number of very successful and moving meetings of women's groups over the weekend in celebration of International Women's Day. At this time I would like to pay tribute-and I am sure that I speak on behalf of all Members of the House-to the many active women's groups across Canada that are working within their own membership and forming coalitions with each other to work for change in this country. I am sure most of us in the
House have profited by the information and the lobbying they do so effectively.
In Vancouver the theme was particularly appropriate. The theme they were using this year was: "Hard times won't stop us". If ever there was a need for that theme and that kind of objective, it is during these very hard times which are affecting women in particular.
We are proud of the women of Canada and their accomplishments. We are not so proud of the accomplishments of the Government or of the House. Over a century ago working women first protested cruel working conditions, miserable pay and the hard hours to which they were condemned. Their sisters 75 years ago started the demand for bread and roses- bread which was for economic security and roses for a better quality of life. I think we would agree that we still have a long way to go in reaching true equality in both the bread and roses sense.
This past year there were a few symbolic gains. The first women judge was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada; only one out of seven of course. We have 16 women out of approximately 282 Members of Parliament; certainly that is far from what we all want to achieve. Also we can be very proud of the role women played in insisting that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must guarantee equality for both male and female persons, and for the skilful organization and lobbying and the persistence which twice brought women to Ottawa, with no funding, to help change the provisions of the Charter of Rights in their favour.
The annual lobby of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women is another very positive and effective tradition which is developing. We will be hearing from women across Canada very soon. Close to 200 organizations will lobby on behalf of equity for women. However, when we look at the facts, in particular when Canadian women look at the facts, we agree that the status of women in Canada in 1983 is a national disgrace.
The figures indicate that two out of three elderly women live in poverty and that nearly 50 per cent of all single women are poor. This includes younger women as well as women in their middle years and pensioners. This is increasing every month as more women are left on their own when they are separated, widowed and divorced. Statistics show that most poor families are headed by women. These are mothers who have been left to raise children on their own. Their numbers are increasing every month. Included also is the very serious increase in the number of teenage pregnancies and young teenage mothers who are keeping their children and will probably be on welfare most of their lives.
We protested strongly the Government restraint Bills because they imposed a very unfair burden on women, in particular the six and five restraints on the very low salaries paid most women in the Government service, on family Allowances and, of course, on pensioners, most of whom are women with very minimum standards of living.
March 7, 1983

Women in the work force also have suffered exceedingly this past year. In a year when we should be improving their situation and when the Speech from the Throne promised to improve their situation for women in Canada, the condition of women in the work force has worsened considerably.
More than ever before women are locked into low-paying job ghettoes in clerical sales and service fields, fields where they will soon be phased out by technological change, as other speakers have documented. Women have little chance for promotion. In fact, the Government's record of promotion within the federal Public Service is deplorable. There are fewer women in middle management and senior positions now than there were a few years ago. If they are not already unemployed, many women are very insecure in their jobs, expecting to be the next to go, or they are being reduced to part-time jobs. Again this is a situation which the Government is almost promoting-the whole concept of part-time work. We know that it is usually women who are forced into part-time jobs with part-time pay, with no opportunity to get ahead and, of course, usually in non-unionized situations.
As times get tougher men move into the few well paid jobs which have been female dominated, such as those in the field of teaching and nursing, as was documented recently by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. There are few promotions for women into executive and management jobs, certainly not in the federal Public Service. The only gains women are making seem to be in some of the professions. I think one of the most positive developments is the increasing number of very bright, competent young women entering the field of law. They are entering law because they are determined to right the wrongs and to work for further equality for women.
I spoke yesterday to a business and professional women's group in Vancouver. I was pleased to hear that many women who have held junior jobs in businesses, banks, and so on, are now moving into their own small businesses. The failure rate for businesswomen has been much lower than for businessmen, which is another positive sign for women. But it is thanks to the women themselves, not to Government action.
Last week I also attended the annual conference of the National Association of Women and the Law which was held in Victoria. For two days they discussed at great length the whole situation of the economy as it affects women, as well as technological change which is phasing women out of traditional areas of work. Group after group and expert after expert who spoke to this conference insisted that the only way to protect women against this kind of inequality in the work place is to have mandatory affirmative action. That is why, upon my return to the House, I questioned the Minister responsible for the status of women on the Government's position on mandatory affirmative action. This was very important to the many groups, the ones who are the most knowledgeable about this aspect who attended that conference. I was extremely disappointed the Minister ignored the question of mandatory affirmative action and contract compliance-and instead gave us a lot of platitudes about what this Government is doing.
Supply
This Government is doing nothing in a positive way respecting the whole question of affirmative action.
We must keep insisting on the legal right of women to equal pay for work of equal value. This must start at the federal Government level, at the provincial Government level and at the local Government level. I would urge women across this country to get after their Governments and insist that the standards be set in the Public Service.
Women across Canada have been studying the impact of microtechnology and automation which threatens their economic future even more than does the present recession and, heaven knows, that is serious enough. It is essential for the Government to get involved in this area much more directly. I think it is important to encourage some kind of charter of economic rights to impress upon employers that they must protect women in the work place from the hazards of VDTs, and so on. Employers must plan with employees for future layoffs and future technological changes. Employers must get involved in retraining and they must give women equal opportunities to move into the new technologies, management and supervisory positions.
The Government has held conferences on this subject, but we have to have more than conferences. We need real leadership. The best protection women have is to belong to a union and to have a union fighting for these rights, making sure that women have equal rights in the work force. Unfortunately, many of the job areas we are talking about are not unionized, which makes things difficult. Usually these are the areas in which women are first displaced.
There must be a greater opportunity for women to train in non-traditional fields of work, such as the trades. The Minister for Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) spoke of the Government's record in this field. I know he is aware of the need in this area. I know he is trying, and I will give him credit for that. However, I cannot understand, when I listen to him talking about all the wonderful things he is doing, why it is that week after week in my constituency women tell me that they cannot get into apprentice training courses or pre-apprentice training, nor can they get child care. Women who live outside of urban centres have absolutely no hope of getting into these fields. At the moment it is far from practical for women to get into these non-traditional fields of work such as the trades.
While pressing for equality in the work force, we must also make sure that social services are not eroded, particularly those needed by women, whatever their age. This House is well aware of the increase in the number of battered wives and the need for transition houses in the community. Not enough is being done about that. The Government itself needs to be called to task, and it needs to take a look at the recommendations that we all agreed to last spring.
Women with young children, especially those on their own and working, need affordable child care. They need family support centres of different kinds. This is another area in

March 7, 1983
Supply
which we have a long way to go. We are going backwards instead of forwards in the whole area of child care which is so important to women and children.
The essential work of women in the home must be recognized. This is the year when we should commit ourselves to this recognition as a major goal. I will not go over the history of statements by the Minister responsible for the status of women, but many women who stay at home feel put down. It is very important to realize that women, despite great financial difficulty, often remain at home because they feel it is very important to be with their children when they are young. These women should have some recognition for doing this. I think it is important that the Government begin to think about some form of financial recognition. Perhaps Family Allowances should be increased even more and some of the amount go toward a benefits payment into the Canada Pension Plan.
As more and more people, particularly women, are forced into part-time work we must review the whole concept of a guaranteed income. This is long overdue. We know there will not be enough jobs to go around in the future. People will be under-employed in the traditional sense, if not completely unemployed. There are many things which they can still be doing. But we will have to look at the whole concept of a guaranteed income and how we can begin phasing in this kind of program, perhaps targeting first at some of the groups with the greatest need. Surely in the future computers and robots that are taking over our industries can be put to work to increase our Gross National Product to improve society rather than dehumanizing the work place. There are many community jobs in human services that are needed, particularly as our population is aging rapidly. There are many creative endeavours in which people can be involved for which they have skills and talents. These must be expanded in the future as our traditional jobs are phased out. Women who have been home makers have particular skills for human relations kinds of jobs and for management and community service. But they need pay just like the rest of us do.
On this subject I would like to refer the findings of the NDP Task Force on Older Women. This was a non-partisan task force. We held hearings in every Province last fall. We received 150 briefs and questionnaires from over 1,200 women from all across Canada, including the North. These were from women in their middle years as well as in the older age group. We found over and over again that this age group, the forgotten age group, women in their middle years and over, are facing double, if not triple, discrimination. They often are hidden from society, particularly if they live alone. Many often live in one room apartments and are alienated from society.
I expected that the needs of women on old age pensions would be the greatest. However, I found that although inadequate pensions for women is a major concern in every Province, there are many other issues that need our attention. Women who are single, divorced or widowed find their middle years the most difficult. Women who have spent their earlier
years raising children must be given priority for retraining and re-entry into the work force so that they can become selfsufficient and independent. Mature women have much to offer employers and should be credited for their human relations and management skills, as well as for their rich community experience.
Older women must not be content to work in job ghettos for low wages. They have a right to a decent pay and they must be given the opportunity to earn pension benefits for later years. Women must fight for equal rights on all fronts, particularly for the right to have liveable incomes in their later years.
In the time I have left I would like to review quickly the Government's record on equality for women. What we have seen is a lot of lip service paid by the Government and many studies, and we have listened to many platitudes. The situation is bad and getting worse. Women have been displaced from jobs and are facing unemployment now and in the future in deplorable numbers. They are being forced to take part-time work as an alternative. With respect to equal pay for work of equal value, even the Government itself has rolled back the pay increase decision it made, which was a very important precedent for clerks in the Public Service. It has denied the equal pay for work of equal value principle.
The Government's six and five restraint on wages, Family Allowances and pensions is another attack on women by the Government.
Affirmative Action does not even appear as one of the requirements written into contracts for job creation programs. The Cabinet has refused to instigate mandatory affirmative action and contract compliance.
We have heard much about high-tech training today. Women cannot get into many of these training programs. They are being denied the opportunity to acquire new skills and further experience.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) denies that poverty even exists. He does not recognize how many women are experiencing devastating poverty. Pension reform has again been put off in favour of a task force review because the Government refuses to act, particularly on behalf of women.
Special income support programs for single women in middle and later years are definitely needed. Even if pensions are reformed, nothing will be done for older women.
With respect to support for families, the Government will not even deal with the report on children that was brought to the House two years ago. Nothing is being done about making major tax reforms in favour of women and families.
While some action has been taken regarding violence against women as a result of the battered wives report, nothing really substantial has been done. There must be federal leadership for transition houses and other tangible programs for women. My colleagues have already talked about pornography as another form of violence.
We have implored the Government, and I would implore the Minister responsible for the status of women, to establish a
March 7, 1983

standing committee of the House which would be responsible for reviewing and working toward an improved status for women in Canada. This committee is essential because there is no other group that will take on that ombudsman role. These issues are not being dealt with in other Government Departments. We need a committee to study women's issues similar to the committee responsible for Indian Affairs.
I would urge the Minister to take action and tell us where she stands on this issue because she has not committed herself. I suspect that this is why the Government is dragging its feet. There are many positive steps that can be taken.
In conclusion, I suggest that the most positive step is what women are doing for themselves and what they will continue to do. Women power is a great force in this country, and it is becoming stronger. Women have tremendous talents for organizing and working for change and lobbying the Government. I believe this is the way to solutions and they should continue to do this in order to make us all accountable and make these issues a major condition for their votes in the next election.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important issues that this House has dealt with. Again, I can only lament the fact that because this motion was brought forward by the Opposition, there would have been so few Members present from the Opposition.
I wish to point out that our Minister responsible for the status of women has made some very important commitments to improving the lot of women. Her leadership has been very important in giving it fire and direction. It is devoid of empty rhetoric. I think that all of us who are here were touched by the very concrete measures that were announced and elaborated upon today by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) which attempt to give women in the workplace enhanced opportunities and more prevalent positions in order to participate in the mainstream of Canadian jobs, as intimated by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell). These measures are critical to accomplish those goals.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East cited a litany of issues. She described many issues with which we are all concerned. However, she failed to give credit where credit is due. I will use just one example, and it is one with which she is very concerned. It is the question of wife battering. Is she aware that the recommendations calling for increased funding for shelters were acted upon in our June, 1982 budget through giving CMHC increased power to create shelters? Is she aware of the increased awareness program that has been instituted with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Sensitizing programs and training has been undertaken in that area. Is she aware that, as a result of the requested research on the battering phenomenon, the family violence clearing house was established by the Department of Health and Welfare and is currently gathering information? Is she aware of the fact that one of the other recommendations, an information program,
Supply
has been undertaken by the Department of Health and Welfare? Family Allowance cheques have contained pamphlets dealing with wife battering. Is she aware of the fact that the problems dealing with jurisdiction are now being dealt with? Commitments have been undertaken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the Hon. Member intend to allow the Hon. Member for Vancouver East to reply?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Yes, I would be delighted to give her the opportunity to reply. These are just some of the questions 1 have for her.
I would also ask her why she did not mention the significant progress we have made in changing the rape laws to sexual assault. It was the most important change in the Criminal Code in 50 years, to give women the opportunity to come forward when they have been subjected to violent assault. I would ask her why her Party, when she brought up the question of pornography, did nothing about our efforts to deal with child pornography and abuse of young people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I thought I would not get a chance to respond. With respect to the Hon. Member's first point about the number of Members in the House today, I would suggest that if we had a committee responsible for the status of women we could be talking about these issues every day. Not only could we be talking about them but also acting on them in a non-partisan and collaborative fashion. I think we should hear why the Government has refused to act on that proposal.
I have been holding a watching brief on the report on battered wives and have visited many transition houses and talked to many groups across the country.
I commend the Government, and all of us really, because I think that that report was a very good example of how we can work together in the interests of women in Canada. The CMHC provision, I might point out to the Hon. Member in case he is not aware of it, because that is one of the ones that I pressed for very hard in committee, covers second stage housing, I believe. There still is a great need for funding for transition houses.
In regard to the RCMP, that is a good move too. My understanding is that it is mostly the younger recruits who are getting that training, but it is a start, I agree. I wish we had as much action from the Government on the whole question which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Green-wood (Ms. McDonald), has raised of changing the Broadcasting Act. That is another piece of legislation where changes are needed.
Certainly there has been some progress made in the areas he mentioned, but I refer back to the 12 points I raised where an awful lot more action could be taken.
An. Hon. Member: It is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is six o'clock.

March 7, 1983
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 19, and again on Friday, February 4, I posed questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) concerning the consolidation of Canadian National Carload Centres throughout the Atlantic region, especially in Prince Edward Island. CN has decided to fold the Prince Edward Island Carload Centre into its operations at Moncton as part of an over-all rationalization of services throughout the Atlantic region. All three Maritime Provinces, as well as border communities in Quebec, are being affected. But the Island will be especially hurt because our Province will be rendered the only one in all of Canada without a fully operational Carload Centre.
On the Island, the number of employees is to be reduced from 11 to five through layoffs, transfers or early retirements. More than jobs, however, are at stake. Instead of being able to deal directly and personally with knowledgeable CN personnel right on the spot, in the Province, local shippers will be forced to rely on whatever assistance they can obtain from a computer network based in Moncton. If a shipper requires information or advice, or if a shipment gets lost or delayed, the shipper will just have to hope that
someone at the end of the computer terminal might have a vague idea of what the matter is all about. No longer will the customer be able to count on the help of a familiar face at the Carload Centre in Charlottetown because, for all practical purposes, the doors will be locked.
The CN elite, in their plush boardrooms in Montreal, argue that Prince Edward Island will not be hurt by the gutting of the Province's Carload Centre. The official line is that the change is merely administrative and that the Island will continue to be serviced the same way as before. But we Islanders know better. We have long experience with having to plug into some elaborate and esoteric computer system in centres remote from our shores for services that other Canadians receive right on the spot in their own communities.
No one is arguing, and I am certainly not today, that CN should not keep its operations lean and modern and efficient. Nor is anyone proposing that the corporation should keep jobs on the Island just for the sake of creating employment. What is being said is this: We need the CN Carload Centre because it provides an essential service to our Province. Being an island, by definition, P.E.I. depends on its transportation links with the outside world more than any other single Province in our Confederation, with the possible exception of Newfoundland, which is also an island.
By stripping the Province of its railroad bit by bit, step by step, inexorably, CN is undermining a vital part of our economic base upon which both the public and private sectors depend to create jobs and other economic opportunities. The emasculation of the Carload Centre is yet another tightening of the noose around the neck of the Island's railway. If the present trend is allowed to continue unchecked, nothing worth saving will be left. The irony of history is that all of this is happening in the very Province that entered Confederation in the first place for the sake of its railway.
I urge the Minister of Transport to put a halt to the dismantling by Canadian National of P.E.I.'s railway system. He should instruct, in fact order, Canadian National to present to the Government a five-year plan to modernize the entire system. If certain essential parts of the Island's railway cannot be operated without a subsidy, the Government should provide assistance up to some reasonable maximum amount. Meanwhile, an immediate freeze should be imposed on all plans by CN to withdraw jobs and services on the Island, including those of the Carload Centre.
In conclusion, allow me to serve notice that I intend to press the Minister in the coming weeks for such a rational approach to the railway on P.E.I. Few issues were more important to the Province back in 1873 when we joined Confederation. Because rail is more energy-efficient than any other mode of transport, the issue remains as relevant now as it was over 100 years ago. That is why for us on P.E.I. the demise of the Carload Centre is not just a symbolic matter. It is a question of preserving an essential instrument of commerce, without which our very future as a viable partner in the Canadian economic union is jeopardized.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic to hear the Hon. Member talk about subsidies and various forms of assistance to those enterprises, whether they be Crown corporations or public corporations, which may need financial assistance from the Government of Canada. I am hopeful that when the federal Government introduces its budget in the not too distant future, if there is an increase in the deficit of the Government of Canada, the Hon. Member will support it and not take the official position of his Party, which would reduce the deficit at all costs.
As the Hon. Member knows, CN's customers conduct their day-to-day communications with the railway by toll-free telephone to the Carload Centre from where they receive information on traffic movement, equipment orders, availability, and train and yard operations. Computers at the Carload Centre process traffic data and customer invoices. Recent advances in computer systems and mini-computers have made it possible for a carload centre to serve a larger area without loss of service. CN therefore decided that several centres could be consolidated at a single location, reducing CN's costs without any decrease in service. That has to be underlined. Service will not be decreased as alluded to by the Hon. Member.
March 7, 1983

The computerization of carload centres has improved the reliability and accessibility of information to customers. It is, of course, and I share the sentiment which the Hon. Member stated, regrettable that jobs are being lost, although in this case a very small number are involved. It should be stressed, however, that those positions involving direct contact with customers-the sales representatives-and the assistant superintendent will remain, as at present, at Charlottetown.
1 would also like to remind the Hon. Member that CN has a full range of employee-assistance programs designed to minimize the adverse effects of such changes. As usual, preretirement, retraining and other provisions are available to these employees.


HEALTH-CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE- REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATE. (B) FUNDING FOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, my participation in this adjournment debate relates to a question I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) several days ago, as to whether or not the federal Government would co-operate with the Canadian Medical Association in the conduct of the task force which is dealing with the allocation of health care resources. The Prime Minister responded negatively. That led to my request to have a little more discussion about the issue this evening. My supplementary question was whether the federal Government, and the Prime Minister, specifically, would be discussing the issue of health care funding with the Premiers at the First Ministers' Conference. Again the answer was, no. There was certainly a lack of clarity in the answer to the second half of my question.
The issue of health care is an important one to the Opposition, and I am sure it is important to Government backbenchers. But I believe it is most important, Mr. Speaker, to Canadians in all walks of life and in all parts of the country. One of the reasons for the development of the medicare system historically is that it would break down access barriers to good health care. With the Government sort of dithering around and cutting revenue to Provinces, we have a developing crisis in the country in the sense that Canadians are being denied access to health care because they must go on waiting lists. If I needed heart surgery of some kind, Mr. Speaker, and I had to wait six months to get it because there were no hospital beds or doctors available, the odds on me dying prior to treatment would go up with every passing day. That situation is occurring in Canada today.
The Minister recently wrote a letter, asking that it be printed in the Canadian Medical Journal. In her letter she acknowledged freely that the Canada health Act will be controversial. She indicated that most major initiatives are controversial. I say to the Members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that controversy seems to be the order of the day. If you look back over the last 15 years of federal Government activity, you will see an accelerated sense of controversy. I ask myself whether many problems in the human sphere are really solved
Adjournment Debate
through controversy. They are resolved, but are they really solved?
I asked myself if there is not another model available rather than controversy, whether we might be better advised to more often use co-operation. I look at the issue of health care and I see 24 million Canadians who are potential users of the health care system. I look at two levels of Government, provincial and federal, which are both involved in the funding, although constitutionally it is clear that the delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility, and I am reminded of all the meetings I have held since I took on this responsibility on behalf of the Conservative Party with professional groups, physiotherapists, nurses, medical doctors and union groups, all concerned about the health care system. After a series of meetings like that, Mr. Speaker, one has to be convinced that the problem will not be resolved unless people of goodwill and knowledge sit down, co-operating together in a problem-solving modality.
The present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has told us on more than one occasion that one of the groups she is consulting with is the Provinces. I put a question on the Order Paper asking for specifics of when and where that consultation took place. The answer I received back was very polite, but if you cut through the politeness it really said, "It's none of your darn business." I was elected by the people of the Calgary West riding, and I have assumed the responsibility on behalf of the Conservative Caucus of the Official Opposition to deal with health care matters in this country. I asked a simple question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, namely, which provincial Ministers did she meet with, and I received the answer that it is none of my business. The Canadian public apparently has no right to know when and where the Minister of National Health and Welfare is meeting with provincial officials.
I rose in the House and put to the Prime Minister that the Canadian Medical Association had put a task force in place to look at the allocation of health care resources because it felt the health care of Canadians was at risk. I asked if the Government and its officials would co-operate with that task force? The Prime Minister stood in the House and said no. I posed to the Prime Minister the issue of the lack of funding in the health care system, and asked whether he would consult with provincial Premiers on methods of providing more money for that system. The Prime Minister said, no. Whatever other anxiety there is among the 1.6 million unemployed, Mr. Speaker, there is an increasing incidence of stress-related illness at a time when our medical care sytem is in danger of falling apart because of a lack of funding and co-operation.
I simply say to the Government, quit confronting, be open, let us know what is going on, invite people to co-operate with you in problem solving, and the health care of Canadians will be better because of it.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, my recollection of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) answer to the Hon.
23536

March 7, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) was that he would take notice of the question because the Minister was not in the House that day.
The Canadian Medical Association has kept the federal and provincial Governments informed of the establishment of this task force. At the invitation of the CMA, a representative of the Department of National Health and Welfare attended two meetings of the task force. A representative of the Province of Nova Scotia also attended. They did not participate in the deliberations, but they were there as observers.
The terms of reference of the task force, have been made public. They are very broadly worded, but they emphasize concerns about the introduction of new procedures and technologies in the health care system, and the demographic changes such as the increased aging population. It is understood that the task force is still in the process of getting organized and oriented. It will be holding a press conference of its own in about two or three weeks, at which time it will presumably clarify how it will proceed and what it hopes to achieve.
There have been a number of important studies on the health care system in the recent past; the 1980 report by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall entitled "Canada's National Provincial Health Program for the 1980s", and also the 1981 report of the Parliamentary Task Force on Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements, entitled "Fiscal Federalism in Canada". I trust that the members of the task force will want to review carefully these useful reports, as well as a number of other research studies that have been carried out.
The task force will undoubtedly request data and information from the federal and provincial Governments to assist in its work. The Department of National Health and Welfare is prepared to respond to such requests to the extent that information is available. The Department will watch with interest the progress of the task force, and I hope it will make a useful contribution to the health care system.


ENERGY-PRICE OF NATURAL GAS EXPORTED TO UNITED STATES. (B) LINKAGE TO PRICE OF OIL
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise some issues in relation to the question before us which will tend to focus the question on those issues we really should be discussing in the House at this time. The Minister's response would seem to indicate that the Government really does not have a sense of direction as far as a pricing policy for natural gas at the present time. As a result 1 think we have created enormous difficulties for ourselves.
The matter goes beyond that, Mr. Speaker. I think that at this time there are some very serious questions in this country about the national energy policy generally. Given the present situation of declining oil prices in the world market and the glut of natural gas, the Government obviously based its original national energy policy on false assumptions. Then in 1982 we had the national energy policy update which tried to address some of the problems the Government failed to anticipate. Given the kinds of answers the Minister is giving in
the House now, and in the beginning of 1983, as well as the answers given by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), we are more adrift than when the update was made. This lack of direction on the energy and Financial questions demonstrates the fact that we have no effective national energy policy. What is required, given the changing circumstances and the false assumptions on which the first policy was developed, is an indication of policy parameters or guidelines for the vital decisions to be made on energy.
What is also required on the matter of pricing natural gas in Canada, as well as the export price, is that we also deal with Government revenues. The collapse of Government revenues in the energy sector must be causing severe headaches for the Minister of Finance. It is certainly causing headaches for the entire country. We are asked to deal with $89 billion in spending estimates, while at the same time we see a good portion of our revenues dissolving. Unfortunately, this does not give the House much confidence in the Government's energy policy, its gas-pricing policy or its economic policy. The Minister of Finance should give us an indication where we stand on the spending estimates and the revenues that were originally expected to come from the energy sector.
We need a national energy policy that relates to a much broader national industrial strategy and a much broader area of economic activity. In its national energy policy the Government seems to have identified our energy resources as a single target area for revenue, economic growth, and expansion. That was the basic mistake in the original national energy policy in 1980, the Government has attempted to hold on to that policy in the 1982 update. There are still serious questions today which have not been resolved. The Government is reacting to a crisis, without benchmarks. Decisions are being made in this House about which people are very seriously concerned. For example, as a result of the pricing policy for domestic natural gas the Government dropped $300 million in revenue. If we want to get the economy rolling again, and if the Government is going to live up to its commitment for the pricing of oil and gas, those lost revenues must be made up.
An even broader question is whether we are to continue to export natural gas to the United States. If we do, we better consider retaining the pricing arrangements previously made in that market.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will address the issue that was raised on January 26. The National Energy Board now estimates that we have marketable gas reserves of over 76 trillion cubit feet in conventional producing areas, and the country's remaining ultimate marketable gas potential is estimated at over three times currently established reserves. Therefore, as a Government, we are taking steps to provide Canadians with strong incentives to become gas consumers.
March 7, 1983

For example, the federal Government has funded more than 380 projects under the Distribution System Expansion Program, which helps distributors finance expansion of their pipeline networks. In the Natural Gas Laterals Program the federal Government is financing $500 million of pipeline expansion in the Province of Quebec. To complement this program we also introduced the $100 million Gas Marketing Assistance Program to minimize gas contracting risks for Quebec distributors.
To further encourage the use of natural gas and other alternative energy sources, the Canada Oil Substitution Program has provided close to 360,000 Canadian energy consumers with funds to convert off-oil. Of this number, more than 130,000 have chosen natural gas. This program helps the producer. It helps Canada achieve self-sufficiency. It also provides a stimulus to the economy.
The Government is keeping its commitment to maintain the wholesale price of gas in eastern Canada at about two-thirds of the price of oil. Just last month a major step was taken in honouring its pricing promise when the Government announced an 18-cent reduction in the natural gas and gas liquids tax. This reduction will keep gas prices in new eastern Canadian markets at approximately 65 per cent of crude oil.
Adjournment Debate
The tax reduction will also mean that although gas producers have benefited from the recent Alberta border price increase with an additional $235 million in increased cash flow, eastern consumers will feel only minimal effects of those rising costs and lower consumer prices will be realized in British Columbia and Alberta.
No one can argue that the federal Government has not put into place crucial measures conducive to the optimal utilization of our rich natural gas resources.
I can appreciate that there has been much concern over the Government's natural gas export policy. We certainly acknowledge that an increase in exports can have a very positive effect on our economy. New export volumes could provide close to $10 billion in revenue to the Canadian gas industry this decade, and they could generate close to $5 billion in investment in the construction of new facilities in the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 8, 1983