1985-05-13

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT 34 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 13, 1985

[DOT]	(1105)


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam) moved:: That this House, recognizing the continuing economic inequality of Canadian Women, demands that the government incorporate into its forthcoming budget the following initiatives, the:
1.	reform of the tax system rather than the introduction of further public spending cuts which impact most adversely on women;
2.	provision of job creation and training programs targeted to women, and funding sufficient to enable the Canadian Human Rights Commission to enforce equal pay for work of equal value legislation, and develop an effective enforcement mechanism for affirmative action programs;
3.	provision of more transition houses and services for women and children who are victims of family violence; and
4.	provision of increased funding to ensure access to quality daycare to meet the urgent needs of Canadian parents and children.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we should have this motion today because, quite coincidentally, today is the day of the annual general meeting of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Indeed, we in the New Democratic Party have just come from our meeting with representatives of the National Action Committee.
As Members of the House know, this is a voluntary umbrella organization of 370 women's groups representing over 3 million Canadian women. Their particular concern this year is the continuing economic inequality of women. Indeed, their weekend debates, although covering a number of subjects, did centre on this issue. They called their meeting a Canadian women's economic summit.
[DOT]	(1110)
One would have hoped that after the Leaders' debates on women's issues, and above all on women's inequality, which were held last summer and after the commitment then made by the Progressive Conservative Party which now forms the Government to taking strong initiatives in removing the economic inequality of women and indeed all the other inequalities that women continue to face in Canadian society, we would have seen more action taken than has been taken. The Government can, however, redeem itself in the forthcoming
Budget and indeed it is in the context of the forthcoming Budget that this motion was moved.
Dealing with the specific area of economic inequality, we can look at job creation, job training and job security. In each of those three areas, we see that the Government has not in fact lived up to its promise of giving equal access to women. Dealing with job creation, for example, the Government has allowed for expenditures of $2.2 billion, only 5 per cent of which is targeted toward helping women and in fact toward helping women and youth. That is only $125 million out of $2.2 billion targeted to women and youth.
Regarding the Challenge '85 summer employment program for students, there is no affirmative action requirement that approximately half of that program's funds should go toward job creation for women students. Indeed, when my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), questioned the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) on March 5 of this year regarding why a specific affirmative action plan for women was not embodied in the summer employment program, the Minister of State for Youth replied by saying the following:
-when we were working on "Challenge '85", that there was no need for a quota, that women, young Canadian women would themselves seek their due and take the necessary step to obtain their full share of available summer employment.
That is a revelation on the part of the Minister, and indeed on the part of the Government as I expect she does speak for the Government, indicating that there are no barriers to women seeking employment in either the Challenge '85 program or elsewhere and indicating that women started at the same starting gate as men. I had thought that the outcome of the Leaders' debate and other activities which took place last year would have told the Conservative Government that there is not equal opportunity for women and that women do not start at the same starting gate but start well behind. We have documented that time and time again. If, as the Minister was suggesting we do, we simply let nature take its course, women will not have anything like the same number of jobs from any job-creation program. In other words, there has to be affirmative action to ensure that they will be fairly and equally represented in job-creation programs.
The area of job training is the second area in my initial triad of areas of job creation, job training and job security. The Government did in fact end very arbitrarily the program called "Women Into Non-traditional Occupations". Perhaps it was not a very effective program but it was the beginning of the encouragement of women through apprenticeships in non-traditional occupations, and that program was cut last December. Is there going to be anything in the Budget which will once

May 13, 1985
Supply
again take that kind of affirmative action to enable women to get into non-traditional occupations? Or is the Government once again simply going to leave it to the market-place and to the employer, which have traditionally given and continue today to give men the advantage?
MS)
We have recommended that 50 per cent of all federal training places should be allocated to women. The House will recall that we also advocated that 42 per cent of job-creation funds should go to women, as women constitute 42 per cent of the labour force. As well, we advocate that 50 per cent of training programs and retraining programs should be allocated to women, because women constitute one-half of the population. The Government has done nothing to provide that kind of affirmative action for women in job training and retraining programs. Indeed, as I stated previously, the Government has cancelled the one program which existed. Therefore, we call upon the Government, in the coming Budget, to rectify the past and to consider job training and retraining for women in a serious and affirmative way.
The third matter with which I would like to deal is job security. Job security is incredibly relevant today. What is happening-and Air Canada, a Crown corporation, is an example of it-is that employers are cutting back on full-time jobs and the security which goes with those full-time jobs. That is what the CALEA strike is about. In that case a Crown corporation, Air Canada, is attempting to have more of its employees work on a part-time basis or on contract. That will only lead to lower wages, no benefits and, of course, no security.
Why is this particularly important for women? Because women constitute 72 per cent of the part-time workforce. Almost three-quarters of Canadian part-time workers are women. Women will be pushed in increasing numbers into part-time work if the present trend continues. Of course, this is happening in the private sector as well and the Government has shown no interest in taking the initiative which it could to reverse the trend.
In relation to job creation, training and security for women is the whole concept of affirmative action. We had thought, given the statements which were made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last summer, that very strong federal action would have been taken to ensure the hiring and promotion of women to make up for the past disadvantages which women have suffered. I will concede that the Government has done one thing as a result of the Abella report. It has suggested to the private sector that those companies doing business of more than $200,000 a year with the Government establish a plan of action for the hiring and promotion of women. I agree that this is a first step, but they are given three years to work it out and there is no way yet provided by the Government to ensure that they will in fact work out a plan of affirmative action. There are no sanctions upon the companies if they do not work out a plan and no enforcement requiring them to do so. The Government is really basing its policy on blind trust and good luck, as
my colleague stated. There must be an enforcement mechanism and this is what we in the New Democratic Party have advocated. We hope that in the Budget itself the Government will recognize not only the principle of affirmative action but some of the costs in financial terms associated with it, and all of the reasons why only affirmative action will ensure women's equality in the work-place.
Equal pay for work of equal value is another concept which has been with us now for almost ten years or more. Again, much was said about it in the election compaign by the Conservatives and, indeed, by all Parties. Here again one small step has been taken, namely, that new guidelines have been established by the Human Rights Commission for enforcing equal pay for work of equal value. However, the onus is still on those who are not getting equal pay for work of equal value to raise cases. It does seem incredible that federal employees have to be the ones to take the initiative to get the federal Government to do something which the governing Party promised it would do on its own. And that remains the case. Employees must take action against their employer. There is no change there.
There is one step which might actually be retrogressive which seems to suggest, under the guidelines of the Human Rights Commission, that the rights of the individual to complain may be removed and only group rights will be recognized. I hope that the Government will take a very serious look at that implication, if that is in fact what is implied.
What is also needed, Mr. Speaker, is adequate funding for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is why we have also included this in our motion. If it is going to be the enforcement agency for the provision of equal pay for work of equal value, it has to have sufficient funds, staff and resources to do the job.
There are other areas where the Government could have taken, and could still take in the Budget, steps which would remove some of the inequalities which women face. In small business, for example, everyone recognizes that women have proved to be in many instances successful entrepreneurs. It used to be one in ten successful small business entrepreneurs were women. It is now one in three. So more women are now becoming successful entrepreneurs, and we applaud and commend that development. Many women in small business do not have access to credit on the same grounds as do men. There is a discrimination against women, which has been well documented, in the provision of credit. Women are still seen as not being quite legitimate in the business world.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) let the cat out of the bag on March 4 when he was asked by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), why the Government did not include in the Small Businesses Loans Act a concentration on women and particularly their inaccessibility
May 13, 1985

to credit. The Minister of Finance replied, as reported at page 2691 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Hon. Member's Party, we have great faith in the ability of women to get credit.
That answer, Mr. Speaker, comparable to the one of the Minister of State for Youth and of other Ministers, simply ignores the realities before us.
We have also suggested that the spending cuts which we see, both provincially and federally, impact most adversely on women. If in the Budget the Government taxes more heavily the middle-income groups, denies universality to all, makes no serious efforts to improve the housing situation, does not raise the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and does not provide for genuinely universal health care, women are going to suffer the most. Already 62 per cent of single elderly women are living below the poverty line. It used to be that 42 per cent of families headed by women were living below the poverty line, but in 1983-84 that number increased to 50 per cent.
Is the Government going to address this most serious situation in our society in the forthcoming Budget? Will it also address child care, family violence, and the increased concerns of women's centres? Will it bring about at least some first steps toward the genuine equality of women in the Budget?


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the remarks made by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). While appreciating the fact that the Hon. Member's heart is in the right place, I have always wondered about the element of ambiguity in her approach to the problem of women's economic inequality. Since it is because of their dependence that many women are living in poverty, I cannot understand why the Hon. Member keeps promoting programs, suggestions, principles and a philosophy that tend to increase women's dependence on the State and to maintain them in their traditional status of second class citizens. It is because increasingly, women of my generation and especially, I believe, women in Quebec, are refusing to accept this dependence that people keep wanting to force on us that I decided to run as a candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party, a party that, first of all, respects the value of the individual. I could be, above all, an individual first, and a citizen on equal terms with every one. Second, my party recognized the fact that inequality is above all an economic matter, and a situation that arises from the attitudes of people in society towards minorities, whether these are large minorities, like women, or smaller minorities on the basis of race or creed or colour. Women experience the same unequal treatment suffered by members of these groups. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree when I hear the Hon. Member suggest that women should again start living in ghettos, the ghettos of quotas, for instance, or the ghettos where someone else is going to decide what their priorities should be. I refuse to accept this, and that is why I fail to understand why a woman, who has worked actively all her life to achieve equality
Supply
for both men and women, keeps coming back with sugestions that would achieve the opposite of what women need.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I also would like to comment on the fact that the Hon. Member said the Government did not keep its promises. I may refer, for instance, to the amendment to the Indian Act, where native women are given equal rights with native men. There is also the spouse's allowance which has been extended, despite the fact that our economy is in such a deplorable state that it was not possible to do as much as we wanted but in any event, we did it right away. I would also like to mention the amendments to the legislation on prostitution.
I would also like to ask the Hon. Member whether she would agree that the presence of a number of women in Government, in the Cabinet, where six women hold major portfolios, and I am thinking of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall), a first in our history, and also the representation of women in the House of Commons-I wonder whether the Hon. Member would not agree that this active representation by women in Government will accomplish far more for women than constantly wanting to put them in ghettos, asking for quotas and insisting on giving them more money and thus increasing their dependence on the State. If some day they manage to work their way out of constantly depending on men, whether these are husbands, fathers, cousins or brothers, the Hon. Member wants to make them dependent on the State. I therefore would like to ask the Hon. Member how she can reconcile these two considerations?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief response. The Hon. Member has not yet realized that the inequality of women puts women in an enormously dependent position. The absence of daycare puts a woman in a dependent position. The absence of maternity leave in many instances puts her in a dependent position. The fact that 62 per cent of elderly women live in a state of poverty puts them in a dependent position.
The whole point of our motion and the purpose of our Party is to ensure that women are not in a dependent position. I must suggest to the Hon. Member that she and the other five women members of the Cabinet, if they are not there already, go over to Room 200 in the West Block to listen to the presentation being made by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women that is addressing the very issues that the Hon. Member raises.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State.


Mrs. Landry:: Among other things, our colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) expressed concern about

May 13, 1985
Supply
training for women. I would suggest that, at Regina, our Government did set forth a policy, a labour market development strategy was unveiled and it included training programs targetted to women. The new training programs feature special measures and objectives for women, and we are preparing a professional program designed for women who return to the labour market. Targets have been set for the participation of women in programs geared to labour shortages. That is the only remark I wanted to direct to my colleague, just so she would realize that the Government is very concerned about and actively dealing with training for women.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I was just pointing out that it falls so short of what is needed that it is merely a drop in the bucket. Women will still be extremely unequal when it comes to securing job training and retraining spaces.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the status of women. I am almost tempted to thank my colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) for giving the Government an opportunity to show to the House and to all Canadian men and women the active steps we have taken since September 4.
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) and Minister responsible for the status of women is now with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women which, as my colleague explained, brings together 300 different associations representing about three million women. Mr. Speaker, it shows that our Government and the Minister do care about women's interests and that consultation remains a priority.
Mr. Speaker, the Government acknowledges that there is more than ample proof that concrete measures must be taken to eradicate the social and economic disparities suffered by Canadian women. A number of recent studies have shed light on the injustices they suffer in practically all sectors of society. Indeed, in a report made public recently concerning a statistical picture of women in Canada, Statistics Canada came up with dismaying figures on the status of Canadian women since 1970. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote some of those findings:
In annual terms, female university graduates earn only $1,600 more than men with secondary education and only $4,000 more than men with less that Grade 9 education. More families than ever depend on a woman's income to make ends meet. Yet women on the labour market continue to be almost exclusively responsible for looking after the children and keeping house. In 1981, roughly 10 per cent of all Canadian households were headed by women, but their average income was 50 per cent lower than those headed by men. Close to half the families whose breadwinner is a woman live below the poverty line.
The report confirms once again that most working women hold low-paid jobs in service industries and office work and that the majority of them work part time, unlike men who earn their living in manufacturing industries and the secondary sector where employment growth is strongest. As a country, we
can no longer afford to live in a society where half of the population contributes only part of its potential. We must compensate for all these years during which women were underemployed by embarking on a strategy of women capability development.
Mr. Speaker, that is a responsibility which the federal government assumes very seriously, as it clearly indicated in its Speech from the Throne of last November. As a matter of fact, we have taken concrete measures in this respect. We feel, however, that we could not bring about a profound change within our society without the full cooperation of all our economic partners. With this objective in mind, the government has already started with the provinces and the private sector a series of consultations aimed at initiating the economic recovery which our country needs so badly and reviving the confidence of all Canadians in our system of government.
One of the major objectives of these consultations is to make sure that the recovery benefits all. To this end, we have seen to it that women concerns are fully integrated in the consultative process. As a matter of fact, these concerns were a major item on the agenda of the First Ministers' Conference which was held last February in Regina. A federal-provincial-territorial meeting of the ministers responsible for the status of women had taken place a little earlier to prepare the First Ministers' Conference and determine the issues to be addressed in Regina. The Prime Minister could not have made his stand clearer when he stated in Regina that equity was part and parcel of the economic recovery. I might add that giving women their fair share is not only a matter of justice, but also of economic efficiency.
The federal government did not fail either to put the issues of concern to women on the agenda of the National Economic Conference which took place recently in Ottawa. We were anxious to have women participate as full partners in these important economic discussions with business, union and government representatives. We believe that the integration of women issues to every aspect of policy development is a valuable approach which is already being implemented throughout the government.
I should like to provide a few examples of the way in which this consultation and integration process has brought about legislative changes favourable to women since this government assumed power. Under recently proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Act, all needy widows and widowers who meet the eligibility requirements will be entitled to the spouse's allowance no matter how old their spouses were when they died. Some 85,000 widows and widowers, most of them women, will benefit from this legislation. Under proposed amendments to the Indian Act, discrimination based on sex will be banned from now on. Until now, an Indian woman who married a non-Indian man would lose her status as an Indian
May 13, 1985

and her right to band memberships. Some 16,000 Indian women have lost their status so far because of this century-old legislation.
Thanks to the adoption of a new legislation, the spouses of deceased veterans, most of them women, will be entitled from now on to an extension of the veterans' disability pensions for one year following the death of their spouses. Previously, payment of the disability pension ceased at the end of the month during which the pensioner's death occurred, thus reducing the surviving spouse's income in a very difficult period.
Canadian mothers who are entitled to day-care allowances under training programs funded by the federal government will see these allowances increased. These changes reflect the importance which the government attaches to the program aimed at facilitating the promotion of women to senior positions. Under amendments to the Labour Code, parents employed in industries under federal jurisdiction will be able to extend their paid maternity leave by as many as 24 weeks of unpaid leave.
Mr. Speaker, the Government's response to the Abella Report should not be ignored. That report, entitled "Equality in Employment", was tabled in the House of Commons last November. It contains the findings of an inquiry on the most efficient and fairest ways of promoting equal opportunities in employment. In her report, Justice Abella provided a penetrating analysis of the unique situation confronting too many women. This Government has responded very quickly to that report. In order to eliminate the systemic discrimination too often faced by women in our society, the Government has decided to require from Crown corporations, federal agencies and suppliers of goods and services to the Federal Government that they have equitable employment practices. To that end, Crown corporations and federal agencies having more than 100 employees shall have to report annually to Parliament on their plans for and progress in equality in employment.
With respect to those firms anxious to get $200,000 government contracts, they will have to adopt equitable employment practices or lose their right to bid for such contracts.
Furthermore, as an employer, the Government will not dodge its responsibilities. Indeed we intend to intensify the implementation of the positive action program. Immediate steps are taken to eliminate the systemic obstacles to employment equality that exist in the Public Service classification methods. That is the gist of this Government's response to the Abella report.
Along the same line, Mr. Speaker, the Government has announced its intention to give women easier access to the labour force while at the same time recognizing their family obligations. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has recently introduced an amendment to the Divorce Act which would
Supply
among other things strengthen the statutory provisions concerning alimony.
Among the proposed changes, a new mechanism would allow federal and provincial data banks to trace spouses who default on alimony payments. Finally, I would point out that those changes will give the courts authority to garnishee pensions and unemployment insurance benefits wherever the beneficiary defaults on his or her obligations.
In the Throne Speech, the Government undertook to increase its efforts to broaden unemployment opportunities for women within federal agencies, commissions and boards. By ensuring that qualified women have access to jobs involving responsibility and prestige in employment groups that often are non-traditional, the government is setting up an example for business and industry.
I am happy to point out that over the past six months, 23 per cent of all appointees to federal agencies, commissions and boards were women. We are rapidly approaching the 30 per cent goal that was set for the first year of our mandate. Among recent appointments, allow me to mention that of Sylvia Gold as head of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. This appointment has been warmly welcomed by women groups from all across Canada, and it also reasserts the Canadian Government's commitment to have this organization turned into a strong and independant body which would not fear on occasion to question Government action in matters relating to the status of women.
Let me recall some of the means with which the Government intends to promote the economic and social equality of women: consulting with women groups; integrating women issues into the Government's decision process; appointing women to federal commissions and boards and important positions in the Public Service; enacting statutes to abolish discrimination against women and to enhance their economic and social status; and finally strengthening the role of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
However, the Federal Government cannot reach its goals in that area without the help and co-operation of the Provinces. Indeed, many sectors of particular interest for women such as education and health come under provincial jurisdiction. The nature and importance of measures to improve the condition of women are not identical in all provinces. It would be impossible to mention the numerous provincial initiatives dealing with the status of women, let alone enumerate the many issues provinces have been unable to deal with up to now.
In order to assist provincial governments ensure equal opportunities for women, the Secretary of State will hold regular meetings with provincial ministers responsible for the status for women. More formally, task groups made up of federal and provincial representatives have been set up to make sure that both levels of government assume their respon-

May 13, 1985
Supply
sibilities with regard to some problems such as battered women and child care.
It is clear that in any speech on the socio-economic equality for women, one cannot overemphasize the importance of federal-provincial interaction. Having said that, the international aspect of the problem should not be overlooked either. The United Nations decade for the promotion of women will be ending this year, 10 years during which Canada has spared no trouble to improve the condition of women within the framework of the United Nations. The decade will reach its climax in July at the United Nations World Conference on Women to be held in Nairobi, Kenya. My government is actively taking part in the planning of that conference which is aimed at reviewing and assessing the progress made and the problems met during the decade and drawing up strategies for the year 2000. The priority of Canada in Nairobi will be to try and achieve positive results by promoting the integration of women's issues in the national and international decision-making process. While the danger of a politicization attempt of the conference is real, we will try to prevent any obvious attempt in that direction. In spite of those difficult circumstances, you can be assured that the vitality and power of the feminist movement throughout the world will be felt this summer in Nairobi. In addition to the official intergovernmental conference, there will be a meeting of non governmental organizations (Forum 85) held in July. Canada knows that the United Nations decade for the promotion of women has been a quite successful period for non governmental organizations, because their concerns became the priority of many national governments and international organizations. We all took advantage of the new spirit of co-operation. Indeed, the government firmly intends to carry on that co-operation so that all our efforts towards social and economic equality for women will materialize.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Outremont.


Mrs. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, I was very glad to hear my colleague say that Canada has made every effort in the last ten years to promote women's equality. To say so is to recognize that the Liberal Party has definitely done something, indeed a great deal for the women of this country.
Naturally, the Hon. Member also said that since the election of the Progressive Conservative Government, maternity leave has been extended by 28 weeks. While I commend the Progressive Conservative Party for having extended maternity leave, I would like to ask the Hon. Member what the Conservative Government intends to do about day-care centres. I know that Mrs. Katy Cook was chairman of a task force on day care. The Minister has the report of this task force in her possession for many months and I would like to know what her Government intends to do about day-care centres since no mention has been made of this matter as yet.


Monique Landry: 1 thank my colleague for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) on her very relevant question.
In my opinion, access to quality services is essential to ensure the economic security of women and our Government is well aware of it. As the Hon. Member said herself, the Cook report should be tabled soon, and following this report, our Government intends to create a task force to complete the study on day care, and we shall certainly have a recommendation to make in this regard in the very near future. The Hon. Member can be assured that our Government is very sensitive to the fact that women must have such security to go back to work, as this is certainly her concern.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, today is lobbying day for the NAC women's groups. One of the priorities at this time is definitely the day-care system. I have nothing against the fact that the Conservative Government will set up a task force on day care following the report just mentioned. However, in my opinion, before setting up such a task force, it would be very interesting to see Katy Cook's report to know exactly what she recommends. In addition, it might be better to implement Mrs. Katy Cook's recommendations instead of spending money on another task force, because reference of a question to a committee is very often a way to avoid coming to grips with a problem.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well aware that when a report is tabled, it is eventually put at the disposal of officials for further study. I think that the Government has every intention to use the Cook report as a basis for its policy, just as it does with all reports, to study it and legislate accordingly. This report will certainly play a major part when the time comes to prepare a legislation.


Mr. Belsher:: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat surprising today that in this motion we are not dealing with the broader concepts, namely equality, development and peace. In her remarks the Parliamentary Secretary addressed the conference which will be held in Nairobi this summer, sponsored by the United Nations, to end the decade for women. Can the Parliamentary Secretary possibly outline a little more fully what our participation will be in this conference coming up this July?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) for his quite relevant question. As I mentioned earlier, I think that the conference held in Nairobi is of utmost importance for women throughout the world, a conference in which Canada will play a very signficant role. I might add that Canada has indeed participated in all preparatory meetings leading to the Nairobi conference. Considering the high priority this government is giving to the status of women, I think that we must be present at this world conference in order to share with the other participating countries our expertise and
May 13, 1985

experience as a government and to benefit from other countries' initiatives, thereby confirming our resolution and determination. I think, therefore, that the government will play a very active role in Nairobi and will contribute its much sought-after expertise in the area of women promotion.


Mrs. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that family violence is of great concern to all Canadians. Indeed, we are becoming extremely aware of the real difficulties being faced by battered wives. A number of women in my constituency have approached me to discuss this problem. They are looking for advice. These women go through very elaborate means to talk with me because they are afraid that their spouses might find out. A reality in the City of Brockville recently has been a home for battered women. I have been very supportive in working with them and in making it a reality. Could the Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on what programs and assistance are available to combat this problem?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt) for her question. As a matter of fact, I can advise her that the Minister responsible for the status of women will meet today a number of groups concerning this. I think that it is a major concern of any government. I might add something along the line of what she said to demonstrate to what extent we should be concerned about this problem. It seems that one out of every ten women is a battered wife, and an objective of the program which the Secretary of State has implemented is to help these groups of women get together and meet these problems head on.
Also, there is a federal-provincial-territorial meeting of the ministers responsible for the status of women which will take place in Winnipeg June 5-7 and one of the items on the agenda is precisely the one she has referred to. Also, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is presently involved in consultations concerning this problem. As you can see, this Government is well aware of and very concerned about family violence and will definitely take measures in order to try and help these people.


Mrs. Killens:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State (Mrs. Landry) and deals with the integration of Indian women in reserves.
Is the Hon. Member aware that her colleagues in committee are systematically rejecting amendments to grant a permanent status to the children of Indian women? Is the Hon. Member ready to exert pressures on her colleagues to avoid such discrimination?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. I know that the Bill is now before the committee
Supply
and this Government is trying to correct through that Bill a glaring injustice to Indian women. At present, I know that there are still some recommendations before the committee. I do not know what the outcome of the debate will be but I understand the concern of Indian women. I think that the committee involved will make the necessary recommendations and the House will decide what amendment should be made if necessary.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary and I was particularly interested in the Government's response to the Abella report. I wonder if the Hon. Member could tell the House if the Government has yet decided what it is going to do about companies or corporations that do not draw up a plan of affirmative action. How is the Government going to oblige these companies to draw up a plan of affirmative action? Second, if companies do have affirmative action plans regarding the hiring and promotion of women, has the Government yet decided what it will do regarding the enforcing of those plans?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Government position with respect to the implementation of the Abella report was that our views had been stated and that we should trust the various departments and organizations which will eventually submit their projects. A bill could also be introduced to carry out other-
I do not see why we should not trust the departments and Crown corporations. They know how important it is to be fair as far as jobs for women are concerned. It will always be possible later, as a responsible Government, to make some changes to improve conditions if we detect some gaps. I think that our Government has taken a responsible position as far as equality in employment is concerned.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I admire the Parliamentary Secretary's faith. For quite a long time, we in the House have been expecting certain actions to be taken by the Public Service and Crown corporations on affirmative action. Indeed, in the case of many Crown corporations, exactly the opposite has happened.
Could the Hon. Member also address the question of the contractors in the private sector that are doing business with the Government? For the contractors that are doing more than $200,000 per year worth of business with the Government and do have affirmative action plans, has the Government decided yet how it will enforce those plans of action and make sure that the plans are in fact carried out and not just discussed?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, when my colleague refers to positions seldom enforced in the past, I think this new Government is quite responsible and-

May 13, 1985
Supply


Pauline Jewett: What a dreamer!


Monique Landry: We will see. Mr. Speaker, I think that we should trust the present Government which has taken a position. As I said, if we realize in the years to come that our plan was not firm enough, it will always be possible to take further decisions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens).


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the subject before the House today is very aptly chosen, since it gives us an opportunity to ask the Government to consider the needs of women in its Budget next Thursday, especially after the meeting that parliamentarians from all three political parties had this morning with the National Action Committee.
This group, with its membership of three million women, represents 350 women's groups across the country. Varied though its membership may be, the group is unanimous in its recommendations. As is customary, we had a chance to meet them this morning, and I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate because I want to draw the attention of the Government to the pressing problems of women in 1985.
First, however, I shall go back, if I may, to 1940, when I was still at school and unaware of the fact that my mother, like all Quebec women, did not have the right to vote. Still in 1940, the first woman to study law in Quebec had to pass her bar examination in New Brunswick, because Quebec would not let her do so, and not until 1971 did women in Quebec have the right to sit on a jury.
Mr. Speaker, this means we have had a lot of catching up to do, and before speaking to the matter before the House today,
I would like to emphasize the major contribution made by the late Senator, the Hon. Therese Casgrain, and pay tribute to the tremendous zeal with which she motivated the women of Quebec to follow in her footsteps. She was one of the pioneers of the women's rights movement in Canada. Throughout her life she stood up for the disadvantaged in society, denouncing social injustice and speaking up for those who were not able to make themselves heard. A native Montrealer, Mrs. Casgrain was the driving force behind a number of social reforms in Canada aimed at promoting justice and equality. She was active in various provincial, national and international organizations.
Mr. Speaker, although like many of my colleagues in this House, I would have preferred to live in a world where the old basic values gave a certain stability to the family unit, as a Member of Parliament I tend to encounter some of the real problems in our society, a society that is daily faced with problems that affect women especially. Three out of five
marriages end in divorce. Fifty-two per cent of women in Canada are on the labour market. Most of them are obliged to work, either because they are sole breadwinner or because their salary is needed to bring the family income above the poverty level.
The number one problem in this country is unemployment, everyone will agree to that. However, although last Friday the Prime Minister was proclaiming loudly that he had brought down the rate of unemployment in this country, the fact remains that according to last Saturday's Gazette, 17 per cent of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed. Seventeen per cent! A parallel can be drawn between women and young people. However, we cannot take the same approach to dealing with women's unemployment, because women must overcome a number of obstacles that do not exist for men.
The Government therefore has a duty to legislate in accordance with today's reality and needs. For women, it is quite clear there is only one solution: financial autonomy. This means they must have the tool to achieve that autonomy. It is like building a house. We must have tools. Women are very ingenious, and once they have the resources they will manage. To deal with the problem as quickly as possible, the Government should make this a priority. It should have the political will to do so. The Prime Minister, and this is urgent, should take another look at his election promises, and the men and women on the backbenches should be more outspoken in their caucuses than they are now in the House.
This list of problems and obstacles is unending. First of all, supplementary grants for training and upgrading programs are available only to women who have been on unemployment insurance or welfare. Thousands of women in Canada who want or have to work are being denied access to these supplementary grants because they do not meet these two criteria.
Second, the lack of services in daycare centers. If they are to take courses or enter the labour market, women must have the assurance that their children are safe and secure. Incidentally, I might point out that daycare is not a problem exclusive to women; these days, lots of men are responsible for their children, so it has to be considered as a problem for society as a whole.
Third, problems related to part time work, particularly with respect to fringe benefits and pensions. Pensions are a problem primarily for women. Even those who earn an income cannot be sure their retirement benefits will be sufficient. Their wages are low to begin with and, for various reasons, employers do not offer them private pension plans.
The Task Force on Pension Reform made several good recommendations. Some of them were implemented by the previous Government, but everything has been at a standstill since September 4.
May 13, 1985

In briefs submitted during public hearings, women asked the Government to make the following changes to private pension plans: first, mandatory benefits to the survivor; second, introduction of pensions for women homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan; third, mandatory sharing of benefits when the spouse retires or the marriage breaks down; fourth, payment of benefits to the survivor even after remarriage; fifth, minimal protection against inflation; sixth, request for vesting after two years instead of ten; seventh, request for full portability; eight, mandatory pensions for regular part time workers; and, finally, a proposed ban on the use of different mortability tables.
As to the fourth problem, the Abella report shows that the average annual income of women in 1982 amounted to only 63.9 per cent that of men. For example, average earnings were $25,096 for men and $16,056 for women. Some people claim that we cannot afford to pay women the same rates as men, but it is like saying that women will have to be satisfied with lower incomes until other financial priorities have been met. It is an insult which nobody should tolerate. In Canada it is illegal to pay women less than men for similar work in the same company. Laws on that issue were adopted for the first time in 1951. Ethics and laws notwithstanding, the gap is still there. The policy concerning equal pay for equal work is practically ignored in the private sector and often thwarted where it ought to be in force, the public service.
Fifth, systematic discrimination, a concept which is beyond the understanding of many people. This phenomenon often prevents women from getting better paying jobs, like in nontraditional fields of work, and discrimination also prevent women from being promoted. Let me say by the way that two thirds of women work in service industries where wages are very low. Women are rebelling against a system that prevents them from being appointed to non-traditional jobs where salaries are higher. Here is an example.
According to one application form, a person must weigh 180 pounds in order to do a certain job. That prerequisite was needed when controls were manual, but in the meantime, with the technological changes, those controls have been replaced by computerized control panels with push buttons. The job requirements have changed, but the application forms have not been changed and women still do not qualify.
Sixth, job insecurity resulting from people being replaced by machines, robotics, micro-chips, high technology and so forth. Women over fifty years of age are replaced by younger ones, because it is felt, often under false pretenses, that they cannot be retrained. Those women have no recourse because the majority of women are not unionized-only 35 per cent are- they have nobody to defend their rights, and they are left with 10 or 15 more years before they can get old age security. In this beautiful country, being a woman too often means being poor.
Supply
Seventh, the lack of health protection in the work place, as for instance the hazard for pregnant women in working lengthy hours in front of cathode ray screens. Up until now, research findings are contradictory. It is very, very urgent that this Government order further research in that area, otherwise human beings might be handicapped for life.
Eight, the lack of shelters for battered women and their children. The report on family violence shows that 10 per cent of Canadian women are battered by their husbands or companions. In actual figures, that means 2.3 million battered women. There is evidence that the figure is greater still, because statistics are based on data collected only in police stations and shelters. Thousands of other women suffer from fear, silently, for lack of information. The Liberal Government was always concerned with that problem. It had allocated 150 housing units in 1982 to agencies looking after battered women. Before 1982, it had funded 39 projects representing more than 460 beds in half-way houses. But since September 4, the Government opposite, instead of providing the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation with sufficient funding by way of Section 56.1, as the previous Government had done, has already slashed that program, and the Budget does not seem to be more promising.
Ninth, all the problems I have just referred to, also apply to handicapped women, but in addition the latter have to face all the accessibility problems, such as accessibility to transportation, housing and equipment needed for mobility.
Tenth, the difficulty faced by the majority of separated or divorced women in getting their alimony is a further cause of insecurity, in addition to the problems already mentioned. Fortunately, the new Divorce Act that was prepared by the previous Liberal administration and tabled recently by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) contains a clause that will make it easier to get that money.
Eleventh, soliciting by prostitutes, whether men or women, is just one aspect of the wider problem of prostitution and violence that surrounds that sub-culture. This is first and foremost a social problem, but the Government has chosen to solve it through judicial measures. Once again, women will foot the bill.
Twelfth, the abuse of violent pornography is still a concern for women. You will recall that a national campaign led by Canadian women under the leadership of Maude Barlow, of the office of Prime Minister Trudeau, succeeded in foiling the efforts of cablevision channels First Choice and Playboy in 1983. At the same time, the Department of Revenue was pressured to order that videos showing violent pornographic situations be held in customs. The fight goes on in papers and magazines where violent pornography is shown. One question remains: what price should be paid for freedom of expression? Is the freedom of those who want to abuse women more

May 13, 1985
Supply
justified than that of Canadians who want to be protected and to protect their family against such a shameful exploitation?
Thirteenth, sexual harassment in the work place. This problem has been kept secret for too long. Women did not want to speak about it for fear of losing their jobs. Although the Liberal Government brought forward guidelines to prevent this kind of abuse in the Public Service and victims are now free to appeal to the Human Rights Commission, the fact is that the problem remains and particularly so in the private sector.
In 1982, the CRTC issued guidelines to eliminate sexual stereotypes in the media. Thanks to voluntary implementation, the issue of sexist stereotypes in the media has been publicized but projected results were not achieved. The funds allocated to Media Watch, a monitoring agency, are not sufficient. As this program will be implemented by states a continued follow up is necessary.
Fifteenth, I hope that the Budget Speech of next Thursday will take into account the new movement of Canadian women who have the courage to start businesses, thus contributing to the development of the small business sector. I hope that the Budget, next Thursday, will give them the push they need.
Canadians who have been following the debates of the House last week may have wondered why the Official Opposition spent a whole afternoon tabling petitions that opposed Bill C-26 under consideration. We have asked hundreds of groups of elderly citizens throughout the country, from Newfoundland to Vancouver, what they thought of Bill C-26 and they are all opposed to its passage. Unless that Bill is amended according to the wishes of thousands of Canadians, it will grant a pension to needy widows and widowers but will refuse the same benefits to others who may be separated, divorced or single.
In reply to a question I asked the Prime Minister barely a month ago about systemic discrimination, he said he knew that type of discrimination against women existed, but he himself is now imposing upon us legislation that will legalize systemic discrimination within his own Government. It is a blatant social injustice to grant a pension to the needy between the ages of 60 and 64 on the basis of their marital status only. Here is an hypothetical case that should show how nonsensical that legislation is. A woman is widowed at age 58. According to the legislation, at 60 years of age, she should get a pension, if she is in need. She decides to remarry at 59 years of age. She realizes later on that she made a mistake. If she were to separate from her husband, I presume she would no longer be entitled to the pension; if she were to divorce from her husband, would she return to the status of a widow or would she be considered single? If she were considered a widow, she would be entitled to a pension. If she were considered a single person, she would get nothing. Has the government opposite reflected on all those details? That is awfully important for a person concerned.
Anyone who cares to check the unemployment insurance record about the way women have been treated since this
Government came into office, will find out that women have been glaringly discriminated against with the implementation of new rules by the Department of Employment and Immigration. Without giving the matter much thought, the Minister bought the hodgepodge that public servants had tried to sell us when we were the Government. Since March 30, to be eligible to unemployment insurance benefits, a claimant must have used up all the amounts he received in severance pay, vacation pay, repayment of accumulated sick leave, and so on.
To show how this new Government guideline is especially unfair to women, I would like to tell more about the problem experienced by a woman in my riding. This woman, who is 57 years old, a teacher, single, and who suffers from Parkinson's disease, has to stop teaching. She does not qualify for an invalidity pension because her condition is not serious enough. She must wait until 65 before getting her old age security pension. She has no personal savings, and in fact she intended to invest the money she expected to get, but the Government opposite is pitiless and has decided that she and all other Canadians in such a situation will have to spend all the amounts accumulated before collecting one cent in unemployment insurance.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the delegates to the National Action Committee Convention on Parliament Hill and all Canadian women, I ask the Government not to take part in any arms race escalation or in the star wars project. It is on behalf of future generations that Canadian women oppose star wars. They view nuclear disarmament and star wars as the number one priority.
The Canadian Government should pursue more vigorously the peace initiative initiated by the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, to eliminate conflicts which threaten our national peace.
I would not want to close without mentioning the concern of Canadian women about the threat to the environment caused by acid rain, chemicals and nuclear waste. It is once more on behalf of their children and grandchildren that Canadian women ask the Minister of Finance to include in his Budget next Thursday a budgetary envelope for research and development on nuclear waste disposal. We have created a monster and do not know how to get rid of it.
The Government has a duty to protect the quality of life of the generations to come and it should view this issue as a priority.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but her allotted time has expired. Questions and comments. The Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon).


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague because, in that same twenty minute period, she
May 13, 1985

managed to speak on every subject and raised very discriminatory issues. I have a few questions to ask, so here is the first one.
Mr. Speaker, concerning the case she mentioned earlier, where a teacher could not get her benefits, can my colleague explain how it discriminates against women? She said so but I do not see how.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, it does not discriminate only against women, it discriminates against all Canadians. However, this person is single, and a woman's problem is always more complicated when she does not have a husband.
[English)


Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, 1 was interested in the comments which were made by my hon. colleague with respect to UI payments and how support payments to a spouse discriminate against women in that they must be declared as income for unemployment insurance benefit purposes. However, we could look at the other side of the coin. Males might well be in receipt of support payments and those payments would also be classified as income; therefore, that would negate the male from receiving unemployment insurance benefits as well. Therefore, I feel it is not a discrimination against women, as my hon. colleague seemed to imply.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the question is the same as the question which was put by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is not only the woman. However, if we look at the statistics we find that to be a woman and single is almost equal to living to the end of one's days in poverty. So my point is that it is worse for the women but it is also not any better for the men.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I also want to ask my colleague how the change in the pension plan for widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 also discriminates against women? You said this measure discriminates against women.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Here again it discriminates against men as well, but women are always hardest hit. It is discriminatory, and women will suffer more than men because most men have been on the labour market, whereas the women who will be affected by this measure have often been abandoned by their husbands who wanted to marry younger and more attractive women, and they feel rejected in life.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) for a question or comment.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the question. When we say that women are discriminated against as far as pensions are concerned, it is a fact that women tend to survive their husbands by at least seven years. I must say that I too am concerned about pensions and retirement plans. Among men who do have retirement plans, only 50 per cent of
Supply
married men have plans that cover their spouses as well. Among the remaining 50 per cent, even spouses who receive a pension will receive only half the amount their husbands would get. So, we live longer, but we do not have any money. In the legislation as it now stands, there is no provision for those who are single. So I definitely think that women, who make up 50 per cent of the population, suffer more discrimination than men. I wish the Hon. Member would ask around in his riding and find out how many men are aware of the fact that their pensions or retirement plans do not cover their spouses. They may be in for a few surprises.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. Of course, as a Government, we would like to help everyone in our society, but I think we should not forget that we inherited a very difficult financial situation and in spite of all that we did decide to help 85,000 widows and widowers. 1 think that is already a vast improvement over what the previous Government was doing, and perhaps later on, when the Treasury is not as bare, we will be able to help the rest of our society.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, because marital status is used as a criterion, this discriminates against members of religious orders. I do not know whether anyone has really thought about it, but our parish priests and our nuns are not included in this program. These people have contributed to the quality of life in Canada, and when they finally reach the age where they could take a well-earned rest, the Government lets them down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments is now terminated. We shall resume debate.


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I rise somewhat hesitantly as the first Member of the opposite sex to speak in this debate, but first of all, I wish to pay tribute to all Hon. Members who spoke this morning, and did so with great sincerity and intelligence, to the motion before the House today. As I said before, I am somewhat hesitant this morning to add some of my own comments.

The motion states that the Budget which is forthcoming very shortly should contain four initiatives, one of which is, and I quote:
-reform of the tax system rather than the introduction of further public spending cuts which impact most adversely on women;
I would like to try to make the matter a little more human by citing the example, Sir, of someone I know who works about 55 hours a week as a truck driver and earns about $18,000 a year. He is a resident of Quebec and pays $6,000 in federal and provincial income tax, which leaves him $12,000 per annum plus the earnings of his wife which are much less.

May 13, 1985
Supply
The federal portion of his taxes which goes to service our accumulated mountain of debt-now close to $200 billion-is now about 30 cents on the dollar. By the year 2000, Mr. Speaker, if we do not go in new directions as the Government proposes, will it not be 40 cents, 50 cents or 60 cents of each dollar he earns which must go to service our debt? And how much less will be available for job creation, social programs, pensions and for a whole range of programs which all Canadians believe in so strongly?
If we follow the example of the Mitterrand Government of France after 1981-which was a "let'er rip" spending philosophy-as the motion would have us do, it seems to me we would have more unemployment, more taxes, more bankruptcies and more inflation. I remind you, Sir, that the French franc has already had three devaluations since 1981. We would have a general decline in which women, the disabled and the visible minorities would become the First victims. If we followed the route of France, would we then not also have more austerity with all kinds of layoffs in both the private and the public sectors?
What I am suggesting, Sir, is that if we follow the example of countries which have their economies in order, such as Switzerland, Japan and West Germany, it seems to me that women in Canada, along with the disabled and the visible minorities, would be in the best situation. If we can create a rising economic tide in Canada, all Canadians will benefit. In a sinking economy, some Canadians, such as the three groups I have already mentioned, will suffer far more. If I am correct, then women are obviously among the largest group which has the greatest interest in an improving economy.
This Government is acutely aware of the economic problems which are unique to Canadian women. We are determined to bring about economic renewal, and what is economic renewal if it is not of and for the people? We are committed to the direction set out in the Charter of Rights. People come first and will always come first with this Government. Equality in Canada among the sexes was a priority of this Government before April 17 and it will always be a priority of this Government. Expanding employment and creating new opportunities is at the heart of our program for national economic renewal. We are committed to providing lasting jobs for all Canadians who want to work, and again I repeat, including women, the disabled and the visible minorities.
In its economic statement, the Government committed an additional $1 billion in 1985-1986 primarily to help Canadians acquire new skills and find jobs in the private and public sectors. I think it is proper to point out that since September last, 201,000 new jobs have been created, compared with what I am told were 72,000 new jobs created during the same period last year. In the month of April alone, employment in our country grew by 89,000 jobs, the best gain in almost five years. The number of unemployed has declined by more than 80,000 and the unemployment rate decreased by .3 per cent to 10.9 per cent in April, although I certainly agree that is far too high. It is my understanding that new jobs for women have accounted for well over half the increase in employment since
the end of the recession, but I do not mean to suggest for a moment that we dismiss any of the remarks made in this debate so far; we are fully aware that the largest group in the workforce to be discriminated against are women.
For example, we all know that over 50 per cent of Canadian women are in the workforce, yet they earn on average only 60 per cent of what men earn. Some two-thirds of the minimum wage earners in our country are women, and the estimates are that over one-half of all Canadian women can expect to be poor.
This is the bleak reality of working women in Canada today, and social policies have to be designed to improve these circumstances. I do not believe the Government has shirked its responsibilities in this matter to date. For example, last month the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced the preparation of a report by management and Public Service labour unions on implementing equal pay for work of equal value in the Public Service. The report should be ready within two months. The Minister has stated her firm intention to introduce legislation which will assure all women and minorities of equal access to employment and job training. It is crucial that more women occupy positions of responsibility if society is to benefit from creative leadership, not only on women's issues but all issues. We in the Progressive Conservative Party are confident that such leadership will emerge within the federal bureaucracy as a result of putting men and women on equal footing. It is far too late, but we intend to do something about that particular issue.
The situation for older, non-working Canadian women is an altogether different matter. Older women are shockingly vulnerable to economic hardship. If my memory is correct, two-thirds of Canadian women over 65 years of age have an income of less than $5,000 per year. The Government announced last November that it will extend the spouses' allowance program to all widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. Some 85,000 low-income Canadians, mostly women, will benefit from this proposal starting this fall. In the Throne Speech of last November the Government committed itself to entering discussions with the provinces aimed at a comprehensive overhaul of the Canada Pension Plan, including such matters as portability, vesting, survivors' benefits, and pension coverage of women. Since then, as you know, Canada Pension Plan benefits were increased 4.4 per cent as of the beginning of this year. In January, federal and provincial Ministers of Finance met in Montreal and discussed, among other matters, the need to reform the CPP. In short, we have not been idle but there remains much to be done.
We must bring increasing pressure to bear on the provinces so they will assume their responsibilities in the areas under their jurisdiction. For example, it is the provinces' responsibility to provide daycare services which are affordable for the majority of Canadian women working outside the home. The same applies to pension reform in the private sector, where 80 per cent of pension plans are under provincial control, includ-
May 13, 1985

ing the Quebec Pension Plan. It is true that at times we have to move more cautiously than all of us would like, but we intend to continue to maintain leadership on women's issues.
Let me say something about taxation since it forms part of the motion I have ben asked to deal with. Tax reform is doubtless an essential part of achieving economic renewal, hence achieving more compassionate social policies, and it is a matter of highest priority. We live in an era of accumulating deficits. Our deficit in 1984-85 was $34.5 billion; in 1985-86 it is projected at $37 billion; 1986-87, $34 billion; 1987-88, $35 billion, and so on, up until 1990-91 when it will be $37 billion. This just cannot go on because it will bury us all. That is why we are very concerned about the trend of the accumulated debt.
It is well known, I hope, to increasing numbers of Canadians that the debt is one of the major obstacles to economic growth in our country. But because we cannot accept this debt as inevitable, the Government has charted a new direction for our economy, and I would mention just four principles of this agenda for economic renewal which we all heard last November 8.
First, we have to put our own financial house in order so that we can limit and ultimately reverse the massive build-up of public debt and the damaging impact it has had on confidence and growth from one end of the country to the other. Secondly, we have to redefine the role of government so that it can provide a better framework for growth and job creation and less of an obstacle to change and innovation. Third, we have to adopt policies which foster higher investment, greater innovation, increased international competitiveness, and a positive climate for the birth and growth of new enterprise, large, small, medium-sized and what I call micro-enterprise, which involves one or two people. Finally, we must bring about these changes in a way which is fair, open and consistent with the basic sense of compassion, tolerance and justice which are characteristic of our Canadian community. We will not weaken the basic income support programs which have served Canadians well. Indeed, through greater economic performance we are going to try to provide even greater assistance to those Canadians of both sexes who truly need it.
1 think it is the sense of the motion, Sir, that by somehow reducing the deficit we are going to have a lesser regard for job creation. I believe that is a gravely mistaken view. We believe, and 1 think most of the Canadian people believe, that confidence is the key to growth and job creation, and deficit reduction is one of the keys to rebuilding confidence. The tax system has been one of the principal mechanisms for achieving the economic and social objectives which as Canadians we all believe are important. Seeking to create the best possible tax system for Canada, we must be guided by principles of fairness and equality.
As we embark upon a new direction in economic and fiscal management, the changing economic and social needs and stresses we face have implications for that system. We are counting on it to continue to serve usefully and effectively the economic and social well-being of Canadians. We are deter-
Supply
mined that the tax system should continue to be responsive to changing demands and new realities. We must harmonize the new direction we are pursuing to attain economic renewal. Given the present tax system, I wonder, looking around the House, how many Members do their own tax returns, or how many, like so many men and women, are obliged to have someone else do them for us.


Mr. Nystrom:: Not the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher).


David Kilgour: No, I am sure he does it himself.


Mr. Kellleher:: No, I don't.


David Kilgour: May I put that on the record?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is so wealthy, that is why.


David Kilgour: In many ways the present tax system is failing to serve current economic needs, such as in investment and deficit areas. The entire area of incentives provided to business investment is one that we have flagged for attention.
We must ask to what degree we can substitute tax incentives for direct Government programs. It is clear that some shift in this direction is needed and desired. Many Canadians in and out of the business community have been increasingly critical of the red tape, public servant discretion, and delay associated with some of the existing grant programs. People have made no bones about their preference for tax-based incentives. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said that we must deliver Government services more efficiently by relying more heavily on the tax system and less on the grant system. You and I, Sir, being from Alberta, know what the grant system has done to our province's oil and oil servicing industry.
The Government has been especially concerned that the large array of incentives may contribute to the excessive use of tax shelter financing of various sorts. That is why a moratorium was placed on the issuing of so-called "quick-flip" scientific research tax credit investments. I appreciate that many Members will be saying that these are only partly successful. It seems to me that there are other ways of getting around this attempted blockade. That is why the Government has moved to stop advance tax rulings on the use of limited partnerships and other joint venture financing arrangements to flow out unused tax deductions and credits to investors.
At a time when reducing the deficit is so crucial to our goal of economic renewal and growth, the effectiveness of our incentives must come into question. Obviously, the question of levels of assistance will have to be discussed just as seriously as that of changing the ways in which we deliver incentives. In the meantime, we can point to a number of other increasingly evident problems with the current system. For example, the grant programs rely on the discretion of administrators and cause problems, not the least of which is the time it takes to get approval. Time is too valuable. Decisions must be made quickly. We must also recognize that if tax incentives unduly

May 13, 1985
Supply
complicate the tax sytem and tax administration, the kind of criticism that is currently directed at grants can also be aimed at incentives.
I will close by saying that benefiting Canadians is the fundamental motivator in all tax reform. As we grapple with the technicalities, the subtleties and the complexities of our tax system, we must never lose sight of the citizens it is ultimately meant to serve. That is what our efforts are all about. The real bottom line is the men and women of Canada. That is the goal of the people meeting with NAC today. I hope the goal of everyone in the Chamber is to make Canada a fairer economy. The economic tide is rising, and when that happens, all boats are lifted, including the economic boats of all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, we will continue debate with the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Edmonton was very concerned about the deficit. I think everyone is concerned about the very high deficit in the country. My concern is that the natural tendency of the Conservative Party will be to deal with that deficit through cut-backs in various social programs.


An Hon. Member:: No, we won't.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One Hon. Member is saying "No". I can hear him from here. I think the rest of them are saying that they want to deal with this through cut-backs. That makes me very nervous. The way to deal with the deficit in this country is to make us once again a nation of producers. We must start producing and working.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mazankowski:: Right on!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We must make ourselves a nation of producers. We must start producing goods and services to have import replacements. That will be done by concentrating on our base industries; farming, fishing, forestry, mineral resources, and small businesses.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is the direction which I wish we would take in this country. The second way of doing it, Mr. Speaker, is through tax reform.


Pauline Jewett: They won't clap at that one. They are not interested in tax reform.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There is one Tory who wants tax reform. Are there any other Tories who want tax reform in this House, Mr. Speaker?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There is a second one over there. 1 think they know that for far too long in the country we have had all kinds of tax shelters of the rich people. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) agrees. Being a wealthy person, he knows all about that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not as wealthy as you.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have all kinds of tax loopholes for very large companies. We have several billions of dollars in deferred taxes. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we plugged those tax holes and reformed the taxation system in the country, making the wealthier people pay their fair share, it would go a long way to paying off the deficit in Canada and to saving the social programs that are needed by all Canadians, particularly the women and children of the country. I hope the House will take that direction in the future.
The most important aspect of this debate today is the issue of equality. There is definitely not equality between men and women in this country with regard to occupations or salaries. In many ways that gap is widening rather than closing in this great country of ours. Before Christmas we received the report of Judge Abella called Equality in Employment. I would like to refer to some of the startling statistics in this report.
First, we must understand that the participation rate of women in the labour force is escalating extremely rapidly. In 1966 only 35 per cent of the women in the country were working. In 1976 45 per cent of the women were working, and in 1982 nearly 52 per cent of the women in Canada were in the workforce. With regard to males, in 1966 80 per cent were in the workforce and presently 77 per cent are in the workforce. Therefore, the participation rate of men is dropping slightly but that of women has been going up very rapidly.
Let us examine the kinds of occupations that women are in and the salaries that they are drawing for the work that they are providing to this great country of ours. On page 63 of the English version of this report we see the percentage composition by gender of major occupations in Canada in 1981. The first class listed is managerial, administrative, and other related occupations in the managerial and administrative side. We see that 75 per cent of those occupations are occupied by men, and only 25 per cent by women. In the House of Commons we have a ratio which is even worse than that. With regard to that we will have to make changes in our society and electoral process. In the occupations of natural sciences, engineering, and mathematics, we once again find a tremendous discrepancy between men and women. Eighty-six per cent of people in these professions are men, and only 14 per cent are women.
I earlier mentioned the need in our country to stimulate the economy in forestry, fisheries, farms, and mining. These are the resources which our country has. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) so often says, "You dance with who brung ya", to quote him exactly. We build on what we have. However, in those occupations we find that there is once again a tremendous discrepancy between men and women. In farming there are 79 per cent men and 21 per cent women. In the fishing industry and related occupations there are 95 per cent
May 13, 1985

men and 5 per cent women. In forestry and logging there are 94 per cent men and 6 per cent women. There again we see a tremendous discrepancy which we must correct. I will conclude my remarks at three o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it one o'clock, I note that the Hon. Member will have 14 minutes remaining to speak plus the question and comments to follow when debate on the eighth allotted day begins at three o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, later today I will table a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners, including McMaster University President Alvin Lee, and over 600 other professors, graduate students, and support staff of that university. The petition strongly opposes Canadian participation in research and development for the United States Strategic Defence Initiative, known as star wars.
They cite in the petition the destabilizing and escalating nature of the star wars scenario, and the fact that it would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty between the superpowers. McMaster University members have called upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to refuse the President's invitation to become involved.
Members of the McMaster community may be asked to help research and develop the controversial space weapons plan. Science and engineering professors at the university were the first to sign the petition rejecting Canadian involvement, despite the fact that they themselves would be among the first to benefit. They have suggested that even if the Government should choose to ignore calls to dissociate itself from the star wars program, the 650 McMaster faculty members and students who signed the petition will refuse to co-operate in any research or development the Government might request. That is putting your money where your mouth is.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to pay tribute to people of a Quebec town called Desbiens. Those people, who for four years have been working to alert public authorities and the private sector to the problems they have been facing since the St-Raymond Paper Mill closed, finally reached their goal Sunday last, and I feel that tribute should be paid to all those who were involved, whether they were members of the Municipal council, people from the labour union or company officials because they finally succeeded, after four years of hard work as I said, in bringing matters to a conclusion that will create some 100 jobs in their community.
Tribute should also be payed to the various participants at the regional economic summit where the Desbiens matter was selected as a priority, and I must pay tribute especially to my former colleague, Mrs. Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet, and also to the present Member for Roberval (Mr. Bouchard) for the work he has done on that matter. In my view, that success was achieved by every one of those who were involved in the matter over the past four years. Finally, success came yesterday, and I think that right in the middle of the landlocked salmon festival, people in Desbiens certainly got the biggest fish they could ever hope for, and this time they really landed it. I am very happy with their hard work and I hope that this will be a inspiration to many others.



THE FORMER ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from my riding in western Canada where some of our constituents questioned the propriety of those media darlings, the Rat Pack. They have a different name for the rodents. They call them the Gang of Four, four rascals from the Liberal backbenches who are showing up the thinly populated ranks in the front. I must say that many of my constituents were not impressed by the Gang of Four's sanctimonious attitude toward our new Government, especially their new PAW, or Patronage of the Week award.
Western Canada is proud to be truly represented in the new Government of Canada. We remember what the Liberal Government did not do for us. We will never forget those "wilderness years" when the only elected representation the four western provinces had in the federal Cabinet was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), a man who, I am certain, never knew the meaning of the word "patronage".
But, Mr. Speaker, they say the best way to fight fire is with fire. So, to counter the infamous PAW award, it gives me great pleasure to present the first Schellenberg SOW award-

May 13, 1985
SOW standing for Survivor of the WEEK. The envelope, please. This week's survivor is former Cabinet Minister, Pierre Juneau, who is still President of the CBC.
There are many more SOWs still out there. Perhaps their existence may prevent the pot from calling the kettle black.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS FORTHCOMING ERDA AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, last September 4 the people of British Columbia gave this Government an overwhelming mandate. They know that our Party would give all provinces and all regions of the country an equal voice in the decision-making process.
British Columbia is represented in the House by 19 hardworking, responsible government Members, who includes three influential Cabinet Ministers.
Those who have recently attempted to adopt British Columbia as "their province", simply for political purposes, need not pretend to be speaking for B.C. The people of my province know better.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and other Members opposite should quit trying to use British Columbia as a political football. The people of British Columbia have had their share of being used by the previous Liberal Government. They want to become full partners in the economic rebirth of the country, and that is what we intend to make them.
When our Government signs a new ERDA Agreement with the Province of British Columbia, as we will do shortly, British Columbians will see a new era of economic co-operation and development dawn in a land of unlimited opportunity.



EMPLOYMENT


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian women have been asking for equality in the area of employment for a long time. The measures proposed by the Government in March do not satisfy them very much. But today, I would like to express my views on another aspect of the problem.
Equality on the labour market implies a series of legislative and regulatory measures. Since we consider that society shares the responsibility for children with the parents, maternity benefits are a particularly important program.
There was some talk about the Conservative Government transferring maternity benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Program to general social assistance programs. As we know, these programs are at the mercy of budget cuts at any time.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women is opposed to such a transfer, and several thousands of women around the country want to safeguard and even to improve the maternity benefits program.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Government to listen to them very carefully.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, there have been recent reports stating that the annual pay increases for Canadian Armed Forces personnel were expected to be granted on April 1. This has not occurred.
There have been a number of excuses offered for this situation. One is the anticipated expansion of the Forces. Another is the anticipated decrease in the Armed Forces personnel by way of the forthcoming Budget. There is also the old standard excuse that it is all "tied up in Treasury Board".
Coupled with this is a directive from Winnipeg Air Command dated March 19, removing the 4 per cent limit on increases for goods and services provided to Armed Forces personnel.
A further burden has been placed on Forces' families, for they will be required to pay CMHC appraised rents beginning November 1. Families at C.F.B. Comox, where the B.C. Socred Government has removed rent controls, are facing monthly increases of $100 to $150. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) and the Conservative Government must take responsible action to provide Canadian Armed Forces personnel with affordable housing and services at fair prices.
The Minister of National Defence should rise in his place in the House and explain to the Canadian public and members of the Armed Forces why they are being targeted for such punitive action.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to note that the National Action Committee on the Status of Women held its annual general meeting in Ottawa this weekend.
May 13, 1985
COMMONS DEBATES___________________________ 4661
On April 17 the Section of the Charter of Rights which aims to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or disability came into effect. Yet the coming into effect of legislation does not guarantee that the spirit of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights, as well as the letter of the law, will become a reality.
The only sure way to combat discrimination, misunderstanding, and unfair treatment of any person, is through public education and discretion in the courts. It is stereotyping and insensitivity toward individuals in general which contribute to inequality.
Presently a subcommittee of the House is examining the many facets of equality rights. It is the work of this committee, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Department within the Secretary of State, and such organizations as the National Action Committee that continually play a role in ensuring that equality for women is achieved.



DEMANDS MADE BY WOMEN'S GROUPS

Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: As government members, we appreciate very much the work done and action taken by women throughout Canada, and I take this opportunity to congratulate all the Canadian women who took part in the economic summit which was held last weekend in Ottawa, especially as the Decade for Women is coming to an end.
Moreover, as Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on the Status of Women, the mandate of which is to ensure that the recommendations of each and every women's group reach the departments concerned, I can assure the House that my colleagues and I give very serious consideration to the recommendations and requests which we receive and that we have every intention to give Canadian women the opportunities they deserve within our society. Unfortunately, because of the very serious financial situation we have inherited from the previous government, we are unable for the time being to meet all the requests we are receiving, for we must be fair to all Canadians; you can rest assured, however, that we are striving to encourage the promotion of women in the various departments and in the areas under their jurisdiction.
During its mandate, I am sure that this government will make every effort to defend the interests of all Canadian women.



CHILDREN


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on August 13, 1982, a five-year old girl, Tina Lynn Mallette, was abducted from the care of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton. Tina was living temporarily with her foster-mother while her natural mother was ill.
In an attempt to find the abductor, it was discovered much later, after a number of months, that the child was living in Tunisia, and she is still there today. Several attempts have been made by the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Justice to return Tina Lynn Mallette to Canada.
Today, in the House of Commons, I will be presenting a petition signed by 6,795 Canadians who are joining me in asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to summon the Tunisian Ambassador immediately to a meeting which will, hopefully result in the return to Canada of Tina Lynn Mallette.
Yesterday was Mother's Day. One mother has not seen her child for three years because of the intransigence of the Tunisian authorities.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that the Olympic spirit and the Olympic Games have suffered severe set-backs by efforts either to commercialize the games or to use them for international political confrontations. These moves have degraded the value of the Olympic Games and have distorted their message, which is the consolidation of friendship among peoples, and a positive contribution to a life more humane, more creative, and more peaceful.
The ideals of sports must be reborn, and we must find their true meaning. The people of Greece, rich in traditions and historic contributions, with a unique athletic past, daily confirm their dedication to such ideals.
I believe the Olympic Games could recover their lost meaning. This could be accomplished by the permanent return of the Olympic Games to Greece, their place of origin and birth, so that they can find their true concept again. The Government of Greece is already on record as agreeing to having the Olympic Games on a permanent basis in Greece. Therefore I call upon the Government to give whatever support is needed to bring this about, and to urge all other Governments in the world to do the same.

May 13, 1985
Oral Questions STATUS OF WOMEN DEPARTMENTAL STAFFING


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, NAC, was here to lobby the various political Parties. I use the word lobby in its best sense. They put difficult questions to us on a number of political issues concerning women. The theme of this year's conference is women in the economy.
There were no questions this morning on energy, perhaps because we have the first woman Energy Minister in Canada, an event we all applauded. However, I checked out her Department an an example at noon hour, only to discover that the Deputy Minister is Mr. Paul Tellier, and the Assistant Deputy Minister is Mr. Pierre Perron. The Petroleum Incentives Administrator is Mr. Lazar. The Administrator of COGLA is Mr. Taschereau. There are three senior Assistant Deputy Ministers, and guess what, Mr. Speaker? They are all men-Mr. Reiner Hollbach in conservation, Mr. Len Good in policy analysis, and Mr. Roland Priddle in the petroleum sector.
There are five Assistant Deputy Ministers. In the human resource sector there is Mr. J. Ranger; in the finance sector there is Mr. Mensforth; in mineral policy there is Mr. Hutchinson; in Research and Technology there is Mr. Whitham, and in the earth sciences sector there is Mr. W. Hutchinson.
Ironically, in a Department handled by a woman Minister, all the senior officials are men. Of course that is the same in the oil industry, with one or two exceptions, including Petro-Canada.
I put Pat on notice that I will raise this matter next year-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member from British Columbia that his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. He will well understand that over the weekend there was a widespread and very deep concern by many Canadians about the numerous takeovers which are now occurring in Canada's high technology industries. Particularly disturbing is the takeover bid by British Telecom of the Mitel firm which in the past received over $35 million worth of federal grants, in return for which it agreed to maintain a high level of research and development, jobs, and capital equipment development, in Canada.
Will the Minister ensure, when the application is to be reviewed and assessed under the FIRA legislation, that those conditions extracted back in 1981 and 1982 will continue to be upheld, that we will continue to insist upon guarantees of research and development taking place, and upon job guarantees in this country, and that the role of Mitel, a leading company in the development of telecommunications, will be maintained?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, of course I would give him that assurance. I am sure the Hon. Member and other Members of the House would be pleased to know that only this morning the board of directors of British Telecom approved the intent of the deal, that is, to subscribe for approximately 51 per cent of the then issued equity shares of Mitel, which will put some $330 million of fresh equity into that company.
I have been assured by the executive of Mitel this morning that there is absolutely no suggestion of the transferring of technology or the stripping of any assets which are now in Canada. In fact this will make Mitel the main international manufacturing arm of British Telecom itself.


CANADIAN INVESTMENT IN TECHNOLOGY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I find it exceedingly strange that the Minister responsible for the industrial development of Canada would say that we should take great satisfaction in having lost Canadian control of a major Canadian high-tech company to a foreign owner.
I think it is important to look at the anomaly. One of our own Canadian high-tech companies, Bell Canada, is putting up a bid of $1.5 billion for an oil company, but we cannot seem to get Canadian buyers for our own telecommunications industry. What kind of plans and policies does the Minister have to encourage Canadian investment in high technology or telecommunications? Can we expect something very specific in the Budget of May 23 to give Canadian investors encouragement and incentive to invest in their own industry, rather than having to rely upon foreigners? That seems to be the plan and policy of this Minister.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again in reply to the Hon. Member, I felt that he and other Members would be pleased to learn that there was a fresh infusion of capital into Mitel, bearing in mind that that company has had a rather difficult financial period in the last few months and years. Its shares sank as low as $6 from a high of $48. It has been running losses. In short, the debt it was handling was extremely difficult for it to handle.
This is fresh capital, with no suggestion that the employees, who number 5,000, 50 per cent of them in Canada, will in any way be impacted or that there will be any reduction. It is a
May 13, 1985

very wholesome blending of Canadian technology with fresh capital to create a new international manufacturing concern that will have British Telecom as its sponsor.


BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we go back to the original point. It is not just the fresh infusion of capital. It is the loss of control and development in this country that is of major concern to Canadians.
I draw to the Minister's attention another example where the lack of government policy is resulting in new acquisitions in the book publishing industry. Over six months ago Prentice-Hall had an application for a takeover. No decision has been taken. We now have two other proposed takeover bids for Canadian book publishing companies because of the lack of a decision. When can we expect an immediate decision rejecting the applications of Prentice-Hall and Gulf and Western so that we can clearly maintain and control the ownership and destiny of Canadian culture in our book publishing industry? When is he going to give this country an answer, and quit flip-flopping and being indecisive like he is with everything else?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have already given the Hon. Member the assurance that all undertakings, as far as we are concerned, will be expected to be honoured. Of course, we have to pass, as far as the FIRA operation is concerned, on this new acquisition of equity in Mitel. All I am saying is that the deal has only been agreed to this morning. An application will be forthcoming, at which time we will review it under the present provisions of FIRA. I can assure the Hon. Member that Canadian interests will be very much, as far as we are concerned, preserved in connection with the Mitel deal.
As far as the second reference is concerned, the Prentice-Hall deal, as the Hon. Member knows, that is presently before FIRA and there will be a decision shortly.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The Minister knows that the RCMP are investigating a leak of the Nielsen document which recommends a $310 million cut from Indian Affairs programs, that the individual responsible for the leak has now identified himself to the police and given his reasons for what he did, and yet intense interrogation of other officials and others in the Government is continuing.
Will the Minister assure the House that this is a normal RCMP investigation in which the police are not taking orders or directions from the Government, that charges will be laid if the RCMP feel they should be laid, and that in this process the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are not being used politically
Oral Questions
to intimidate officials of DIAND and to teach a lesson to others in the Government who have custody of classified documents?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no hesitation whatsoever in giving my colleague the assurances that he requests.


NATURE OF DOCUMENT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, then to clear the air I think the Minister, on behalf of the Government, should finally identify that a leak has occurred and that the RCMP are investigating a real government document which has in fact been leaked and been made public.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the representation given by the former Minister, but I should also refer to the dictum of his Leader who suggested, not that many months ago, that it would be very unwise to make any comments or give any information unless and until charges had been laid.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It concerns the strike at Air Canada, a strike which involves as much a matter of principle as does the one that is currently taking place at Eaton's, a private corporation. As the Prime Minister knows, two-thirds of those involved are women. The issue at question is Air Canada's attempt to turn well paid full-time jobs into parttime poorly paid jobs. Considering that this involves a matter of principle, namely, the question of equality for women, will the Prime Minister directly intervene and tell Air Canada that it should be taking us forward, not backwards, and that the negotiating stance it has is totally unacceptable?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will recall that there was a task force in 1983 having to do with part-time employment. The forecast at the time was that there would be more part-time employment, and that there was a need and a desire to ensure that working conditions for part-time employees would improve. Having regard to the fact that Air Canada employs a number of part-time people and that there needs to be that required flexibility, there is on the negotiating table the desire to increase the number of part-time workers.
Under the current agreement the part-time workers have no pension provisions, no dental care provisions, no disability or sick leave benefits, and no seniority. All of these issues are being addressed under the terms of the proposed collective agreement that Air Canada is trying to negotiate with the union.

May 13, 1985
Oral Questions CROWN CORPORATIONS


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the question at stake is every bit as important as a matter of principle as is the strike at Eaton's. That is why I am directing my question to the Prime Minister.
The question I now have goes beyond Air Canada's current strike, and has application to every other Crown corporation and government agency. Considering that the Government announced with great fanfare on International Women's Day its policy of equity for Crown corporations, and considering the Abella commission said that converting full-time jobs into part-time jobs was the opposite of equity, can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will instruct not only Air Canada but all other agencies of the Crown that we are not going to get increased numbers of part-time jobs for women at the expense of full-time jobs for women?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party made reference to the employment equity plans that were mentioned on March 8. Those employment equity plans will rely on the data that will be forthcoming from the Crown corporations in question, from the companies in the federal sector that are mentioned, and so on. With regard to Crown corporations, employment equity will take effect as of September of this year. For the first time we will have the data necessary in order to see whether the very matters the Hon. Member raises are in fact taking place. That is why we are so pleased that we are moving in this field and we will for the first time do something to protect jobs.


ABELLA REPORT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the way the Government is moving is backwards, not forward. It is taking its advice from Eaton's instead of from the Catholic Bishops. It should be listening to the Bishops for a change.
My question is for the part-time feminist or the election time feminist, the Prime Minister, and involves a basic question of equity. Does he agree with Judge Abella when Judge Abella pointed out that when you convert full-time jobs to part-time jobs, instead of advancing the cause of women you take women backwards? If he agrees with that, will he stand up and say he agrees with it and state that he will make sure that Air Canada reverses its bargaining position, and will make sure that no other agency of the Crown does what Air Canada is trying to do?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP seems to think that he has a monopoly on any kind of virtue floating around. His remarks about part-time commitments to equality for women are deeply unfair, and he knows it. He is looking at a Government which has appointed a record number of women to senior Cabinet offices, a Government that responded promptly and
equitably to the Abella report, which introduced progressive divorce legislation, and which increased handsomely the number of appointments of women to senior roles in the public service.
We made a genuine commitment to enhancing the rights of women across the nation, and we shall do so, notwithstanding the snarky remarks of the Leader of the NDP, who is a part-time politician in this regard.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In 1980, the Government of which he was a member at the time awarded Mitel a grant of several million dollars for expansion projects. The decision to award the grant was conditional on following requirements being met: purchase of Canadian capital equipment, production in Canada of 75 per cent of the company's micro-electronic products, and finally, a priority option for the Canadian Government to purchase shares of the company. Could the Minister give the House the assurance that the conditions imposed on Mitel by his Government at the time will also be imposed on the future buyer of the company?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question. I believe it was the lead question put by a member of the Official Opposition. We are well aware of the undertakings that were given by Mitel at the time to which the Hon. Member is referring and we intend, of course, to make sure that those conditions are met and honoured.


GOVERNMENT'S APPARENTLY CONTRADICTORY ATTITUDE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Considering that the Minister has already endorsed the British take-over, I think he is making it very difficult for FIRA to do its job.
How can the Minister say that they want to set conditions for potential buyers, when he seems to consider the acquisition and take-over as a foregone conclusion and has already given the company his blessing?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member obviously underestimates the gravity of the situation with respect to Mitel.
May 13, 1985

This is a company that was finding it difficult to survive. It was finding it difficult to maintain the some 2,500 Canadian jobs that are presently being maintained by that company. Its debt load was very, very severe.
It has recently had an offer from the British concern to put $330 million of fresh equity into that company, with the establishment and the technology remaining in Canada. This is being done with a view to making the company a genuine northern telecommunications company in relation to the British Telecom operation, but on an international basis. Surely the Hon. Member will give us an opportunity to look at the details and to make sure that, within those parameters, the conditions to which the Hon. Member is referring will in truth be met.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says that the Government has a genuine commitment to enhancement of the rights of women. I am sure he does recognize that the effect of the dispute going on with Air Canada at the moment, if Air Canada were to win, would be to reduce further the economic opportunities for women to work full-time in the work-place at reasonable salary levels with reasonable benefits. With that in mind, will the Prime Minister move to suggest, by way of a directive given to the Departments and agencies of Government, that until this matter is resolved the departments and agencies should not purchase airline tickets from Air Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear to the Hon. Member, and to all Hon. Members of the House, that the proposal that Air Canada is offering regarding job security is unparalleled in the airline industry. Furthermore, it is the wish of Air Canada to treat full-time and part-time employees on a more equitable basis and to ensure that they are entitled to pensions, dental plans, and seniority.
The allegation that full-time employees will be laid off to make way for part-time employees is untrue. The fact of the matter is that, under the proposal that is being negotiated at the present time, seniority will govern any future layoffs if they should occur, a policy which heretofore has not been in existence.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given that the Minister of Transport does not appear to understand that what is being offered by Air Canada is a reduction of the number of full-time positions and an increase in the number of part-time positions which pay a lower hourly
Oral Questions
rate, and therefore undermine the economic stability of the women who are employed in those positions, will the Prime Minister show leadership and put some kind of commitment behind what he says he believes, by telling Air Canada that the Government will not deal with it until it meets the Government's requirements regarding equality for women?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not have to engage in the collective bargaining process. He can certainly phone his friends to give them that advice. The fact of the matter is that the unions themselves have recognized the need for more part-time workers. They have agreed to increasing the level of part-time workers to 30 per cent. Air Canada has a somewhat different view, but that principle has been accepted. It is simply a matter of the detail that has to be negotiated further.
I think the best thing that could happen is that, rather than debating this issue on the floor of the House of Commons, the Hon. Member should encourage the union leaders to get back to the bargaining table. Perhaps it is time for some enlightened leadership on their part.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
In his paper "A New Direction for Canada", on page 78, the Minister of Finance said that the Government might also give consideration to more far-reaching changes to the unemployment insurance system. The Minister wondered, for instance, whether maternity benefits should be reconsidered. The reason given by the Minister of Finance for transferring the program was that he wanted to make things easier for small businesses. Women object to the fact that maternity benefits are considered a social program. They do not want these funds to come from the Government's Consolidated Fund. They are opposed to maternity benefits being removed from the unemployment insurance program. Could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that he will see to it the program is continued?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has posed a question that has been raied in the House on several occasions. The response that has been given is that the Unemployment Insurance Fund is in fact going to be reviewed at the request of all of those involved in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, including employers, employees, women's groups, and labour unions. That over-all review will take place. Until that review is completed, no changes of the nature to which the Hon. Member alludes will be made.

May 13, 1985
Oral Questions


INQUIRY IF GOVERNMENT HAS STUDIED PAYING EMPLOYERS' SHARE
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, that was not a very satisfactory answer. I shall direct my second question to the Prime Minister.
Since the reason given by the Minister of Finance for transferring this program was that he wanted to take some of the pressure off small businesses, could the Prime Minister inform the House whether he has considered having the Government pay the employer's share?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for her question. I think she will agree that answers to such questions would appropriately be dealt with in the Budget.


PROTECTION OF PERSONS WORKING WITH VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINALS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns the Government's dealings with its own employees working with the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
The Council will not accept the standards proposed by the employees' union for the protection of persons working with video display terminals. Is the President of the Treasury Board now ready to assure this House and Canadian women that he will allow the Advisory Council to provide for those standards in the collective agreement for the protection of women?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Advisory Council unfortunately has had very few meetings over these last twelve months. There was a meeting quite recently, and I have received recommendations to which I will respond in the weeks to come.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, that was an incomplete answer. Does the Minister recall that the previous Government, which did not have a very enlightened policy toward its employees, but was a little post-Dickensian, accepted such a clause and, indeed, a clause on technological change? Not a large number of people are involved, but the principle is very important.
Would the Minister agree that the Government has the responsibility to show some leadership in these crucial areas; that women who work for the Government should get the best
conditions; that we should work together to get them generalized, and that the Government should not be using the private sector as an excuse for very poor working conditions for women?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that that is exactly what we are trying to do in all our relationships of that nature. We are trying to show ourselves as the leader in such relationships, and we will continue to do so. The issue is under active consideration. We will not try to use the Public Service as an excuse, but quite the opposite. We will try to give an example to a broad spectrum of Canadian businesses on how they should deal with these kinds of issues.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister is no doubt aware, over the past few months officials of the federal Health Protection Branch have ordered the removal of certain herbal products from sale. Can the Minister advise the House why the departmental officials undertook this action? Is there any consideration being given to permit the sale of these products pending the results of the advisory committee's recommendation?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member has mentioned is correct. The problem has developed with the Health Protection Branch and distributors of certain products, namely, that the products, in and of themselves, are distributed in other forms as well. That is where the first difficulty arises. But certain claims are made by some distributors as to the medicinal effects which those products have, which cannot be substantiated.
We have met with herbal distributors, including those in his home province of British Columbia, which resulted in the establishment of an advisory committee. That committee is expected to report between the middle to the end of September. There is no doubt in my mind that we will have to change some methods regarding the manner in which these products are approved. I thank the Hon. Member for the question.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It concerns not the issue of part-time feminists, but vacation-time feminists.
We were shocked to learn last weekend, through the media, that the Government will send 10 Ministers, no critics and no
May 13, 1985

women's representatives, on a July safari to mark the closing of the United Nations' Decade for Women. The cost of first-class airfare, alone, for the ministerial junket will be $46,420. Does the Minister not believe that these funds would be better directed toward real change for women instead of the parliamentary air bussing of Cabinet Ministers who have shown in the past eight months that they have no interest in changing the status quo for the women of Canada?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that there are two groups going to Nairobi to the conference which will mark the end of the UN Decade for Women. With the support of Government and other sectors, it is estimated that there will be over 30 leaders of national women's organizations at the voluntary forum. The official government delegation has not yet been named. Cabinet has not yet reviewed the matter.


WOMEN'S REPRESENTATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: It's about time the Government learned that the women of Canada do not want a two-tier status.

I would like to ask whether the Government is at least ready to replace the safari holidays for Progressive Conservatives with a women's delegation at the Government level, that is women like those on the National Action Committee, women who are ready to go on with their work upon returning to Canada, rather than simply going on holidays in July as 10 ministers of the Mulroney Cabinet have chosen to do?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not telling the truth. This is not true. The truth is the Government will appoint a delegation, a widely representative delegation from the Government with officials and also other Canadian representatives.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister will recall that during the election campaign her Party talked about jobs, jobs, jobs, and especially jobs for women. In British Columbia cuts in social service spending in the last year have increased the unemployment rate for women by some two percentage points, while at the same time the unemployment rate for men dropped by two points. In light of the result of those cut-backs in social spending, could the Minister assure the House today, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, that no cuts will be made in social service spending in the Budget?
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I really do not believe that the Hon. Member expects me to tell him, right now, what is in the Budget or what is not in the Budget. I can tell him quite honestly that I do not know what is in the Budget. If I did, it would be a Budget leak. But I will tell him that in the last month some 47,000 women found jobs. That was the biggest month-over-month increase in employment for women in the last five years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That came about because of the confidence which is being restored in the economy of the country, and because of the kinds of programs which we are introducing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister evaded the question. I was asking about women, and I used British Columbia as an example.
In a paper which was presented last fall to an international conference, the Government said:
Government funded jobs that have maintained women's employment levels ... are likely to disappear as restraint policies take hold.
In light of that, will the Minister abandon any plans to cut social service spending in the Budget? Can she give a commitment to the House, as Minister of Employment, that there will be a target to reduce unemployment for women by 2.5 per cent in the next year? We had a six and five program for inflation. What about a target to cut the unemployment rate for women?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I too was talking about women when I said that 47,000 women who did not have jobs before found jobs last month.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I also want to tell the Hon. Member that in all the labour market strategies, job programs, and training programs, for the first time women are being brought into the programs on a full and equitable basis. They will receive the same amount of funding and the same considerations. That is something which has not happened before. Previously, women were hived off into separated programs, put into ghettos, and not given the same kind of equality which existed elsewhere.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 13, 1985
Oral Questions STATUS OF WOMEN


IMPROVEMENT OF CONDITIONS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the status of women. This past weekend the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, representing 360 member groups from across Canada, met in Ottawa to discuss the economic integration of women into Canadian society. Job creation, job security, training, and affirmative action were identified as the key issues of concern.
In view of the fact that these issues affecting women were neglected by the previous administration, would the Minister tell us what specific action this Government has taken to address these concerns and to advance the status of women in Canada?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the Government took office I had the opportunity to meet with the President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and her executive. The question of the integration of women's issues was fundamental in their representation to me. The Hon. Member will recall that at the First Ministers' Conference in Regina, women's issues were integral to that discussion. In addition, women's representatives were present at the Economic Summit. The Hon. Member will also know, as the Prime Minister has said, that a number of significant appointments have been made at senior levels in government. Those appointments were made by this Government.
Let me also indicate to the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that at this moment the House Leaders are negotiating for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee on the status of women.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. On April 17, 1985, Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, guaranteeing full equality to all men and women. All women except wives of Armed Forces personnel serving overseas. The later are considered dependant, the same way as children-they are called "D.W.'s" for "Dependent Wives". This designation follows them everywhere. When they are admitted to a hospital, they have to use as I.D. their husbands' social insurance card, because they have none. They are "D.W.s". Does the Minister intend to give instruction to correct that situation?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which is being addressed by the subcommittee which is studying equality situations arising out of the Charter. But I might just reflect for a moment in general, in response to the Hon. Member, that we are very actively trying to rectify a number of these horrible legacies which were left by the Liberal Party when they were in government.


DEPENDENT WIFE-REQUEST THAT EXPRESSION BE REMOVED FROM ARMED FORCES ADMINISTRATION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of National Defence could then suggest that Armed Forces personnel should appear before the Committee on Equality of Rights, because they have not yet agreed to do so.
Also, since the Hon. Member is aware of the situation of the wives of Armed Forces personnel, can he now commit himself before the House that the designation "D.W." will be dropped from the Forces' terminology?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, certainly, Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated a moment ago, that kind of terminology was put there by the Party of which the Hon. Member was a member when it was in office. That, and other matters of equality, are being addressed in a very aggressive way before the subcommittee.
I want to clear up a misapprehension that the Hon. Member may have unintentionally left with Hon. Members of the House. There has been no refusal of any of the officials of Defence, or of myself, to appear before either the subcommittee or the main committee studying these matters, and arrangements will be made to address the equality issues in the fullest possible way to the satisfaction of all Hon. Members of the House.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. British Telecom is a regulated monopoly under British Government legislation, effectively controlled by British Cabinet Ministers. The British Government has already used its control to block a joint venture between British Telecom and IBM. Does the Government believe that it is sensible to place Mitel, an important, dynamic, and innovative Canadian private enterprise, under the control of a foreign, state-controlled monopoly?
May 13, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I only wish our socialist friends would at least keep up with the times. The fact is that British Telecom was one of the most successful privatizations in world history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Minister for thinking that I would not be aware of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: I looked at whose footsteps he is following. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that 49 per cent of that company is still state-controlled-


John Edward Broadbent: Exactly. Controlling interest.


Steven W. Langdon: -and given that the British Government is by far the largest shareholder, that makes it in effect in charge of that company.


John Edward Broadbent: Laugh at that.


Steven W. Langdon: In addition, Mr. Speaker, legislation exists which dominates the company and sets its policy. Does the Minister not realize that it is partly his own commitment to selling off TeleGlobe, the commitment which is taking up-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question? Quickly, please.


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister prepared to turn off this slide out of private enterprise control putting Mitel under the control of, in fact, one of the most powerful state corporations in the world?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It's true.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased that our socialist friend was not as far behind the times as I thought he was.


John Edward Broadbent: He is right on.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But he is still pretty far behind. I can only say to the Hon. Member that when we have an opportunity to review this transaction under the provisions of FIRA, we will have a much better opportunity and information base on which to answer the type of question the Hon. Member is raising.


Pauline Jewett: You mean you don't know now?
Oral Questions CANADA PENSION PLAN


HOMEMAKERS PENSION PROPOSAL
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He knows that he has accepted to be the keynote speaker at the Canadian Pensions Conference on June 5 in Toronto. Can Canadians assume, from the fact that he has agreed to be the keynote speaker, that his Government is, therefore, prepared to act on the election campaign promises which he and his Party made last summer on the inclusion of homemakers in the Canadian Pension Plan and on improvements to the private and public pension plan system? Or is this going to be another speech of platitudes whereby we are going to set up another round of negotiations?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member that many of the points he raised in his question were covered by the task force on pension review in the former Parliament. The Hon. Member also knows that, along with many changes in the Canada Pension Plan, those matters obviously must have the agreement of the provinces. I point out to him that there have been meetings between the Finance Ministers on the premiums, and tied in with that, at the next stage, will be any changes in terms of benefits. So the matter to which the Hon. Member refers is well in hand.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare well knows that after seven months of negotiations there has been a consensus package arrived at. In those negotiations are he and his Government demanding the inclusion of homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan as part of that agreement?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well aware that in these negotiations, the various points we want to have discussed will be discussed with the Ministers and not bargained on the floor of the House of Commons. But I say to the Hon. Member that the matter of the homemakers pension, which we committed ourselves to in the last election campaign, and which is now a commitment of this Government-we want to see it included. I would hope we would get the same kind of support from his Party. While the Hon. Member has given his support individually, I have not received the same support from members of his own Party.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She announced earlier this year a program called

May 13, 1985
Petitions
Challenge '85. I am wondering if she can report to the House, or tell us now, how many jobs have been created under that program.


Some Hon. Members:: Order Paper.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What is the success of the program?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am always very happy to talk about Challenge '85. I did give some figures on Friday when that matter was raised. I am pleased to say that the success of the program has brought in, not just government funding from the federal Government, but funding from the various provinces and, in addition, something in the vicinity of $100 million from the private sector, all of which will go to create more jobs for young people this summer.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, this must be the only Parliament in the world where the Minister responsible for regional industrial expansion stands up and says that the second largest telecommunications high-tech company in the country has been sold to foreign buyers, and gets applauded by members of his own Party. When the original agreement with Mitel was entered into, there was a clause in the agreement which said that the Government would have an opportunity to purchase shares in the Company at an appropriate time. Is that clause still in effect and, if so, was that offer made to the Canadian Government?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there was such a clause. If there was, I can tell the Hon. Member that, to the best of my knowledge, no offer or request was made to the Canadian Government with respect to the purchase of shares of Mitel. I can, of course, tell the Hon. Member that when Mitel got into severe financial difficulties, they did approach the Canadian Government for further assistance. That was still under review, and presumably, if this British Telecom deal falls through, this would still be the plight of Mitel. They do have financial difficulties at the present time.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on Friday, May 10, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamon-don) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report in both official languages of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs dealing with Bill C-27.


PIONEER TRUST COMPANY
Mrs. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour to lay on the Table copies in both official languages of the licences for Pioneer Trust issued by the Department of Insurance, pursuant to a commitment I made in this House on May 6.


PETITIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, together with some 600 letters of support, signed by the McMaster University President, Mr. Alvin Lee, along with some 600 professors, graduate students and support staff. The petition strongly opposes Canadian participation in research and development for the U.S. Strategic Defence Initiative known as star wars, and these petitioners have indicated that they themselves would wish not to benefit from any research undertaken as a result of the Canadian Government participating in such a program.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by over 6,000 people from the National Capital area, asking the Government of Canada and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to immediately intervene in the case of the abduction of Tina Lynn Mallette, and to summon the Ambas-
May 13, 1985

sador of Tunisia to a meeting which would hopefully result in the safe return to Canada of Tina Lynn Mallette.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-238, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to repeal those provisions of the Criminal Code relating to abortion, provisions which have denied access to safe, therapeutic abortions and have resulted in lengthy delays and complications for thousands of Canadian women. The Bill would ensure that the decision on abortion is one that is to be made by the woman involved in consultation with her doctor.
Finally, I call upon the Government to make more funds available for sex education and birth control awareness and accessibility.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties and I think you will find a disposition in the House to accept the following motion:
That the Notice of Ways and Means Motion to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make a related amendment to the Tax Court of Canada Act laid upon the Table on Thursday, May 9, 1985, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for examination; and
That the Committee report its Findings and recommendations to the House no later than September 30, 1985.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent required to put his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House willing to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Supply

Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise on a point of order to designate Wednesday as an allotted day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Jewett:
That this House recognizing the continuing economic inequality of Canadian Women, demands that the government incorporate into its forthcoming budget the following initiatives, the:
1.	reform of the tax system rather than the introduction of further public spending cuts which impact most adversely on women;
2.	provision of job creation and training programs targetted to women, and funding sufficient to enable the Canadian Human Rights Commission to enforce equal pay of work of equal value legislation, and develop an effective enforcement mechanism for affirmative action programs;
3.	provision of more transition houses and services for women and children who are victims of family violence; and
4.	provision of increased funding to ensure access to quality daycare to meet the urgent needs of Canadian parents and children.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I had a chance to say a few words about the motion before the House today in the name of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). It calls for certain legislation and action to clear up some of the inequality between men and women. I talked earlier this morning about some of the tables in the Abella report which showed the participation rate for women going way, way up in the last 15 or 20 years. However, in the major occupations which pay well, women are still a very, very small minority. As well, in some of the other big and important occupation groups such as farming, forestry and fisheries, the number of women is very, very small.
Another very interesting point is that the discrepancy between salary levels for men and women in this country is very, very wide.

May 13, 1985
Supply

I have here the French version of the report of the Abella Commission of Inquiry on Equality in Employment for women. Table No. 10 shows the income gap between men and women. As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, women have always been paid a lot less than men. The table shows that the percentage of average income for women as compared with the income of men was only 60.5 per cent in 1971. Six years later, in 1977, the average income of women was 61.7 per cent of the average income of Canadian men, and four years later, in 1981, it was 63.5 per cent. In ten years, the average salary increase for Canadian women was only 3 per cent.

And here we are now in the 1980s and we still find women in this country earning only 63 per cent or 64 per cent of what men earn. So I think the basic issue before the House today is that of equality; equality between the sexes, equality in the workplace, equal pay for work of equal value, equality in pension plans, training plans and things of that sort.
Looking at the unemployment level in this country, we heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) boasting that the unemployment rate dropped a little bit last month. But the unemployment rate for women in this country has been higher than 11 per cent ever since the election of the Government across the way. It has never gone below 11 per cent in the seven or eight months the present Government has been in office, and I say it is really much, much too high. My concern is that, given the Budget which comes down in a couple of weeks' time, and this Government's cut-back on social services, it will be the women of Canada who will be hit the hardest.
A good example is British Columbia. The biggest reason for the increase last month in unemployment in British Columbia was that women were being laid off. In fact, in the last year, because of the restraint program of Premier Bennett in that particular province, the unemployment rate for women went up by 2 per cent, while at the same time it dropped by 2 per cent for men in that province.
Mr. Speaker, the status of Canadian women is an issue with a number of very significant aspects. This afternoon I would like to speak briefly about the matter of training and the need to spend more money in this country on federal programs for Canadian women.
Second, I want to mention as well the important question of part time work. Mr. Speaker, 73 per cent of part time workers in Canada are women. Right now we are witnessing a serious labour conflict at Air Canada, and there is also the strike against Eaton's which began shortly before Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, I am seriously concerned because I think I detect a new economic trend in this country: part time work is
on the increase and there are fewer full time jobs for Canadian men and women.
Third, Mr. Speaker, there is also the problem of homemakers, because there are still many Canadian women who stay at home to raise their children, and of women who work on the farm with their husband, and there is much discrimination against these women.
Mr. Speaker, there is also the matter of women working in small businesses. They are subjected to discrimination, they have no pension and they are not entitled to investment credit and such things without the signature of their husband.
Besides, there is a group which is almost forgotten in our country, Mr. Speaker, and that is the group of women between 60 and 64 of age. It is the group of Canadian women which is most often overlooked by the Parliament of Canada as well as by Canadian legislators in all provinces.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about social programs. As I said in the House this afternoon when I directed a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), I am concerned about the future of social programs in Canada. Just before Christmas, we held in this House a debate on family allowances, on other social programs, on the future of medicare in Canada and ail other similar programs affecting women more than men.

In many ways, Mr. Speaker, it all comes back to the question of employment. It comes back to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and to recommendations made in this report by Judge Abella for employment equity and affirmative action. It comes back to Parliament having the courage to legislate in this country affirmative action in the private sector and through contract compliance with companies that do business with the federal Government in the amount of billions of dollars each and every year. I do not think we have done enough in terms of forcing the Government and the private sector to implement legislation to provide equal pay for work of equal value. We must move now and move quickly if we are to have equality.
Let us look at the Government's record. Today the Minister spoke about women and jobs for them. Only 5 per cent of the money which has been set aside for employment-creating projects has been specifically earmarked for young people and women in Canada. About 42 per cent of women are now in the workforce. Yet we do not have a commitment, even in the Canada Employment and Immigration centres, to ensure that at least 45 per cent of the people placed in jobs are women. When we got the figures from the Minister just before Christmas, we saw that the number of women placed in jobs in the country was well under 42 per cent.
We must move quickly to ensure parity in this very important area. We need affirmative action as well as specific goals and targets. In two or three places in her report Judge Abella told us clearly that we will not have affirmative action or resolution of the problem of lack of equality unless we have
May 13, 1985

specific targets and goals and timetabling to ensure that there is compliance by the federal Government, Crown corporations and the private sector. She was very clear in that particular recommendation.

The Abella report clearly states on page 215 that a voluntary program is not effective at all.

We need some mandatory regulations. If we do not have that, I do not think we will have any appreciable increase of fairness and equity in jobs for women in this great country of ours.
Another point which I am concerned about is that of enforcing employment equity in the country. The Government is saying that the Human Rights Commission can do that. Where is the money to come from for the Human Rights Commission? It presently has a backlog of cases. Is Parliament willing to vote a substantial increase in funding for the Human Rights Commission to undertake this important work? I do not get the indication that it is.
I mentioned as well the important issue of training. It is important to ensure that we have more positions in federal Government training programs for women. I suggest that 50 per cent of those positions should be filled by women. Fifty per cent of the funding for training should be for women in the country. That is the type of affirmative action we need for the Canadian female majority. However, that is not happening in our country today.
Another issue which concerns me is that of the elimination, since the election of the present Government, of the program of non-traditional occupational training. That program was eliminated in the Budget cuts of last November. That program should be reinstated to give women a better opportunity to receive an education or technical skill in a job which is seen as non-traditional. In my remarks before one o'clock I gave two or three very good examples in that particular field.
Another issue is part-time work. I said in French that I think this is a growing tendency in the country. It will hurt women much more than men because 73 per cent of part-time jobs are held by women. We must take a very strong stand to attempt to preserve full-time jobs where possible rather than letting them be eroded into the field of part-time work where there are very few or non-existent benefits. We must ensure that benefits in part-time jobs are prorated with regard to health care, dental care, pensions, sick leave, and maternity leave.
I would like to conclude by asking the House to keep a commitment made in the last election campaign. For the first time in the history of our country we had a debate on women's issues which was organized by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. The leaders of the three Parties in this country spoke in a very positive way about the need to remedy and eliminate the inequalities which exist for the women of Canada. I see no significant evidence that there has
Supply
been any move by the Government to change that since September 4.

Mr. Speaker, we now have the opportunity to amend the Canadian legislation to provide equality to Canadian women. Mr. Speaker, there is much discrimination and unfairness in our modern society and it is time we do something about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. Debate. The Hon. Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. McLean).


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in this debate.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to reaffirm my Government's commitment to the achievement of full equality for women in all aspects of our society. Just six months ago this session of Parliament opened with a Speech from the Throne that did more than any previous Government's statement to recognize the needs of women. Members of the House will recall that we made a commitment at that time, which we have sought actively to maintain, to take a comprehensive and integrated approach to improving the status of women. [Translation]
This approach was clearly demonstrated by our commitment to implement the economic renewal strategy which is so badly needed in this country.

Key to the economic renewal and equity for women is a co-operative process of federal-provincial consultations. In this vein, I have pledged to work closely and consult regularly with my provincial colleagues-my fellow advocates with Governments of this country-on behalf of women. Their assistance is vital to improving the status of women in areas under their provincial jurisdiction. I am referring here to areas of health, education and, perhaps most important of all, the delivery of employment programs.
In order to assist in this process of consultation, last December I invited my provincial and territorial counterparts to Ottawa for a special and extraordinary meeting. At that time we discussed how we could best address the issue of equality for women within the context of a debate on the general economic policies of the Government and the nation. We will continue to address these themes when we gather again in Winnipeg in June for our annual meeting.
Our Government also recognizes that inviting women to join as full partners with business, labour and Government in all major economic decisions is essential to ensuring that Canada and Canadian women achieve their full economic potential. Women have long baked the nation's pies; the time is overdue for women to sit at the table and share in the eating of that pie. To this end, we have made a special effort to ensure that
4674

May 13, 1985
Supply
the concerns of women were represented both in last February's First Ministers' Conference on the economy which was held in Regina and then at the National Economic Conference that was held here in Ottawa last March.
One thing that has clearly emerged from all of these discussions is that women's issues are essentially economic issues. They are bread and butter issues.
Women are an integral part of the economic process, yet they suffer the most from major economic inequalities. Over the past few decades, women have continually increased their contribution to the national economic effort. They contribute in their presence in the labour force and also increasingly as entrepreneurs. Today, 60 per cent of all Canadian women aged 15 to 64 are in the labour force. This percentage increases each year and it is expected that by the end of this century the participation rate of women and men will be at the same level, with about equal representation of both sexes in the labour force. Today, women make up 41.7 per cent of the total workforce but the full potential of the Canadian economy will be achieved only through the best use of all available resources.

Women have always been on the same footing as men in assuming many economic burdens. However, they have rarely been able to earn the same recognition and the same remuneration.

Women's rightful claim to equality has been met with a built-in systemic barrier in our society. As a result, women's economic activity has been confined to a narrow range of sectors or occupations. Women's unemployment rate has historically been higher than men's. Added to this, structural changes which are currently taking place in the economy threaten a whole range of other jobs traditionally held by women. The productive potential of Canada's women is therefore largely underutilized, depriving women of a much needed income for the provision of their family and their own economic security.
1 believe that society pays a double price for the underutilization of half of its population, through welfare payments to families and individuals and through a less than maximum level of general activity.
Policies to address the unequal economic situation of women in this country have, until now, generally been of a collective nature. They have been oriented toward social rather than economic objectives. These policies all tend to compensate for the perverse effects that our economic system has on women.
Through years of application they have been progressively refined. Yet their mutually reinforcing effects could have been considerably enhanced if they were challenged through an integrated framework. It is just such a framework that my Government has begun to build.
Need I remind the House of the quick action the Government took in responding to the recommendations of the Abella
Inquiry into equality in employment. We have adopted employment equity as a priority for this Government.
The employment equity principle brings together measures related to equal opportunities, affirmative action, equal pay for work of equal value and supportive measures in the areas of training and child care. It is a principle that has strong potential to change the status of women in the workforce.
Employment equity is not a new idea. Previous Governments have paid lip service to the concept of labour force equality. It has been talked about, worried about and studied but it was not until this Government was elected that anyone took action.
We have taken the first step. We have moved to require Crown corporations, federally regulated businesses and contractors providing goods and services to the Government to implement employment equity. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), has been discussing these measures with representatives of business and labour and with those whom the measures are designed to benefit-women, members of the visible minority groups, native people and disabled individuals.
In attending some of these briefings with her, we have been impressed by the desire to work with us to find a meaningful application.
[ Translation]
The legislation required to implement these initiatives will soon be introduced in this House. Once more, this is only a first step in tackling the many barriers to equality in the work place.

The Government's commitment to the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne.
Legislation guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value has been on the books since 1977. But legislation by itself, of course, is not sufficient. It must also be effectively enforced. The previous Government relied on what might best be described as a fire-fighting approach. As complaints were made, Treasury Board worked with the Human Rights Commission on a resolution. What was lacking was a positive approach.
Our Government has moved to ensure that the principle of equal pay for work of equal value is applied in the federal Public Service.
As an employer, the Government intends to take a proactive stance to ensure the principle is fully implemented. We have established a senior level, joint union-management committee to do a detailed study on implementing equal pay for work of equal value. The committee's preliminary report is expected at the end of next month.
We expect that our efforts to implement equal pay for work of equal value will be a model for the private sector and other levels of Government. At the same time, we have taken additional steps to encourage private sector compliance with the legislation.
May 13, 1985

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has developed draft guidelines to assist employers in implementing the equal pay for work of equal value section of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Commission has also pledged to take action against employers dragging their feet in complying with the guidelines.
As was recognized in the Speech from the Throne, the Government recognizes that measures to improve and expand skills training and retraining are essential elements in a sound approach to providing job opportunities and coping with rapid technological change. Trends in labour market supply and demand indicate that training will need to be more varied and better targeted in order to help prepare the unemployed and those displaced by technological change for future work and to create the skills base needed for a competitive economy.
Of course, training is of major importance to the expansion of women's occupational options. It is also a priority instrument in achieving women's equality in the economic sector. The federal Government and the provinces have agreed to a new medium term strategy designed to increase the work capabilities of the current and potential labour force. New orientation will better address the scope and needs of women in relation to the labour market. These needs are diverse, reflecting the diversity of the situations experienced by women in Canadian society today. Persistent high unemployment and rapid technological developments are major challenges facing our Government over the coming years. They are also factors which affect women in particular. We are firmly committed to meeting these challenges through the development of a skilled and highly competitive labour force where women occupy their rightful place. To that end we have taken steps to ensure that women constitute a special target group in all federal job-creation and training programs. We have placed major emphasis on training for women entering the workforce for the first time and for those re-entering the workforce after a lengthy absence.
We have already implemented measures to make it easier for women with young children to take training courses. We have pledged to investigate means by which we can ensure that women who wish to improve opportunities for themselves and for their families through training and retraining are not penalized through our income support systems.

At the provincial level, we have urged the provinces to review some of their policies, for instance, in cases where medical or dental care coverage is reduced or cancelled when mothers on welfare also receive additional training allowances. [English]
1 am firmly convinced that the new labour market strategy will address the scope and nature of the needs of women in relation to the workforce, but economic policies and economic strategies are not enough. They must be supplemented by effective social policies.
Supply
The influx of married women into the labour market in recent years has been nothing less than dramatic. In fact, between 1975 and 1983 the labour force participation rate of married women rose by almost 11 per cent, more than twice the rate at which single women entered the labour force. At present, one of every two women with children works outside the home. In view of this, I cannot over-emphasize the importance of providing adequate support systems for families where both partners work.
We know for a fact that many more families would be living below the poverty line if both partners were not working. Unfortunately, changes to our social structures have not kept pace with this fact. For too long women have borne the double burden of family and their work responsibilities. Studies have shown that women in the labour force average almost four hours each day on domestic and child care duties, compared with six hours for women not in the labour force and only two hours for men. The federal Government cannot pass legislation to force men to do the vacuuming or to wash the dishes. Many men may heave a sigh of relief that we cannot. However, it is high time that we recognized the role that we as legislators can play in providing the necessary support systems for working parents.
We intend to address this issue through the establishment of a parliamentary task force on the future of child care in Canada. The terms of reference of this task force are currently being drafted and will be announced in the near future by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). The parliamentary task force will undertake public consultations on child care. My Government feels strongly that such consultations by parliamentarians will help raise the level of public awareness of the important issue of child care in Canada. We hope that many groups and individuals will become involved in this public discussion of a most serious issue. Of course, the parliamentary task force will benefit from the research already conducted by the task force on child care headed by Dr. Katie Cooke. I expect to receive Dr. Cooke's task force report this fall. It will contain recommendations on the role of the federal Government in the development of quality, affordable, accessible child care.
We are also working closely with the provinces on the issue of child care. A working group of officials was set up following last year's meeting of federal-provincial-Territorial Ministers responsible for the status of women. The mandate of this group is to develop initiatives and proposals to address the concerns of availability and affordability of child care, with special attention to the question of the financing arrangements which support child care.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to deal with one of the most serious of all family problems in this day and age.

Violence is a part of life for thousands of women and children. It is estimated that one in ten women who is married or living with a man is battered by her husband or partner.

May 13, 1985
Supply
Wife battering is found in all communities and cultures and at all economic levels. Women of all ages are abused. A battered woman is not simply the victim of a single abuse incident but is enmeshed in a repetitive cycle of violence which can involve physical, emotional and sexual abuse.
The Government takes seriously its commitment, as stated in the Speech from the Throne, to provide additional assistance to victims of family violence. We are backing up this commitment with continued funding. The federal Government at present is funding 911 beds in more than 50 transition houses established through the non-profit program of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We are assisting with the salaries and with the staff for transition houses through the job-creation programs of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. We are funding projects to help battered women through the women's programs of my own Department, the Secretary of State. Through the Canada Assistance Plan we have agreed to share with the provinces the cost of providing services in transition houses on a fifty-fifty basis.
In conclusion, let me indicate that steps have been taken to address the whole issue of family violence in a comprehensive and coherent way through the establishment of a special federal-provincial-Territorial working group. This group has examined many aspects of the problem including improvements required to the criminal justice system, social services and public educational programs. The working group will report to my provincial counterparts and to me at our meeting next month on the implementation of initiatives already undertaken and on new measures required to improve our response to the problem of batterred wives.

Mr. Speaker, this Government recognizes that there is considerable work to be done to improve the status of Canadian women.

Yet we look upon our accomplishments to date with pride. We believe we have laid the groundwork for further action in the days and months to come. As Minister responsible for the status of women, 1 give the House my commitment to continue to act until all Canadian women have the opportunity to participate as full and equal partners in all aspects of our society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister who is responsible for the status of women could inform this House whether he agrees with the position taken by his colleagues, Conservative Members of Parliament, who told the Canadian Human Rights last week that constitutional protection for
disadvantaged groups like women in minorities threatened the rights of individuals? In particular, does he agree with the statement by the Tory Member of Parliament for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy), who is opposed to affirmative action programs because he believes that all capable people have equal opportunities in the workplace and there is no need for affirmative action programs? Does the Minister agree with the statements of his colleagues to the committee hearings?


Walter Franklin McLean: As the Hon. Member will know, Mr. Speaker, the intention of parliamentary committees is to have a public discussion. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have a wide range of opinions. The policy of the Government in this regard is laid out clearly in the Throne Speech. The Hon. Member will know that in the actions following the Throne Speech and the decisons that have been taken subsequently by the Government, it speaks in terms of its commitments in these areas.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a couple of particular questions to the Minister, whose goodwill is well known, but who has treated us to vague generalities in the precise points of action. First, I would like to ask him about the situation of women in the United Nations Organization, particularly Canada's promise made in the plan of action five years ago at the Copenhagen conference which he attended at that time as critic of the Conservative Party.
A number of proposals were made, such as that there would be equality for women in appointments under government jurisdiction and in particular in the area of communications where women are very disadvantaged and the portrayal of women is still very much a problem. Very specific proposals with regard to equality were made in areas where the Government has the opportunity to make appointments, such as the CBC and the CRTC. We have not yet come close to equality. Does this mean that the Government is reneging on that commitment made by the previous Government, or is this something we will see implemented very soon?
Further the UN in itself, in its own bodies, was to increase the representation of women, which we have not seen. Has our Canadian delegation pressed for that? If it has, we certainly have not seen any results. I might note that our Canadian delegation has a very poor representation of women. Has the Minister made any representations to improve that?
That is one area of questions on the UN. I would like to ask another question about the Abella report, if I may. Is the Minister aware that the National Action Committee at its conference this weekend came up with a much more scathing reaction to the Abella report? Specifically, it condemns as inadequate the planned legislation in response to the Abella report and urges the federal Government to introduce programs and practices through affirmative action, including mandatory requirements and enforcement mechanisms with numerical objectives and deadlines. Will the Minister give some commitment to these very precise measures, and not just the first reaction of the Government to the Abella report, which was a very weak one indeed?
May 13, 1985


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her questions. Her knowledge and interest in this subject are well known to all Canadians. We appreciate her continuing interest.
In the matter of the response to the UN in relation to the plan of action, we have been consulting. As the Hon. Member knows, our response in part requires a federal-provincial response. Our delegation, in reporting at Nairobi, will include provincial representatives. This Government, in terms of its appointments and of our own response, as was indicated, has already moved up to 24 per cent. We hope within the shortterm target range to have that number increase to 30 per cent of women in government.
In relation to the important matter of sex stereotyping and communication and the importance of regulatory agencies and the CBC, I have intervened personally on that matter with the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and with the President of the CBC internally since becoming Minister. We will continue to watch that, despite the necessities of the deficit, in any alterations that must be made within the CBC, for example, women are not in any way disproportionately affected, as they may well be since sometimes they are in the most vulnerable situations.
1 thank the Hon. Member for raising the question of women's representation at the United Nations. When I met with the Under-secretary General in New York some months ago, 1 raised with him the specific matter. As the Hon. Member knows, within our world there are varying attitudes toward equality for women. He indicated to me that he was appreciative of the position Canada has taken historically and continues to take and that it is a priority for the administration. I have also spoken with our ambassador, Mr. Lewis, about that matter. When I was in Vienna for the preparatory meetings before Nairobi, I stated that this is a matter of particular importance to Canada. Therefore, I thank the Hon. Member for her sensitivity to that issue in the larger window.
On the question of the Abella report, the question of mandatory implications was discussed at the time. There were a number of comments at the time when the Government made its response. Generally there was a very favourable response. My attitude is that while I understand that perspective, as Judge Abella says, there has not been movement in the last 10 years. What is now being signalled is a three-year time frame after which, if there is not that type of movement, the Government will have to go back to the drawing board in a relatively short time and address the particular concern that was raised over the weekend.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, concerning the Nairobi conference, the Minister will recall that at the Copenhagen conference there was a delegation of about 14 people. Both he and I were on that delegation. About half the delegation consisted of members of the Conservative and New Democratic Parties, either provincial or federal parliamentarians. Only about half were government people. Since we were the beneficiaries of this enlightened policy, actually he and I even found occasion to congratulate the Government of the day. I understand that
Supply
this time the delegation will consist of between 35 and 40 people. I am speaking now only of the official delegation, not the NGOs which, as the Minister knows, do their own thing. Will the Minister follow that precedent and ensure that close to half of the official delegation, including both members of the Parliament of Canada and of the provincial legislatures, be made up not just of government people, but of members of other political Parties?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her representation. As I mentioned in Question Period, decisions regarding the make-up of the official delegation have not yet been discussed at Cabinet. Therefore, speculation about the size of the delegation is merely that, speculation. Given the cost involved and also the availability of accommodation, it is likely that the number will be smaller rather than larger. As the opposition critic, I appreciated the opportunity to be in Copenhagen. I will be encouraging my colleagues to see the wisdom of that situation. Although this is clearly a government responsibility, there is a precedent which warrants looking at.
The make-up of the official delegation, as Hon. Members will know, will be the same as the make-up of a delegation to any major United Nations conference. It requires those who are officially appointed by their Governments, either federal or provincial, as well as officials who bring with them expertise. Therefore, the make-up will include people with knowledge of the UN system and particularly the knowledge of women in development and health as well as other areas. We are now discussing the appropriate make-up of that delegation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin).


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to support the motion before the House today, a motion that censures the Government's action with respect to the economic status of women. Mr. Speaker, I beg to disagree with the Minister who spoke previously. The economic inequality of Canadian women has not diminished since September 4, and it is because the requisite legislation and regulations have not been adopted.
The Progressive Conservative Government's record on women's issues is nothing to write home about. Let us go back to last summer. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister made a formal commitment to deal with the problems facing women on the labour market. Speaking in deep and solemn tones, which he likes to do to show how seriously he means what he says, the Prime Minister told women who interviewed him that the status of women was a priority both for him and for the Progressive Conservative Party. Mr. Speaker, I think that from now on we will do well to be wary of the Prime Minister when his voice drops a few octaves and

May 13, 1985
Supply
he starts speaking very slowly. His solemn tones are no guarantee of serious commitment to an issue, although he is constantly trying to have Canadian men and women believe otherwise.
During the last election campaign millions of T.V. viewers were treated to the party leaders' debate on the status of women. It was the first time the feminist lobby managed to organize a televised debate of this order. A first, not only for Canada but in fact a world premiere the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, of which I was president at the time, initiated the negotiations with the C.B.C., and once the framework was established we handed over to the N.A.C., which was responsible for everything up to the televised debate.
This brief success did not have a sequel, and we have every reason to believe it was because the Progressive Conservative Party came to power. However, before the television cameras, the Member for Baie-Comeau (Mr. Mulroney), promised us everything: funding for daycare centres, for shelters for women and children who are victims of family violence, affirmative action programs with provisions for monitoring and evaluation, programs to prepare women for technological change, support programs for businesswomen, and so forth. And what has the Progressive Conservative Government done since it came to power?
Last fall, after hesitating for a long time about whether it was going to maintain the unversality of social programs-in that debate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) did not come out the winner in Cabinet, to put it mildly-the Government decided to do nothing. Indeed, attacks by the Opposition and the pressure of public opinion managed to shake the convictions of those in the Prime Minister's circle who firmly believed that Canadian men and women had given them a mandate for a shift to the right in economic and social policy. However, Mr. Speaker, that is not quite the case. During the last election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party tried to give as little indication as possible of what it was going to do, and in conducting its campaign, it tried to please everyone. However, Canadian women managed to get some commitments out of the Prime Minister, and I will get back to these in a minute.
This Government, which has been trying so hard to govern by consensus, should realize that one of the issues in Canada on which there is the broadest consensus is that of the economic equality of women. Since the Government came into office, it did not do much for women, very little even with respect to appointments. I heard the Minister saying earlier that 22 per cent of appointees were women. It is rather interesting since my calculations markedly differ from his, beginning with the number of women who have been appointed executive assistants in the various departments. I would also like to know how many women have been appointed political assistants in various offices. I think our figures lead to quite different conclusions.
Last March, on the occasion of International Women's Day, the Government put up a good front when it introduced measures to ensure employment equal opportunities for
women, native people, visible minorities and disabled persons. Compliance is voluntary. As you may recall, voluntary compliance on the competitive labour scene is synonymous with inefficiency. This has been demonstrated in many research projects, the least important of which is certainly not Judge Rosalie Abella's work.
On page 217 of her report, Judge Abella writes:
It is difficult to see how voluntary programs might appreciably improve employment opportunities for women, native people, disabled persons or visible minorities.
Judge Abella goes on to say:
Given the seriousness and apparent immutability of discrimination in employment, it would be totally unrealistic and excessively naive to rely solely on good will, however necessary in voluntary programs, to guarantee equality.
Not only does the Conservative Government not want to define what it means by equality, but it must be noted that no coercive measure is provided should Crown corporations fail to establish an over-all plan to reach equality targets in employment. The Conservative Government does not want to urge private companies to set up employment equality programs. Apparently it does not follow the same logic with respect to work and women in the public service, Government agencies and Crown corporations on one hand, and in the private sector on the other hand.
We know that employment equality measures apply to the public sector and to private companies that get Government contracts. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said she was positive those measures were effective because the maximum use of manpower resources- and therefore the hiring and promotion of women-were one of the basic factors of efficiency in the work-place. If the Minister really believes that, she should encourage private firms to set up job training programs, which could be perfectly suited to the particular conditions of every firm. The employment legislation must have teeth in order to be effective.
On March 27, 1985, in the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal, a few hundred women who met there under the auspices of the Progressive Conservative Women's Caucus were told that without concrete measures such as those recommended in the Abella report, practical results in the area of women equality in employment would be a long way off. But Canadian women are anxious to get what the Hon. Member for Baie-Comeau promised them during the last election. Will we have to wait for another March 8 in order that a further timid step be made along the road to economic equality for women? The Conservative Party's book of promises included certain statements concerning women in the economy, and I would like to recall them just in case our friends opposite might forget about them.
In a press release dated July 26, 1984, it was stated that the Conservative Party wanted to implement positive action programs, with monitoring and evaluation measures in the Public Service, Government agencies and Crown corporations. The Conservative Party also claimed it supported the development and implementation of efficient programs to prepare
May 13, 1985

women for the technological changes and new careers by way of a combination of fiscal incentives, grants and other means. The Progressive Conservative Party even promised business women, if it were elected, to ensure the availability of various information and support programs in the area of economics and financing for business women, women in small and medium-sized businesses and women associates. There is no need to add that we are greatly concerned about the upcoming budget, because judging from all those promises, I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will have a special program for women getting into business and for small and mediumsized businesses.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that after nine months in power, I appreciate that all this is not fully implemented. However, since almost nothing has been undertaken, which makes us wonder whether the promises made by the Right Honourable Prime Minister were only hot air, although the Government has put forward timid proposals for equality in employment for women, it does not seem ready to look at women's work in a more general context.
The Progressive Conservative Party often has the unhappy habit of looking at problems through the wrong end of the telescope. Solving women's labour problems does not mean restrict its effort to the work-place as such.
It is a well known fact that working women very often assume by themselves the responsibility for the children. Day care is not a luxury but sometimes a basic organizational necessity today. Canada does not have even half the number of places in nurseries requested by Canadian women. We know that in the year 2000, 90 per cent of Canadian women will be on the labour market not as a luxury or for their comfort but out of necessity. That is why day care is a priority. Once again, we hope that in the budget, a week or two from now, there will be a specific provision on day care.
Mr. Speaker, I will remind you once again if I may a promise made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the last election campaign concerning day care: The party undertakes to find quickly some realistic and efficient answers to that emergency. Our party will play a leadership role to improve the sharing of responsibilities between mother, father and society. With the co-operation of business, unions and provinces, the party will promote the development of innovative programs, especially in the working place.
As we mentioned earlier, we are still expecting the report of Mrs. Katy Cook and government members have told us that there is a special task force on day care. I am quite willing to have a special task force on day care, but it is still more important to read the report and recommendations before setting up another task force.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian women are eagerly waiting for the Prime Minister to show the leadership he promised. Apparently, the Canadian people did not elect a passionate champion of day care on September 4 last but rather someone who likes to bargain to such an extent that he took the liberty of advising presidents Reagan and Mitterrand in Bonn.
Supply
If the Prime Minister is not a passionate champion of day care, he does not support more eagerly transition houses for battered women and children. This is perhaps too far outside his concerns. I heard the Minister responsible for the status of women say a while ago that there would be a meeting of federal and provincial ministers on violence in the family. I quite agree but I would like to add that all those federal-provincial meetings on the status of women were initiatied by the
Liberal government. Well, the Liberal government can be accused of every defect, but I think that as far as the status of women is concerned, the Liberal government can boast many substantial accomplishments.
Well, Mr. Speaker, let me quote to you what Canadian women were told during the last election campaign concerning these shelters:
The Progressive Conservative Party will make improvements to and increase the effectiveness of all federal programs dealing with public information, transition houses, accommodation and support of victims of family and social violence, whether they are battered women or abused children.
I hope, therefore, that during the forthcoming federal-provincial meeting, the federal Government will lead the way, failing which we would be very disappointed and get the impression that although he was very good at making promises during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada is not very good now at fulfilling them.
Mr. Speaker, I think that in his speech, the Hon. Member from Baie-Comeau misrepresented reality. When we consider what is happening in the case of Indian women, as our committee is currently dealing with Bill C-31, we realize that the Government has decided that Indian women will be reinstated on the bands' membership but that their children will not, a situation which is entirely unacceptable. Also, I think the divorce legislation is quite good, but this is again a Liberal initiative. Concerning prostitution and the Fraser report, Mr. Fraser had emphasized during a press conference that the Government should not single out a particular recommendation and implement it; yet, that is exactly what the Government is doing, interpreting as it pleases and implementing the recommendation on soliciting, which I find also entirely unacceptable, in spite of the fact that the President of the Progressive Conservative Party in British Columbia stated last weekend that prostitution is very important and that the desire to procreate being so strong, men absolutely need prostitutes to satisfy it and also get rid of the violence they feel for one another. In view of all this, I seriously wonder what will be the destiny of this Bill in the House. There is also part-time work. It is a fact that the majority of women have part-time jobs. We also hope that the next Budget will contain a special recommendation that women be given fringe benefits proportional to the number of hours they work. It is a fact in 1985 that 72 per cent of part-time jobs are held by women, but with the new technology, men will also be affected by technological change and will have to work part-time. However, at the present time, because of the economic situation, 72 per cent of women have

May 13, 1985
Supply
part-time jobs and the Government must certainly deal with this problem.
As for planned parenthood, we learned three weeks ago that the Department of National Health and Welfare had closed down its Family Planning Division, with the result that we can no longer obtain any family planning information from the Department, which poses a threat to the funding of all planned parenthood clinics in Canada. We have to wonder about the decisions of the Government because we know that, while there is not even a birth rate plan for the country and teenage pregnancies pose a problem, there are no services available at this time, because if the Family Planning Division disappears, our young people as well as adults, but especially our young people, will be deprived of educational services, since the major problem is that of teenage pregnancies and absolutely nothing is being done about it.
Of course, I would also like to say a word about pensions for people between the ages of 60 and 64 other than widows or widowers. The Members opposite will tell us that 85,000 people receive the pension for widows and widowers in Canada. This is all very well, but the majority of people are separated, divorced or single. We know-
Mr. Speaker is telling me that I have only one minute left. I shall therefore complete my comments.
In conclusion, I would like to say that true economic equality for women will not be attained in three years or in 25 unless corrective action is taken immediately. Yet, the problem is not a lack of research. The Economic Council of Canada has just published the proceedings of a seminar on the economic status of women in the labour force called For a Fair Share. If the Progressive Conservative Party does not change its attitude towards women, 52 per cent of our population might lose patience.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Deputy Whip and Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to remind the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) of the past but since she is doing it herself and seems delighted to do so, I must stand up and speak out as well. I think that the Hon. Member for Outremont was involved in the issue of the status of women because of the Axworthy case, when the minister responsible for the status of women in the former government told women who wanted equality that they had better postpone their intervention on the Constitution and the Charter of Rights so as not to undermine the political standing of his party. I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, to attend that conference and ... I see some other women across the way who were also present... and fortunately, in spite of the fact that the previous Liberal minister wanted to establish priorities that were not in line with those of Canadian women, we still have been able to do our job.
As a second reminder of the past, since she is pleased about it again, the federal Government has imposed its will on the provinces, it argued with them, did not respect their independence and their responsibilities and their rights, though they represent the Canadian citizens as much as the federal Government; because of this lack of respect for another level of government, progress has been slowed down on many issues, including women's issues. The Hon. Member, for instance, refers to the amended legislation on the rights of native people saying that despite the efforts of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), the children of some native women who will at last be equal under the law will not recover their rights. But she forgets to indicate that this responsibility falls upon the Native Nations themselves and not the Government. Those nations will decide what the status of people living on Indian reserves will be.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out those inconsistencies and oversights, some of which are certainly unintentional. Moreover, I wish to refer to another inconsistency. The Hon. Member said that the Minister had got his fingers burnt when he met with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and vice versa. She should make up her mind. Well, if it is so, it is because something has changed. I also want to remind her, since she has reminded us that amendments to the Divorce Act were brought about in part by the previous administration, although most of the new provisions are very different from the old ones, I want to remind her that it is the Clark Government which, in 1979, introduced the new concept of spouse's allowances and that this government quickly moved, after its election, to extend this benefit to widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age. We would certainly want to give much more to all the elderly poor, but it is a spouse's allowance. It would amount to extend family allowances to older people because they are poor. Our programs must be consistent.
Second, the previous administration had not earmarked any funds for the elderly, so that we had to establish a fund in an attempt to offer at least this allowance.
Therefore, I wish that in her passionate effort to defend the achievements of the previous administration, the Hon. Member really remembers where all these things came from. Mr. Speaker, I also want to ask her whether when she was appointed to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, she found the job more pleasant than Mrs. Doris Anderson did when she was there.


Lucie Pépin: I welcome this opportunity to reply to my colleague because I feel that anyone who indulges in personalities at this time cannot have much to say for women. We are here to pass legislation on women's issues, not to make personal remarks on each and every one of us. However, I am very happy to tell you that, as regards Section 15 of the Charter of Rights, I can still claim that we worked very hard at that time to have it adopted, and the Council played a very important role. The Council is also responsible for having Section 28 passed and for organizing all provincial and women's groups so that pressure could be brought to bear on all three parties.
May 13, 1985

This is how Section 28 was passed and I am most pleased about it. Besides, when you say that I recall the very important things the Liberal government did for women and that I take pride in them, I would simply remind you that Canada is one of the largest countries in the world with the most important legislation for women. We are one of the few countries to offer so much legislation about women. Therefore, as I said earlier, we may be considered as the culprit in everything that may have gone wrong but as far as the status of women is concerned, I think Canada has a pretty good record.


Claudy Mailly: At the provincial level!


Lucie Pépin: The provincial level is no concern of ours. Legislation sometimes overlaps in this field, but I am talking about the federal Government.
Third, about Indian women, it is a matter of what stand your caucus or mine takes. When you say we must let Indian governments decide for themselves, you are stating your position. And yours and mine on Indian issues differ greatly, and I have no intention of changing mine. I think the children must absolutely be reinstated in their rights; if the women are made members of Indian bands again, the children must also be granted their native rights. It all depends to which party you belong.
I must say that you seem to be well informed on pension issues. On all the others, unfortunately, having to dwell in the past and to deal in personalities shows how little you know about women's issues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Government is blamed today for its policy related to Canadian women. We are asking for concrete measures aimed at improving the status of women. Indeed, the Conservative party, when they were in opposition and especially during the last election campaign, promised such measures. Yet they have not kept their promises since then. On the contrary! Their policies since the election have been prejudicial to women. Let us first consider tax reform. This Conservative Government has maintained the federal tax increase proposed last year by the Liberals. This Conservative Government has found billions of dollars for oil companies, including multinationals. The Conservative Government did not fill the loopholes in the tax system, which benefit private corporations. The Government has even admitted that the most recent loophole with regard to research expenses is costing Canada more than $1 billion each year. Yet the Government could not find money to meet the needs of Canadian men and women. The old age security benefits, for example, could have been increased with that amount of money.
To pay for those hand-outs to private corporations, the Government had to save elsewhere. In fact, the Government has chosen to cut in the budgets of departments and Crown corporations like the CBC. Given that situation, women are
Supply
those who get laid-off. Women who just recently got a job are laid-off. For instance, the budget cuts in research on the environment, ill-advised to start with, have particularly cost women their jobs.
This Government has a policy or rather an ideology favouring the private sector at the expense of the public sector, no matter what the consequences are for Canadian men and women. It follows that some jobs in the public sector are cut in favour of private sector growth. The growth of the public sector favoured women in Canada. This sector has been growing and giving good jobs to women since the Second World War. The men-women salary differences are smaller in the public sector. Social benefits are better, pensions, union protection, etc., are better. Now, women's jobs are threatened the most by the present policy of the Conservative Government. Unfortunately, the Government is blinded by its ideological concerns. Women are more practical and less interested in ideology. They are interested in the quality and the value of the jobs involved rather than in which sector they fall.
Women who came before the NDP job action group talked to us very specifically about this point. They talked about the need for good jobs, the fact that these jobs had developed especially for women in the public sector. Unions had fought for women and got better working conditions and salaries, and because of the ideological preoccupations of the Government these are the jobs that are cut back. The Government does not realize that there are particular implications for women in a policy which might seem to be gender-free. A policy of protecting the private sector and attacking the public sector has very serious implications for women.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women in Canada is very aware of these difficulties. Indeed, one of its major recommendations resulting from its conference this past weekend concerned precisely this point. I would like to read that recommendation to the House. It reads:
Whereas the value of tax concessions allowed by the federal Government is between 30 and 50 billion dollars per year according to the Auditor General; and whereas these tax breaks benefit large companies and high income tax payers the most; and whereas this situation is largely responsible for the deficit; and whereas the deficit is now being used as an excuse to cut public spending; and whereas women are the first to be hurt by such cuts; be it resolved that NAC lead a campaign strongly recommending that the deficit be reduced through reform of the tax system and not through public spending cuts.
This is precisely what the NDP has been urging, along with many other organizations. I note the Economic Council of Canada, not known to be a great supporter of the NDP, recommended that this approach be taken rather than cuts in public spending.
I want to go on to some more specific matters in the resolution before us today concerning job creation and job training programs. We in the NDP believe that these must be specifically targeted to women. We do not believe that the laws of nature are favourable to women in that sense. We have seen that neglect means that the status quo continues. Women

May 13, 1985
Supply
are disadvantaged in the labour market right now and, without precise means of intervention, that disadvantage will continue. For that reason we recommend that in job-training programs paid for out of public funds, sponsored by Government, 50 per cent of the places be accorded to women. Young men and young women come into the labour market in roughly equal numbers, and for training purposes women should be getting half those places. For job-creation projects involving public money, women make up roughly 42 per cent of the labour force, a growing percentage at that, and jobs should be reserved for women in that proportion. That is only fair. Unfortunately, to date we have seen the Government take the view-and I am sorry to say the previous Government had the same view-that the real jobs are men's jobs. The construction job which ends with some kind of physical object, be it building a bridge or what have you, is a more real job than a service job providing daycare and nursing or educational services. The kind of jobs women do in communities have not been valued as being worth much and women have not got as much support in job-creation programs. To prefer these capital-increasing projects over human resource-oriented projects seems to be a gender-free approach, but in fact it is not. It means that men's jobs are preferred to women's jobs.
We recommend that the Government develop effective action programs. By "effective" we mean programs with numbers, goals and deadlines. The Abella reforms, which were practical and fairly modest-one certainly cannot call them revolutionary-have only been partially respected in the Government's response. It has not gone far enough. I point out that the National Action Committee recommended a much more vigorous approach to the Government's response to the Abella report, and indeed the NAC condemned as inadequate the planned legislation in response to that report. The NAC instead urged the federal Government to introduce programs and practices through affirmative action with mandatory requirements, enforcement, numerical objectives and deadlines to bring about equality under federal jurisdiction.
Why do we need to have numerical quotas and deadlines and very precise measures? Because it has not worked otherwise. We have had kind words about affirmative action, plans and programs for action. As arts and culture critic, let me refer you to one in my own area. The CBC is a Crown corporation. Back in 1970, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada recommended that Crown corporations have a special responsibility and that they design their own program for improving the participation of women. That was 15 years ago. Well, they were not forced into doing it, there were not numerical quotas, and eventually, after a great deal of pressure, they came up with vague plans. But of course there has been very little change in the proportion of women in management or producers' roles, and there has been even less change in the portrayal of women on the screen. The record has not been good because there has not been accountability, and I think we have to say, enough of plans for action, enough lip service, we want some real action. We want evaluations, and if they are not satisfactory, then fire the people responsible and we will replace them with people who will take equality for women as a serious objective.
Regarding evaluation, I can recommend the McDonald "no fudge factor". This is a statistic which I think all of our government Departments and Crown corporations, and indeed private corporations with contracts with the Government, should be required to publish. Specifically, this would mean that each Department would publish the proportion of women on the payroll. This of course could be pro-rated for part-time workers and the proportion of the payroll they get. If we see that in a certain area women were 60 per cent of the payroll but they got only 40 per cent of the pay, we would know that most of that payroll was going to the smaller number of men who had the supervisory jobs or jobs which were evaluated at a higher level. Then we could have year after year that same proportion and we could see very objectively if the proportion of women in those jobs was improving. It would not just be up to the government Department to talk about how good its attitude is toward women and how much it was proposing to do but in fact not doing.
I would like now to turn to the question of equal pay for work of equal value, a very important and integral part of any kind of job equity plan for women. We have it at the federal level on paper. We have the Canadian Human Rights Commission enforcing it, and I would like to say that it is doing the best enforcement in Canada on this principle. Unfortunately, I cannot say that it is all that great because there have been numerous delays, it has not been vigorous in the pursuit of some cases, its guidelines are a little backward and out of date, and I think it could be making further progress.
If equal pay for work of equal value had been vigorously implemented at the federal level, it would show up in the statistics. We could look at the industries regulated at the federal level, and the regulations have been in place for about seven years now, and we would see over the years declining differences in wage and salaries within industries at the federal level. Unfortunately, statistics do not show such a trend. Implementation has still been haphazard and based on a case by case complaint system, and it still takes years for cases to be resolved. I would point to the Bell Canada case and that made by the communications workers of Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has not been vigorous. It has accepted excuse after excuse on the part of the employers. We have seen no progress despite quite a bit of pressure from women's organizations in support of the women who are being discriminated against in these particular places of employment.
The guidelines of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which have recently come out, show some improvement in some respects, but they are inadequate in others. It is a step forward and a step backward. I would like to point out a few of the deficiencies. It is very important that small and large groups be compared for the purpose of dealing with actual cases. The fact that a woman with a complaint is in a badly outnumbered job category is no reason why she should not
May 13, 1985

have her day in court or before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is no reason to deny her coverage by the Canadian Human Rights Act. Complainants need more information and cases should be more speedily processed. There should be a flexible definition of establishment. There have been improvements here, but it is still not good enough.
Of course that only opens up the question of extending this coverage of equal pay for work of equal value to the private sector and to all companies which are under provincial jurisdiction but which do business with the federal Government. This is an enormous opportunity because the federal Government is a major purchaser of goods and services of companies of all sizes across the country. This is an opportunity for the Canadian Human Rights Act to have a much greater impact. It can tell companies that if they want to do business with the Government they will have to pay people according to this principle. That must apply to all contractors rather than only a small number of them.
I am pleased to see that this issue was raised in the Ontario election. It was interesting to see the Ontario Conservative Party, under the pressure of an election campaign, suddenly decide that equal pay for work of equal value was a good idea, as least for government employees. It would not go so far as to say that it was fair for all employees. Its time has come, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of elementary justice that women's jobs be fairly evaluated. Simply adhering to the old market principle is not good enough. Women have been discriminated against for far too long in the job market. Equal pay for work of equal value is the way to address the problem of ghettoiza-tion and the downgrading of women's jobs. Objective criteria must be the basis for comparisons, to have fair rates of pay.
I would like to address one further matter which is raised in our motion today, that is the provision of transition houses and funding for them. It is absolutely essential that there be regular funding for transition houses. Violence against women exists. We would like to stop it, it will be some time before this does happen. It is an ongoing problem for which there must be a regular means of funding. The voluntary sector puts much time and effort into keeping these transition houses alive. In serving women in crisis, they are always in dire need themselves. There is always some problem of funding. They spend much of their time rushing around trying to keep the organization together and the service going for women who suffer enormously in our society. It is time we had regular, decent funding, making it possible for these groups to provide the services needed without having to fight for their existence every fiscal year.
I will close by simply pointing out that equality for women is a real challenge for us today in Canada. Providing equality for women in the workforce requires a certain amount of intelligence but, more than that, it requires a lot of political will. We know what needs to be done. Lack of implementation rather than lack of ideas is responsible for the fact that we are not making adequate progress right now. Token appointments and vague promises are not enough. They are totally inadequate.
Supply
There are enough women to share equally in the work of our major regulatory agencies. There is no reason why they should remain at the 24 per cent level when women make up 50 to 52 per cent of the population. That is the level they should be at. That should be the case now rather than in the future.
We have seen that vague promises have not worked in the past. We want concrete measures with implementation, deadlines, and evaluation. The barriers do remain. It is the responsibility of Government to act vigorously to reduce these barriers. They are not going to go away without us taking our responsibility seriously, bringing in better legislation, and providing adequate funding for the necessary services. Equality for women is a question of justice. Canadian women want to play their full role in society. Canadian women want equality in the family and in the economy. We are far from achieving it. Let us move toward it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 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 Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson)-Finance-Bulk fuel dealers-Reimbursement of sales tax; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Cultural affairs-(a) Special initiative fund, (b) Eligibility criteria; the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre)-Mines-Construction of cartographic institute at Sherbrooke-Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Jewett:
That this House recognizing the continuing economic inequality of Canadian Women, demands that the government incorporate into its forthcoming budget the following initiatives, the:
1.	reform of the tax system rather than the introduction of further public spending cuts which impact most adversely on women;
[Stage Direction]
May 13, 1985
Supply
2.	provision of job creation and training programs targetted to women, and funding sufficient to enable the Canadian Human Rights Commission to enforce equal pay for work of equal value legislation, and develop an effective enforcement mechanism for affirmative action programs;
3.	provision of more transition houses and services for women and children who are victims of family violence; and
4.	provision of increased funding to ensure access to quality daycare to meet the urgent needs of Canadian parents and children.
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the resolution before the House on the continuing economic inequality of Canadian women. The resolution points to a situation that is well known and fully acknowledged by all Members of the House and by all sectors of Canadian society. The economic inequality of women in this country is a reality that none of us are proud of. Lower average income, the ghettoization in occupations that are low paying or threatened by technological or economic change, inadequate pension coverage, and unequal opportunity in hiring, promotion, and training are barometers of economic inequality.
This is not to denigrate the important gains which women have made in recent years. These, such as the equality clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are quite significant. However, many of these gains are still in the pioneering stages. The first doors have been opened and the first toe-holds gained, but the vast majority of women have not yet been touched. In fact, in difficult economic times there is a dangerous temptation to roll back the progress which has been achieved. I can assure my colleagues that the Government is committed to resisting that temptation and to pressing forward with the changes required to achieve equality.
Today's debate affords a very useful opportunity to acknowledge and applaud the efforts of those working to make equality for women a reality. Thousands of women across the country are devoting their time, energy, expertise, and in many cases their hard-earned dollars, to ensure that this necessary work gets done. They are working through organizations and as individual citizens. They are doing valuable research and analysis, often breaking new ground for the rest of Canadian society. They are developing an understanding of the causes of inequality and arriving at workable solutions to overcome these problems, thus leading the way for public and private decisionmakers. All of this lays the groundwork for our deliberations here in this Chamber.
The Government applauds and supports the work of these organizations. Many of them have been meeting here in Ottawa over the past weekend under the auspices of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. NAC is well known to the Members of the House. Many of us went to hear it this morning. That afforded us an opportunity to hear the views of this umbrella organization. Although NAC is not always in agreement with the policies of the Government, as we heard this morning, its views and opinions are always a welcome contribution to the democratic process. I might say that groups such as that can be most effective if they put forward their views in a civil and co-operative manner. Through NAC and many other large and small organizations
across Canada, men and women from every walk of life are working for economic equality. I believe that the vast majority of Canadians support their endeavours.
However, there are always some difficulties with progress and some temporary bumps in the process as we smooth out the transition period. I know that a few Canadians are opposed to equality. They are nervous about change and uncomfortable with society's inexorable progress toward equality. This is a natural human response to uncertainty, but it is no reason to balk at the task. Our Government is fully committed to full equality for women, as we believe most Canadians are, and we will not stray from that commitment.
The resolution before the House speaks to several aspects of economic equality for women. There are also many other elements that we have heard raised in the debate today that are important to this discussion. One of the most useful instruments for achieving economic and social equality will be the equality rights clause, Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This Charter is helpful as a yardstick for legislators to remind us of our obligations in all legislation that we deal with and to ensure fair and equal treatment of all Canadians, regardless of sex, race and other grounds.
As Members know, and as I certainly am becoming aware, it is not a simple task. Legislation, regulations, programs and policies which, on their face, do not appear to be discriminatory may in fact have different impacts on different segments of the population. In addition, the time honoured practices of discriminatory treatment may appear to many of us, by force of habit, to be logical and sensible, whereas, in fact, they are unconscionable.
We must be clear that many sacred cows will be gored in the horns of the equality clause, but they will clear the way for a more fair and equitable Canadian society.
To assist the process of revising existing legislation, much of which will have a direct impact on women's economic equality, the Government has launched a process of consultation with Canadians. I am pleased to be a member of that special committee which will open its hearings across the country in several weeks. Already we have been hearing from organizations here in Ottawa on a wide range of issues which are being put to us. I am sure that the House will consider all of the views which we put forward in our report to it, prior to final decisions on legislative amendments.
However, as we all know, the legislative process is not in and of itself sufficient to ensure the implementation of the equality clause. One of the other important steps is the development of judicial interpretations as to what the equality clause actually means.
Many organizations representing Canadian citizens will be using the courts to obtain clear legal precedents on this matter. Litigation is an expensive and time consuming process, and particularly difficult to undertake for those who are most disadvantaged in our society and precisely the people who will want to bring cases before the courts. The Government recog-
May 13, 1985

nizes the obstacles that these groups face in bringing their cases before the courts and also recognizes the importance of test cases. Consequently, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has indicated on previous occasions, the Government is considering financial assistance to those groups seeking equality under the Charter, including women as well as racial minorities and the disabled.
Let me take this opportunity to commend those women who have taken the initiative in this area and established the Legal Education and Action Fund, or "LEAF". Many of us went to the kick-off party on April 17 to promote women's legal equality, including via the Charter. This organization will be needed in the coming years.
There are other areas in which inequality is still with us. For example, action is needed at all levels of Canadian society to encourage and enable women to play a stronger role in setting up and running their own business. As I mentioned in the House last week, women now own 29 per cent of small businesses in this country. They are creating them at three times the rate of men and are playing a strong and significant role in this growing and important area of Canada's economy. Removing constraints on the development of new enterprises is a high priority of the Government and women stand to gain a great deal in that process. However, as in so many areas, this cannot be done by the federal Government alone. Greater access to credit and more institutional support at the community level is essential for women's success.
Much has been said about the fact that women form the majority of part-time workers. Yet these workers are often not treated on an equal footing with full-time workers. Employment counselling is a crucial step in the process of women's economic autonomy, and the federal Government is working to improve the quality of its service to women in these areas.
The six thrusts of the labour market strategy were designed to help Canadians, including Canadian women, obtain full and fair participation in the emerging labour market. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) advise the House earlier today that last month 47,000 women found jobs. That is the largest month-to-month increase in many years.
Equality for women is an important element of our labour market strategy. Many other elements of the strategy have been addressed elsewhere during this debate. However, we would be remiss if we confined our discussion of economic equality to women in the paid labour force. Although the majority of Canadian women are in the paid labour force, the majority of unpaid labour in this country is also done by women in the household and through voluntary organizations. The absolutely crucial job of raising children and running the domestic household is done almost exclusively by women and is done for free when they are doing this work for their own families.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women estimates that in families where the wife is a full-time homemaker, and the children are ten years of age or older, husbands do only three hours of housework a week. When this home-
Supply
maker takes a paid job outside the home, the husband's time spent on housework increases only by six minutes per week. It is also estimated that homemakers work about 40 to 60 hours per week, depending mostly on the number and age of their children. This work is equivalent to about 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the GNP, or at least $136 billion.
This represents a tremendous subsidization of Canadian society and is an economic contribution that is rarely recognized. We frequently pay homage to the social, emotional and psychological importance of the work of raising children and maintaining the support and love of the family unit. But how often do we acknowledge the economic importance of this work?
Obviously, the family benefits from the work of the homemaker, as do employers. Many Canadians believe that household tasks and the raising of children are responsibilities that should be shared by men and women. In practice, however, this sharing is very unequal. It is women, in the vast majority of cases, who carry the burden of domestic responsibilities. Men in Canadian society simply have not shouldered their share of these responsibilities. This must change if Canadian women are to achieve economic equality. As long as women carry the responsibility for unpaid domestic work and often the double burden of paid plus unpaid work, men will have an unfair advantage in the workforce.
There are other areas of concern. Most women expect that if they are widowed or divorced they will receive adequate benefits from their husbands' pensions. It comes as a shock to them to discover that in many cases they have no benefits at all. I know that according to the Public Service Superannuation Act, the divorced woman does not get the benefit of her husband's pension. If they do receive survivor pension benefits, these are often only a quarter of the couple's income.
Various proposals have been put forward by women's groups regarding the specific details of how best to incorporate homemakers into the Canada Pension Plan. These and other suggestions will be carefully considered by the Government in its deliberations. We intend to continue this discussion with the benefit of the views of a wide range of interested parties.
Any debate on the economic inequality of women must take account of the variety of women' experience in this country. Not all women face exactly the same barriers in exactly the same situations. Women as a group have many common experiences, yet various sectors within the population of Canadian women also have various experiences specific to them. For example, aboriginal women must deal with a gamut of economic obstacles which all women face, but they must also deal with racism and they must address economic issues from the point of view of aboriginal people.
Efforts by aboriginal people to develop their own economic base is fraught with problems, as the House well knows. The inadequate land base, the history of inappropriate training programs, the lack of infrastructure, and a whole battery of institutional and structural distortions in the economy of

May 13, 1985
Supply
aboriginal communities are just some of the problems. Women in these communities must deal with this entire layer of problems as well as with issues related to sex discrimination both within their communities and in dealings with the rest of Canadian society.
I have been privileged as a Member of the House to be involved in considering legislation to remove the imfamous sex discrimination in the Indian Act with regard to women losing their Indian status. The outcome of our committee's work will be put before the House very shortly. It will address the major issue of discrimination against Indian women, but it will not be a panacea for the woes of all Indian women. Those aboriginal women, whether status or non-status, reinstated or not, who live off-reserve face another series of obstacles in achieving economic equality. Racism and sex discrimination in employment, promotion, pay scales and any number of other areas are all very real problems for these women.
The Abella Commission inquiring into equality in employment in Canada recently estimated that over-all the unemployment rate for native women was double that for Canadian women. Similarly, these women earn on average more than 25 per cent less than Canadian women do over-all which, as we all know, is itself only a fraction of what Canadian men earn on average.
All these shortcomings point to the need for a specific approach to the economic equality of aboriginal women as part of an over-all commitment by Canadian society to equality for all women.
Visible minority women also face particular problems in seeking fair and equal treatment in the work-place. They encounter barriers both on account of their race and on account of their sex. They tend to be concentrated in certain types of job ghettos, usually low-paying, often non-unionized. I am sure Hon. Members are aware of the recent study in Toronto which tested the attitude of employers toward visible minorities. The actors, posing as job seekers, found that their chances of being offered employment were greatly influenced by the colour of their skin. If one adds to this racism the dimension of sexism, I think the picture of visible minority women becomes clearer. Not only do problems occur at the door when hiring decisions are being made, but also when opportunities for training, promotion and other career advancement are available.
Yet another area is the question of racial harassment, compounded for women by sexual harassment. Innuendoes, personal comments, offensive jokes and often harassing behaviour can make a workplace intolerable and essentially force a woman out of her only opportunity for increasing her economic independence.
The few areas on which I have touched are only some of those which concern the Government in matters related to economic equality for women. My colleagues and others will address other elements of this important debate today. Obviously one day is woefully inadequate to discuss these matters with the attention they deserve. It is no secret that these issues are a matter of continuing concern for this Government and
will be an important part of decisions related to economic recovery and renewal in Canada.
In closing, I would like to reiterate the importance of dialogue on these issues. We need to hear and learn from the women of Canada. We need to know their experiences, their triumphs and their frustrations as we work to establish an economic future for ourselves and for our daughters. I would like to encourage Canadian women, both as individuals and through organizations, to express their views to their federal, provincial and municipal Governments, to their unions, to their employers, to educational and training institutions, and to others in the Canadian community who have a role to play in achieving economic equality for women.
This Government will stand by its commitments, not the least of which is the commitment to listen to the women of Canada and to support them in their efforts to attain economic equality. We look forward to other partners in the Canadian economy doing the same.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have three specific questions for the Hon. Member. In light of her comments with respect to the involvement of women in small business and her knowledge that women need venture capital and the support of financial institutions like the Federal Business Development Bank, would she support my contention that the two vacancies currently available in the Federal Business Development Bank should in fact be filled by women? Will she be making presentations to cabinet in this regard?
My second question is to ask the Hon. Member whether she supports her Government's initiative to remove the pregnancy provisions from the current unemployment insurance package under federal law and to have it moved into general revenues. If so, how can she reconcile that position with her stated objectives of allowing women an opportunity to compete equally in the workforce?
Third, I know the Hon. Member has a vast knowledge of the political situation in British Columbia. Does she agree with the Leader of the British Columbia Progressive Conservative Party who was recently quoted on the subject of prostitution as saying that there was a need for prostitutes because men had a desire to procreate. He said: "It is the instinct of a male, particularly a young one, to procreate. And not to have that available creates a danger to society". This is what Peter Pollen, Leader of the B.C. Progressive Conservatives said. Does she support the view of her colleague, the Leader of the B.C. Progressive Conservatives?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last question First. I would like to dissociate myself totally from the remarks made by that man; I am not sure I could say gentleman. I am sure most of my colleagues on all sides of the House would join me in dissociating themselves from his remarks.
With respect to maternity leave, the proposals which have been put forward as potential areas of discussion do not in any way mean that there will not be maternity leave provisions for women in the workforce. Those are vital. In fact, the discussions have gone further to include parental leave, which per-
May 13, 1985

haps under the Charter makes more sense. Whether or not that should be funded directly out of the unemployment insurance fund or from general revenues, I do not think it really makes that much difference as long as they are there. My own view on unemployment insurance is that there are a lot of changes to be made in that fund to make it truly more of an insurance fund. Whatever changes are made, I would not in any way support removing or downgrading the enabling of maternity benefits for working women.
Finally, with respect to women on boards, particularly the FBDB, I assure my hon. colleague that I am continually making representations to my Cabinet colleagues and to others who are in positions to make appointments of women on all those kinds of boards. I think the Hon. Member will see from the record so far that we are making great progress. I am not yet satisfied, and I will continue with those representations.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I was able to pick up on the debate specifically as it relates to the issue of maternity benefits and the current Government's recommendations to remove maternity benefits from unemployment insurance and place them under the aegis of general revenues. This particular measure by the Government since it assumed office on September 4 is a clear indication that it does not understand, not only the need for women to be allowed to compete equally in the workforce, but the recognition that child care or child rearing is in fact a cost of employment. It is a cost of employment which should be borne specifically under the unemployment insurance revenues of the federal Government. The move by this Government to take that envelope of spending out of unemployment insurance and to place it in general revenues speaks volumes about the lack of commitment to allow women to compete in the workforce. It is all well and good for government Members to say that the funds should remain the same. We know from historical experience and from the universality debate that if we take maternity benefits out of the unemployment insurance fund and move it into general revenues, we will be setting up another system, which could be described as a welfare system within the federal Government.
Very shortly thereafter we would see government proponents of deficit reduction saying to the Government that we have this pool of money going out to pregnant women across this country because they are unable to work during those critical child-bearing months, let us not allow that money to go out to all women but let us pay only those women in a position of dire and desperate need. In other words, very shortly after this Government chooses to remove maternity benefits from unemployment insurance funding, we will likely see the introduction of a means test for maternity benefits.
I suggest that those government Members who have a true and a well expressed commitment to equality for women must recognize that in order to achieve that equality, women need more support through instruments like the unemployment insurance funding. They do not need that support reduced in
Supply
the manner being suggested by current government policy on unemployment insurance benefits.
We have seen the same thing with respect to the new initiative by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to cut back on unemployment insurance to those senior workers who are receiving severance pay packages or vacation packages. We know that older women who are removed from the workforce face a tough enough time without having the added burden of being ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits until they have exhausted severance pay and holiday benefits.
We see Members on the government side of the House stand today and defend government policy which discriminates against older women who happen to be single or divorced. 1 speak specifically to the government legislation which will extend spousal benefits to those people between the ages of 60 and 64, the majority of whom are women, as long as they are widows, but will not extend the same benefits to those who have never married or who, for whatever reason, have suffered a marriage breakdown.
That particular discriminatory government policy introduced by this Government since September 4 clearly illustrates to the Canadian people that this Government is not prepared to fight for all women, and indeed all men, between the ages of 60 and 64, in particular our older workers. It is introducing legislation which sets up two classes of citizens, one that happens to have been widowed, and another that happens to be single or divorced. When I made my remarks relating to the comments made by the Progressive Conservative president in the Province of British Columbia, it was not totally tongue in cheek. In attitudes, not only in this House, but in the community, there is much work to be done.
I look at the labour dispute which is going on between Air Canada and its employees, who are in fact bargaining for a better deal under part-time and full-time employment. It was clear from the answers in the House today, not only from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) but also the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), that this Government has neither an understanding of the Wallace report on part-time work, nor an understanding of the fundamental recommendations of the Abella Commission which point the finger at the kind of ghettoization that Air Canada is encouraging in its current collective bargaining deliberations with the employees.
If we have a Crown corporation going to its employees and saying it will no longer put the cap on part-time workers but wants the right to employ 100 per cent part-time workers in the full knowledge that those part-time workers at the moment do not receive benefits similar to their full-time counterparts and, second, those employees will be paid less on an hourly basis, then that is sheer exploitation on the part of a Crown corporation, aided and abetted by the Minister, who has the gall to stand in the House and tell the union to go back to the bargaining table.
1 am sorry that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), in his weak-kneed approach to exercising a bit of Cabinet muscle, has not prevailed upon his colleague, the Minister of Trans-

May 13, 1985
Supply
port, to let him know that the Abella report was worth a little bit more than the paper on which it was written. If this Government has a true commitment to employment equity, it has an opportunity to show it four square before all Canadians by informing Air Canada that it will not allow unfettered part-time employment to the detriment of those on hourly wages and the further ghettoization of women who currently make up the majority of part-time workers of Air Canada.
Although the Government says that the issue is improving the status of part-time workers and although the Wallace report called for those improvements, the intention of the company in the Air Canada dispute is not to improve the lot of part-time workers. It is to allow free rein on cheap labour within the Crown corporation of Air Canada. Frankly, I am shocked and surprised that the Minister of Transport would enter into the debate and admonish the union when he does not have the facts in front of him. It would not be the first time this Government has stated one thing in its objectives-and the April 17 party was a wonderful thing-but when it had the chance to put its money where its mouth is, it had no voice.
I speak specifically to the challenges that will be coming from all parts of Canada with respect to the equality provisions as engendered in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Speaker, as you are no doubt aware, a fund has been set up called the LEAF fund, the Legal Education and Action Fund, to which all Members have been invited to contribute. It will permit women across this country who want to have access to the court system to determine once and for all what their status is with respect to equality in the work-place and equality on division of assets. Those women will be assisted by this fund. It is a sad situation when the Government of Canada refuses to allow independent funding of that kind of organization so that women and minority groups across this country can have a chance to put the Charter to use and to use it as one tool in the long fight toward economic equality.
The battle was begun a long time ago. It began in this House. I am happy to say that I am part of the Party that brought people into the House of Commons like Judy Erola, who was instrumental in including Section 25 as well as Section 15 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am happy to come from the region of Canada that produced politicians of the stature of Judy LaMarsh and Ellen Fairclough. The battle began many years ago with people like Agnes MacPhail and certainly Nellie McClung, politicians who broke through 10, 20 and 50 years ago. The work is still far from finished.
I picked up my local newspaper on Saturday when I was home in the riding. I had a chance to read about a conference going on with respect to the whole issue of violence in the family and wife assault. I read a comment in the newspaper that was made by one of the representatives of our local police force, a comment which will serve to illustrate how much work still needs to be done in this area. It was the view of this particular police officer that violence in the family was a two-way street and that it was not in fact the fault of the husband because there were many mitigating circumstances. I would like to read into the record the mitigating circumstances
to which he referred: "He knew of one case where a man beat his wife when he came home to a filthy house . . . Send the guy to a program for batterers ... and maybe send her to a program on how to keep house." This is the statement of someone who has, as part of his area of responsibility, the responsibility for pursuing the assaulters of women who parade under the guise of family violence. When we hear representatives of our law enforcement agencies making statements like that, we realize that there is much work to be done.
I do not have to remind the House of the response of the House of Commons to the original report on family violence headed by the former Hon. Member for Kitchener, Dr. Peter Lang. When that report was tabled, the response was guffaws. It has not been very long since we got the issue of family violence out from behind the closed doors of individual households and onto the public discussion table.
In the areas of family violence, Charter equality provisions and employment equity, if we are really committed to allowing women the opportunity to share equally in all of the good things that society has to offer, then we must be prepared to provide the financial commitment. That financial commitment includes not only cost-sharing agreements with the provinces but it also includes a commitment from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to look at the funding of more interval houses and to include an extension to second-stage housing across this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite easy for us in Parliament to say that we would like women to achieve equality, but so far, the reality has proved that we are engaged in a fierce battle. When one speaks of equality, it is quite obvious, according to the Abella Report, that the government should require companies operating under its jurisdiction to have affirmative action programs. But, this would not mean much unless the government does empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to enforce affirmative action programs within those companies. One realizes how hard it is for the Conservative members to entrust the Commission with fundamental powers to start proceedings against any private, public or semi-public companies which do not provide affirmative action programs in their operations because those members themselves did not support such programs in committee. One just has to read the proceedings of those meetings to know what they really think.

The following was attributed to Conservative Members of the House of Commons: "Constitutional protections for disadvantaged groups reflected in affirmative action programs threaten the rights of individuals, Conservative MPs told the Canadian Human Rights Commission Tuesday. Tory MP Chris Speyer who raised the concern when Chief Commissioner Gordon Fairweather appeared before the Commons Justice Committee warned that a preoccupation with group rights might result in reverse discrimination". Then we heard from the Tory MP for
May 13, 1985

Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) who said he is opposed to all affirmative action programs because he believes all capable people have equal opportunities in the work-place.

Mr. Speaker, payroll statistics are most eloquent since they show that on an average women earn 62 per cent of what men earn in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, women do not want a two-tier status whereby many capable women work in many places but are denied the opportunity to achieve "equality" because this government as well as other provincial governments, with the exception of the province of Quebec, are not prepared to recognize that equality between men and women in the work-place can only be achieved if we have equal pay for work of equal value.

It is not surprising to me that the Conservative Party has difficulty promoting affirmative action programs. It is not surprising to me that the Conservative Government has asked the Commissioner of Human Rights to do the impossible, to enforce affirmative action programs within the federal service without giving the Commissioner the legal teeth with which to carry out that enforcement. Those things are not surprising to me because there is a fundamental feeling within the Conservative Party that affirmative action is bad and somehow results in reverse discrimination.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the women of Canada are sick and tired of receiving 62 cents or 64 cents for every dollar earned by a man in this country. I am not foolish enough to rise in the House and say that any government initiative will reverse that trend overnight. However, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that initiatives which have looked at the question of equal pay for work of equal value, initiatives which the Government must use its political muscle to encourage provincial Governments across the country to implement, will in themselves close the wage gap by seven cents to 10 cents according to major economists who have studied the issue. There will be those among us who will say that equal pay for work of equal value will not solve the entire problem so therefore we should not implement it. However, this is a building-block process. One of the fundamental building blocks in that process is the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value.
I was not impressed by the half-hearted promise made by the Premier of Ontario in the eleventh hour, prior to the dawning of a new reconciliation, that he would implement equal pay for work of equal value within the Ontario Public Service. The question extends far beyond the Public Services of this country. There are too many people who are working in ghettoized jobs in the community who are not being touched by current federal legislation and who in fact are being left out of the provincial packages and even the meagre provincial packages suggested by people like the Premier of Ontario.
There will be those among us who will say that somehow we women have missed the boat because we prefer to take time off to have children or are not interested in advancement. However, we need only look at the dismal record of the education
Supply
sector in which women have played a singular role and have worked hard from time immemorial, not only regarding the informal teaching of our children but regarding the formal teaching through our education system. We can see quite clearly that, notwithstanding the admonitions of those who say that women have not achieved in the sciences and engineering sectors because there are not enough of us and we have not been there long enough, in the education sector, even though women comprise the majority of our educators across the country, the positions of public administration officials, school principals, vice-principals and positions of authority are still, in the main, allocated to men. This is happening at a time when women's participation in the workforce is increasing and at a time when education has been at the vanguard of the women's movement in terms of employment.
There is no doubt that we have many questions to address. 1 have touched on a few of them and I believe some other Hon. Members have touched on a few of them. I would like to say to the Government that if there is a message that came from the election held on September 4, it is that the women of this country have come of age. We are not prepared to take second-class citizenship on government delegations, committees and other things. I would suggest to all government Members that if they are truly committed to seeking equality for women, they should encourage their Minister of Employment and Immigration to take a firm stand to ensure that benefits accruing to women for pregnancy leave are not turfed out of the unemployment insurance fund in order that those benefits will not become another welfare benefit which will be cut by this deficit-reducing Government. A lot of women in the country are looking to the Government to provide leadership. That is an area which leadership can be shown.
I would encourage all government Members, who have spoken so well today on their commitment to employment equity and to the kinds of safeguards and development which we need to allow women to compete equally, to buttonhole their Ministers in the corridors of power and tell them that we will not stand for any move to shake women out of the unemployment insurance fund. In doing that, this Government would merely reinforce the notion that Conservatives are not interested in employment equity or affirmative action, but only in the maintenance of the status quo.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). Her message came through loud and clear and I think that we all appreciated it greatly.
I detected a note of nostalgia for Queens Park. Perhaps we will have the next Ontario election campaign fought here as well.
I did appreciate her recognition that this is a deficit-reducing Government. That is a very important factor. But I would

May 13, 1985
Supply
like to join forces with the Hon. Member on a project which I believe she could support, and which I certainly support, that is, our lack of a key form of recognition for the famous five women who persevered in the Persons Case of 1930. The commemorative plaque which previously graced the entrance to the Senate Chamber is no longer there. I believe it ought to be restored to commemorate those famous five: Emily Murphy, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung, and my dear lamented ancestor, Henrietta Edwards. I would be pleased to join with the Hon. Member in that venture.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, of course, I would support any move to recognize the famous five who determined, once and for all, that we women are persons. However, from a policy point of view, I would hope that our initiatives would move much beyond that. Sometimes when I listen to comments made by people such as the President of the Progressive Conservative Association of British Columbia, I wonder whether that recognition has permeated the skulls of some members of the political Parties.
The Member made reference to my nostalgia for Queens Park. I believe that if he had listened closely to my comments, he would have realized that I was attempting to give credit where credit is due, that is, to two jurisdictions across the country which have implemented legislation with respect to equal pay for work of equal value. Those two jurisdictions are the Government of Quebec and the federal Government, under legislation which was introduced by the Liberal administration. Unfortunately, 90 per cent of the workers in Canada are covered by provincial laws. No matter into what particular area of endeavour we launch out in the House of Commons, we will touch only those 10 per cent who are covered under federal laws, which include public servants and employees of Crown corporations and other companies which fall under federal law. That means that 90 per cent of the people of this country are covered under provincial laws. Unfortunately, Progressive Conservative-which is actually a contradiction in terms-Governments across the country have seen fit to ignore the overwhelming evidence which points to the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value as one in a series of strategies which would help bridge the salary gap between men and women.
I had felt that because of the unique relationship between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario-although I am sure that relationship was somewhat shattered after the realities of May 2-those two Conservatives could have come together and provided an opportunity for those 8.5 million people in Ontario, 7.5 million of whom are not covered under federal law, for employment equity through provincial initiatives which would be encouraged by federal counterparts. We in the Liberal Party work together on those kinds of initiatives. When we form a Government in Ontario, we will work very closely with the federal Government. Unfortunately, it has been the history of the Conservative Party that federal and provincial Conservatives do not work together but, in fact, work against each other. I can understand why the Member
would not see the association between federal and provincial Governments.
It is very clear. My Party, its policies, and its positions have not altered from provincial to federal jurisdictions. I hope that the Hon. Member will encourage his provincial colleagues to come on side on this important issue because provincial jurisdictions currently cover those millions of Canadians who are not currently protected by the federal legislation which was introduced by the Liberal administration.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, while we are having a go at historical revisionism, I would like to point out the marvellous record of co-operation which existed for many years between the Liberal Government in Ottawa and the Liberal Government in Quebec. I would also like to point out the marvellous ideological compatibility which existed between the Liberal Government in Ottawa and the Government of the late Premier, Ross Thatcher, of Saskatchewan.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, believe me, if we are looking at giving lessons in terms of ideological suicide, we only have to look across to the government benches of the House to see a number of Members who, in fact, have spent most of their lives destroying each other.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) on debate.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today. The motion which is before us is important and brings an important subject to the attention of Parliament.
Of course, today is the day on which the National Action Committee on the Status of Women meets with all three political Parties. Its representatives are lobbying our caucuses and attempting to find out how far we are willing to go in terms of supporting the priorities which they established at their conference. We had an amiable meeting with them this morning and I know that the concerns which they raised with us are reflected in the resolution with which we are dealing today. Obviously, the resolution is focused on one area and the concerns of the women's movement are broader than that. However, the matters which are the focus of this resolution are important and essential matters.
The resolution deals with the economic inequality of women. We have all heard the statistics before, but it bears repeating that women who work in this country earn 60-cent dollars. In other words, the average income of a woman, with equal qualification to that of a man, is 60 cents, while the man earns one dollar. That continues throughout the woman's working life and into her retirement years, as the woman's retirement income is also based on 60-cent dollars. That is a grave and glaring injustice which continues in our economy and in the relationship between men and women. In addition, it bears repeating that the most visible poverty in this country, not only the economic inequality which pervades the whole of our economy-whether a woman is working in an area of modest income, middle income or upper income-is among women. I
May 13, 1985

think particularly of single parents. Single parent families live in the most acute poverty in Canada today, and 99 per cent of the time they are headed by women. Older women as well suffer from poverty, and the pension systems are still not adequate to meet their needs. So we are talking about a very real problem which results in very real human suffering when we focus the attention of this House on economic inequality of women and men.
I would like to comment on the three areas raised for us by the resolution, the over-all economic policy and the manpower policy of the Government. I must say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that it is ironic that even when we debate the inequality among men and women, when we seek that more attention be paid to the needs of women and we talk about job training and job-creation, we still use the term "manpower policies". Even the language falls short of our ideals and of human needs. Clearly we need more adequate language in order to express the ideals which we seek to realize.
1 would like not only to comment upon the Government's manpower policy but upon the whole question of public services, as does the resolution, and in particular the transition houses and daycare. In dealing with the over-all economic policy of the Government, and the other matters we want to bring before the House today, we must begin with the fundamental economic approach of the Government, which is to try to balance the books by way of cutting public spending. Hon. Members opposite would have us and the public believe that they have no choice, that they have no option but to cut back public spending, and to cut public spending in areas which hurt and do damage to the equality of women across this country. This is ironic in the sense that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he was Leader of the Opposition, entered into the women's debate, and one of the things on which he scored a lot of points was to lambaste the former Prime Minister for saying he had no option when it came to patronage appointments, for example. But now that he is Prime Minister of this country and leads the largest Party in this House, he comes before us with an economic policy that says, "We have no choice. We have to cut public spending and cut services which are essential and needed and which contribute to the equality of women".
I want to suggest there is a real option, and that is, tax reform. In other words, we have to look at the other side of the ledger. We have to look at our revenues and seek ways of increasing our revenues in a fair and equitable manner which will allow us to provide the services which will result in a greater equality among the men and women of this country. I will briefly suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the areas which really cries for reform is the way in which we distribute the burden of taxation between corporations and individuals. Any one who reads statistics with regard to our taxation policy will know that over the last couple of decades the burden of taxation, as it has been distributed between corporations and individuals, has shifted considerably and the burden is increasingly upon the shoulders of the individual taxpayer. Corpora-
Supply
tions in this country pay less and less of their share of the costs of running Government. In fact, corporations, when they do pay taxes, tend to get an almost equal amount back in terms of benefits for themselves from the Government. So, therefore, there is a potential for raising revenue in a fair way-revenue which we could use for essential services-from the corporations, if we were to insist that they pay their fair share and ensure that the burden of paying for Government would not fall totally upon the shoulders of individuals.
Another trend which has become evident in the taxation system over the last couple of decades is the distribution of the cost of Government between different levels of incomes of individuals. The taxation system has become less and less progressive. There are more and more tax write-offs and loopholes which allow upper-income Canadians to reduce their taxable income. Of course, the ordinary Canadian who has a simple pay cheque and no investment income has to pay the full burden of taxation because there are effectively no comparable loopholes for people at the lower levels of income. We need real tax reform in this country, Mr. Speaker. We need to arrive at a situation in which the taxation system in indeed truly progressive and which will ensure that upper-income Canadians pay according to their capacity to pay. That means that the upper-income Canadians will in fact pay more than people with more modest incomes.
This proposal as well came up in the last election campaign. It was brought up by my Leader in the form of a proposal for a minimum income tax. At that time he pointed out that in the United States such a tax exists. In the United States there is a minimum tax on upper incomes, which means, simply, that after one has added up all of the write-offs and tax loopholes which lawyers and accountants can put together, if the income comes down to below a certain point, there is still a responsibility to pay taxes and to help carry the burden of public services. That appears to me to be eminently reasonable and only fair and just. I mention the fact that this kind of tax exists south of the border to demonstrate that such a tax is feasible. It is possible to design such a tax and it is possible for an economy to run with such a tax in place. Obviously, the rationale for most of the tax loopholes in our taxation system has to do with economic activity. Each of the individual tax loopholes is there as an incentive to create economic activity and, therefore, it is justified in that way.
I agree with using the taxation system in order to stimulate economic activity, but when the taxation system is used in such a way that an individual can earn over $100,000 a year and still come before the taxation Department and indicate that he has no taxable income, then at that point we are no longer using the taxation system to stimulate economic activity. We are in fact abusing the system and creating an unfair tax system in which poor people have to pay tax and people who earn a great deal can find a way to end up paying no tax. That creates unfairness, injustice, resentment and alienation. So that issue needs to be redressed. It is an alternative to cutting needed public services, particularly those that relate to the equality of women. Those are at least two general areas in

May 13, 1985
Supply
which the Government couid approach tax reform in order to raise revenues to provide the services which are needed.
There is another suggestion I would like to make with regard to tax reform. It has to do with the reporting of tax expenditures. Something of which we need to remind ourselves from time to time is the fact that Government spends money in at least two fundamental ways. The Government can write a cheque, such as a family allowance cheque, and send it to a family, or it can give a grant to some organization or group, in other words, spend money in a direct fashion. The other way that Government spends money is by giving various forms of tax breaks or write-offs to corporations or individuals. It simply does not collect the tax it would otherwise be entitled to collect and thereby forgoes revenue. The problem with this kind of spending is that it is hidden. No one knows from day to day exactly how much we are spending in that way. Therefore, we need to have full and open reporting of tax expenditures. We need to acknowledge that we spend money every time we give someone a tax write-off. The full reporting of tax expenditures would give us an opportunity to examine their effectiveness. If ordinary Canadians became aware of just how much money we are spending in this way, then they would insist that those tax expenditures be effective, in other words, that they work. If their objective were to create employment, then they should create employment or else they would be eliminated.
I suspect there are many tax expenditures we could eliminate because they do not give us the economic benefit they promised and they do not create new employment. It is fairly obvious to most ordinary Canadians that if the tax expenditures worded by and large, then there would be many more ordinary Canadians working today than there are. So we on this side of the House recommend that the Government approach the problem of providing services from the perspective of raising revenue rather than of cutting those much needed services which deal with people's basic human needs and equality between men and women. So tax reform is something this Government must face up to.
More specifically, regarding the public service cuts themselves, let me say that when the Conservative Party campaigned during the election, it ran around reassuring people that, yes, it is going to reduce the deficit but it is going to do it by cutting out waste and fat. In no way is it going to touch needed and worth-while public programs. I wish to remind the Government and Members opposite of that commitment, a commitment which has been broken. It is time for Members opposite to look at those promises and the nature of the cuts they are making. They need to wake up and realize that Canadians are not going to accept cuts in needed programs and that if this Government continues to act the way it has, it will lose the public's confidence. Members opposite should remind themselves that one of the reasons they promised the Canadian people they would cut only waste in order to reduce the deficit is that they knew that if they were to tell the Canadian people they would cut valuable public services, Canadians would not put their confidence in them. They
should also realize, now that they are in office, that if they cut needed public services, Canadians will withdraw that confidence. So this Government should wake up before its own actions lead to its demise because of a lack of public confidence.
Another reason why these cuts in public services are ill advised is that, while I know the Government is doing this because it believes in its own way that it will reduce the deficit and lead to economic recovery, every time a cut leads to reduced consumer demand and unemployment, it also leads to reduced revenues for the Government. This is particularly true where the cuts affect services which are labour-intensive. So this Government's own economic programs could backfire and we could end up with a larger deficit.
One area of critical interest to the women's movement, and of course to all Canadians who are concerned with families, has to do with cuts as they affect social services, particularly the universality aspect. We should remind ourselves once again of what the Government said before it was elected. The Conservatives said that universality was a sacred trust. Even before election day, they said they would not touch medicare. Of course, medicare is of great concern to women across this country. Medicare meets family needs and Canadians will just not put up with a Government which tries to savage medicare. But once the Conservatives got into office, they issued an economic statement in which they questioned pensions and family allowances. Well, it did not take very long, maybe a month, for the Government to wake up and realize that it had better not fool around with pensions either, because Canadians were not going to allow a Government which ran on the promise of universality as a sacred trust to mess around with pensions. Canadians fought for these pensions over a long period of time and we are very proud of them as a social policy. But the Government has yet to give us any real assurances that it will not savage family allowances. The Government should realize, as it continues to tinker with and take apart the principle of universality in social programs in its effort to reduce the deficit, that family allowances are something that Canadians feel very strongly about. It took a long fight to get them for Canadians and they are something that Canadians will not likely give up.
So as we consider the equality of women today, we should consider that this Government should be very cautious as it approaches the question of family allowances. The Government should be more concerned about whether the level of family allowances is adequate and whether it can find ways of increasing benefits rather than trying to find ways to reduce or eliminate family allowances on the basis of income.
I see that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say that rather than approaching the whole question of how to pay for our public services, particularly those which relate to families and the equality of women, by way of cutting needed public spending, you should approach it from the revenue side and take a serious look at tax reform in this country. That is the way to raise the revenue to provide the
May 13, 1985

services that people need and which will lead to a better community and greater equality among men and women.
Mir. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate this afternoon and I find it very interesting. However, no one mentioned just how much this deficit is costing us. No one spoke about what it costs each Canadian each day to carry this deficit, or the fact that 33 per cent of our taxes now go toward servicing our debt. Just think of the marvellous things we could do and the programs we could put into effect if one third of our taxes did not have to be used for paying interest on the national debt. I think it hurts many people, especially the women of this country, if we increase the deficit and the tax load. Many women with families will have to carry a heavier debt load. I am just wondering whether or not the Hon. Member would agree with the fact that carrying this deficit and increasing the tax load on all Canadians is hurting women.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that the way to reduce the deficit is by building a stronger economy. In order to do that we need a number of things. For example, we need an industrial strategy in the country. The Government has washed its hands of the economy. It wants to leave the economy to run itself. We are not going to have the wealth in the country to pay for public services and reduce the deficit if we leave things in that way.
We heard a good example today in the House when the Minister was answering questions with regard to Mitel. The Government has shown no concern whatsoever that an important high-tech industry, which is presently owned by Canadians, is going to be owned by foreigners. It seems to welcome the fact of a foreign takeover.
In order to have public services we must have a Canadian economy and policies that lead to the development of a Canadian economy. We cannot have economic growth in the country if our interest rates simply track American interest rates. We need a "made in Canada" interest rate policy. We need policies to support such a measure. However, the Government seems to be satisfied with leaving the economy to the decisions of the directors and bosses of private sector corporations. If we want to reduce the deficit, I suggest we do it by strengthening the economy and having policies which help us develop our economy, rather than simply leaving it to the private sector.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did not point out the fact that all indications are that the economy is improving. Our interest rates are at their lowest levels in six and a half years. Inflation is down. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced 210,000 jobs in the last year and 47,000 jobs for women in the last month. How much more do you want to get our economy going? Housing sales have doubled. We may not have a "made in Canada" interest rate, Mr. Speaker, but interest rates are certainly lower than they have been for some time and the
Supply
economy is picking up. That is helping the women of the country to obtain jobs.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to be satisfied with 11 per cent unemployment. There is no way that we in this Party would tolerate such a high rate of unemployment. The Government should not tolerate it either. We need a commitment from the Government for a full employment policy in the country. If the Government made that commitment in a real way and put all Canadians back to work, we would produce the revenues which would balance the books to enable us to provide essential services to Canadians.
The Hon. Member quoted a few statistics from the recent past. He seems to think that things are great in Canada for all Canadians. There are many Canadians who continue to be unemployed who need work. We need a serious commitment from the Government to provide work for all Canadians.
[ Translation]


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to two issues that are extremely important to the Government, and I am referring to the provision of transition services, including transition houses for women and children who are victims of family violence, and the situation of daycare in Canada.
We are facing a terrifying situation in Canada, where one woman out of ten is beaten by her husband or spouse. The disastrous effects of this problem not only affect women and children but also society in general, including all the legal, economic, health, social and educational systems and services available to us.
The battered wife is found in every community, in all cultural groups and at all income levels. We have seen women of all ages who were beaten by their spouses, even pregnant women, who are particularly vulnerable.
In the eyes of the law, the battered woman is the victim of a criminal act on the same terms as the individual who is assaulted by a stranger. The needs of battered women are physical and emotional, social, economic and legal. She needs protection and advice so that her rights will not be impinged upon. She often needs financial assistance, housing, care for her children and some vocational guidance to find a job. She also needs advice and the understanding of her friends, of her family and experts to tear herself from that cycle of violence.
The problem of battered wives was very seldom exposed in the past. We should be grateful to an increasing number of groups and individuals, especially women, who have enabled us to understand better the nature, the frequency and causes of violence in the family. Consequently, since 1972 when the first transition house was opened in Vancouver, the number of such houses in Canada has reached 202 and it is still increasing at a rate two and a half times greater, proportionately, than in the United States.

May 13, 1985
The Budget
The federal government is working in close co-operation with provinces, groups and social agencies. The costs of services provided to battered women are shared with the provinces through the Canada Assistance Plan.
In 1982, the Department of National Health and Welfare set up the National Clearing house on Family Violence.
The Clearing house collects, analyses and disseminates information on family violence; advises and assists professional and lay workers concerning training programs and research projects; organizes seminars and workshops, co-operates with other departments, governmental and non-governmental groups to identify current problems and prevent family violence.
Vis-a-vis, the bilingual newsletter published quarterly by the Clearing house is offered free of charge to the Canadian public. It contains surveys, annotated bibliographies, lists of resources, calendars of events and articles on current research programs and activities.
The collection of films on family violence comprises over 30 features made available free of charge to the general public and specialists through the distribution offices of the National Film Board throughout Canada.
In the area of day care centres in Canada, the federal Government has committed itself to promote the development of extensive, economical and good quality services. Again through the Canada Assistance Plan, the Government is sharing with the provinces the costs of child care services for families in need or likely to be.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of a point of order from the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the excellent speech of the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis). There have been consultations between the Parties. If you seek unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find a disposition to accept a disposition that, notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Thursday, May 23, 1985 at four o'clock p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and the sitting shall be suspended until 4.30 o'clock p.m. when the House shall proceed to the Order of the Day for consideration of a Ways and Means Motion for the presentation of a Budget, provided that the hour for consideration of Private Members' Business shall be suspended and that the House shall continue to sit, if necessary, beyond the ordinary daily hour of adjournment, and that when a motion to adjourn the debate has been made, by the first
Member replying on behalf of the Opposition, and has been adopted the House shall stand adjourned, until the next sitting day.


Mr. Speaker:: Can I take it from that that the President of the Privy Council is asking, under Standing Order 64(2) that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of a Ways and Means motion on Thursday, May 23, 1985 at 4.30 p.m. for the purpose of the presentation of a Budget by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)? I take it that the President of the Privy Council is hereby giving such notice, for which no consent is required.
The motion read to the House by the President of the Privy Council does require unanimous consent. Therefore, is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 62(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 30, 1985, 1 posed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) concerning the fuel sales tax rebate to primary producers. Some bulk fuel dealers who hold tax paid inventory must seek reimbursement from the federal Treasury for sales tax not collected at the time of sale. The cost of financing the delay between the date of payment of tax by the bulk fuel dealer and the date of receipt of reimbursement of that tax from the Government is placing a burden on many dealers. I asked the Minister if he would examine the possibility of providing cash advances or floats to the dealers to alleviate this situation. I would like to elaborate on this matter.
Members will recall Bill C-12, put forth last fall, which provided among other things for a sales tax rebate of three cents per litre on the sale of fuel to primary producers, including farmers, fishermen and others, plus 1.8 cents per litre, being the petroleum compensation charge, for a total of 4.8 cents or almost 22 cents per gallon. This, to the primary producers, was a most welcome fulfillment of a campaign commitment.
May 13, 1985

During the debate on Bill C-12 it became obvious that there could be unfairness as between the two kinds of dealers. There is the commission agent who basically holds his inventory on consignment, thus, the inventory that he holds is free of any sales tax. The second kind of bulk fuel dealer is the independent who purchases his fuel from the manufacturer and pays sales tax on it at the time. His inventory is tax paid.
As originally put forward. Bill C-12 would have placed the independent dealers in an awkward position because they would have been obliged to collect sales tax which they had already paid. Thus their initial price at the time of sale to their customers would have been 22 cents per gallon higher than the price charged by the commission agent dealer. The customers would naturally tend to gravitate to the dealer who could provide the lowest initial price.
To prevent this unfairness, Bill C-12 was withdrawn and a new bill, Bill C-17, was put forward which provided that all dealers could sell fuel to the primary producer free of tax. This solved the problem of treating the independents unfairly at retail, but did put them in the position of having to apply to the federal Government to secure a refund of the sales tax which they had already paid on their inventory at the time of purchase from the refiner.
Unfortunately, this procedure has in turn caused additional problems. The problem is that there is an inevitable delay betwen the time of sale by the independent bulk fuel dealer to his customer and the time that he actually receives reimbursement of that tax upon application to the federal Government.
If there be a 60-day turnaround on the rebates, a bulk fuel dealer carrying $25,000 of tax, for example, is facing substantial interest costs. A dealer carrying continuously $25,000 worth of tax is paying out at least $250 per month in carrying charges. That is a lot of money for a dealer to carry. Most dealers are a one-man or one-family operation. The servicing costs will vary depending on the amount of tax outstanding and the time delay in rebate processing.
The point is that it is neither fair nor reasonable that the fuel dealer be made to carry the cost of this Government benefit to primary producers. Further, these same fuel dealers are already put to the substantial added effort and cost of additional bookkeeping in submitting their applications for rebate.
I put forward two solutions. The first one involves the provision of a cash advance or floats to the dealers. This system is already in place in the Province of Alberta under the Alberta Farm Fuel Distribution Allowance, whereby a seven cent per litre rebate is given to farmers to assist in their input costs. This rebate is taken right off the invoice by the bulk fuel dealer. The bulk fuel dealers purchase their fuel, including the seven-cents a litre. When the fuel is sold to the farmer, seven cents per litre is taken off the price and this deduction is, in turn, recovered from the Alberta treasury. The agents are given a cash advance equal to deductions on approximately two months of the highest season's sales, to be placed in the bank to offset the first pay-back. It is called an accountable advance under the Act. I am advised that this system works
Adjournment Debate
very efficiently. There is no hardship on the bulk dealers and, in fact, the dealers are very pleased with the system.
The other solution is more simple. It involves paying interest to the dealers, and this interest would simply be included with their rebate cheques from time to time. In view of the fact that the federal fuel sales tax rebate program has a sunset date of December 31, 1986, may I instead suggest that a straightforward system of interest payments would be the reasonable and just solution. The time frame of this benefit does not warrant putting into place a cash advance or float system. Therefore 1 urge the Government simply to pay independent bulk dealers the equivalent of bank loan interest on the refund of sales tax.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I hope the initial answer which the Department has provided will satisfy him, at least until the Minister rises in his place to deliver his Budget next week.
The Government's fuel tax rebate program was announced in the Minister's economic statement in November in order to respond to serious financial difficulties being experienced by primary producers. Initially it was proposed that primary producers be required to claim the rebate directly from the Government, except where the fuel was purchased from a manufacturer licensed for federal sales tax purposes and required to charge tax on his sales.
After this program had been announced, representatives of Federated Co-operatives Limited, the Co-operatives Union of Canada and other groups of unlicensed retailers requested that the legislation be broadened to allow retailers to elect to credit the rebate directly to primary producers at the time of the sale, and to file a refund claim with the Government to recover rebates credited in this way. They suggested that this would better serve the needs of their customers and enable them to compete on an equal basis with manufacturers that were already authorized to credit the rebate at the time of sale. As a result the legislation was amended to meet this request.
The issue of a potential impact on retailers' cash flow was also considered at that time. Many factors in the design of this program have reduced the risk of any serious negative impact. First, it is expected that the Government will pay rebates in approximately the same time, on average, as primary producers normally take to pay their accounts. Except in the case of cash payments by purchasers, the impact on cash flow will be minimal. Second, the law requires the Government to pay interest on any valid rebate claim not paid within 60 days. This requirement will ensure that rebate claimants will be protected from loss of use of funds where, through government error, a rebate claim cannot be made in a reasonable time.
Finally, it should be noted that the decision by retailers to claim rebates on behalf of their customers is not a requirement of the law. Rather, this provision is an elective one to accommodate legitimate concerns raised by some retailers. It would not be appropriate for the Government to increase the cost of

May 13, 1985
Adjournment Debate
administering this program by compensating retailers for actions they may take to accommodate their customers' needs.
On balance, the Government believes that these positions will minimize any cash flow costs that retailers may face, while providing a substantial benefit to Canada's primary producers.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS-SPECIAL INITIATIVE FUND. (B) ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, on April 29 I asked a very straightforward question of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) concerning the special cultural initiatives program and possible irregularities in the awarding of grants under this program. It is one of the few programs which is actually getting more money because the money comes from lotteries, not from general tax revenues. While there have been arts cut-backs, this special cookie jar fund of the Minister has been getting more money.
I do not want to complain about any of the particular programs which have been funded. They all sound as if they have at least some merit. I am not in a position to judge their actual merits. However, I wonder about how these decisions are made. The special cultural initiatives program brochure dealt with the previous guidelines for projects. Those guidelines no longer hold. They were for the last fiscal year. The Government has not announced any guidelines, and the Minister told me that under the circumstances the old guidelines still hold. His own Department does not say the same thing. If one phones in and asks what are the guidelines for getting money for this program, he is told that there are no guidelines. Groups do not know where they stand.
Unfortunately another message is coming out of all this. If you want access to this program you need political connections with the Conservative Party, perhaps with the Prime Minister's Office or the office of the Minister of Communications. This is indeed shameful. When I asked the Minister about this he did not deny my allegation that connections of a political nature are what counts for getting grants. He could provide no criteria by which these decisions are made.
Since the case I raised with him on April 29, other grants have been made; one to a circus, Cirque du Soleil, of $750,000. With this money it will be possible to import a big top from Italy and put on circus performances, no doubt a very laudable cultural activity. I certainly think circuses are to be supported, but why this particular one? Why not other circuses? Who makes these decisions? What connections are needed? This is a lot of money for the arts field, $750,000.
Then we had an announcement about Stratford. I am a great fan of Stratford. I congratulate them on "Measure for Measure" which I saw on Saturday, but what about the Shaw Festival? Why is it not getting money? More than $250,000 is going to Stratford to tour in the United States. It is very good
for Stratford to be touring, but other companies would like that money as well.
The arts community will no doubt tell us that the money could be spent on Canadian theatre. Why should all that money go for English theatre while Canadian theatre is being starved? The Shaw Festival is an excellent festival. It is not getting comparable funding. Why is it being denied funding? We do not know the answers to these questions because the regular arts agencies that evaluate requests from all the companies which develop criteria and which have a peer evaluation system are not the agencies that are making these decisions.
Furthermore, on the question of touring, a most laudable objective, the recommendations which the Government had accepted in Opposition and promised during the election campaign have not been respected. For example, theatre groups have been asking for advertising in the United States to promote theatre in Canada. The Government has not done anything about this. The latest advertising in the campaign of the Department of Tourism still features beavers and flapjack contests. This is what the Americans are being told about Canadian culture, not about our Canadian theatre. Why is money not going to promote Canadian theatre in the United States? Instead we have this cookie jar being used for certain companies under certain criteria that we do not know.
The Minister says as long as money is being spent under his Department, that makes it democratic. I asked him about this in committee. He seemed to imply that channelling money through the Canada Council was undemocratic because the Canada Council is not a government Department. Now we have the ludicrous example of a Minister saying that to keep the election promises of his own Party would be contrary to democracy. This is absolutely shameful.
Surely the most basic notion of democracy is that a Government is accountable to the people, and that for an election campaign to have some sense there is a discussion of the issues with the Parties taking different positions. If the position taken by the Party which wins power is not respected, that is an abuse of democracy. The Minister does not understand what democracy is all about. He does not understand that the arts community wants more funding, not less. It wants that funding to go into the regular arts agencies. It wants jury selection and criteria which are accepted within the arts community.
While we are having these very serious cut-backs which hurt the arts community, it is very wrong to see actual increases in funding available for the arts going into this special fund under the Minister's jurisdiction. We want more funding and we want it through the agencies of arts community trusts. We want the agencies to have much more accountability to the community. We want the community to make recommendations for appointments. We want the Minister to respect the arts community, which is what he promised, certainly what his Party promised in the election campaign.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised
May 13, 1985

questions concerning the way grants and funds are awarded under the special cultural initiatives program administered by the Department of Communications.
The special cultural initiatives program was created in 1981 to give financial assistance to non-profit Canadian cultural professional organizations. The initial program was approved for a three-year period with a $39.6 million budget to support activities in deficit reduction, administration improvement, acquisition of assets and special demonstrations of national significance. During the first three years of the program, more than 500 cultural organizations from every region of the country received assistance through this fund. In 1983, the program was renewed until March 31, 1985 after its terms of reference were modified so as to replace the deficit reduction program by other activities related to arts and technology. The renewed program had a $34 million budget and over 343 cultural organizations from various parts of Canada were able to benefit from that phase of the program.
The areas addressed by the program are those activities which complement other funding programs of the Government of Canada including those of the Canada Council and provincial Government programs.
In reviewing request for financial assistance, the program staff consults with other federal and provincial Departments and agencies familiar with the project or the organization and the cultural ecology in which it operates. The Canada Council represents an important source for such information and the level of contact between the Council and program staff is significant. Following an analysis of the request and the information garnered during the consultation process, a recommendation is formulated for the Minister's consideration.
The Minister also receives representations from Members of Parliament from all sides of the House as well as representations from his provincial colleagues, which place the project in the context of the realities of the local community and its needs. This information is directed to the office of the Minister as the background information he requires in order to make an informed judgment on a project submitted for review. Such information ensures that the Minister has the broadest field of information possible on the merits of a project and its impact on the community.
Since March 1, program officials have been actively consulting officials from all provincial Governments to ensure that the objectives, criteria and priorities of any continuing program are consistent with the regional realities and needs of the Canadian cultural community. In light of the central role played by the provincial Governments in co-funding projects submitted to the program, such consultations are essential to ensure a truly responsive and responsible program of support for Canadian cultural organizations.
Adjournment Debate
The Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) will make public his intentions in this respect in the very near future, at which time any revised criteria will be distributed to Canadian cultural organizations as well as all interested Members of the House of Commons. In the interim, the criteria of the Special Program of Cultural Initiatives approved for the period of April 1, 1983, to March 31, 1985, will continue to apply.

Finally it should be noted that, since September 4, 64, or 48 per cent, of the 134 grants awarded under the program went to ridings represented by Liberal and NDP Members. Those figures clearly indicate that the complaint voiced by the Hon. Member-that the main criterion for awarding grants or contributions is related to political allegiance-is totally unfounded. Besides, I might add that a review of projects funded under the program would reveal that it has been and still is an efficient tool to help Canada's cultural organizations.


MINES-CONSTRUCTION OF CARTOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE AT SHERBROOKE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to rise during this adjournment debate to come back to a question that I put to the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton) last March 25 with regard to the construction of the Cartographic Institute in Sherbrooke. Mr. Speaker, I know how sensitive you are to this issue and I would like to take this opportunity to give the Government a chance to clearly state its position. Everybody knows that the background to this question is terrible. As you are well aware, in 1977, under the decentralization policy announced by the then Government, it had been decided that one of the services would be decentralized to Sherbrooke. Since then, this project has been plagued by all sorts of problems which we all regret. Unfortunately, for many years, there were language related problems, but this difficulty has finally been corrected. Regionally, there has always been a political will to settle the issue, but the population lost patience with good reason perhaps, because of the incredible delay in implementing projects which were so vital to the region.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, for this and many other reasons, I am certain that you have succeeded in winning the confidence of the public, and in this regard, we must all acknowledge the results of the last election, while keeping in mind the commitments made by Government Members then in the Opposition. This is what everyone is worried about. Mr. Speaker, it had been said that this project had been put off for too long, that nothing had been done and that with a new Government, there would be no such delays.
Mr. Speaker, we have been assured since September 4 that there would not be any delay. We were told that the project would be carried out soon. Nothing of the kind happened. We were then told: You will have to wait for the next Budget. Now we are told that it will not be in the next Budget. I would

May 13, 1985
Adjournment Debate
therefore like the Parliamentary Secretary to show more abili- I ty than his Minister and to give us a clear, explicit and specific answer. Does the Government still intend to move the Cartographic Institute to Sherbrooke, as agreed with the unions? This means an institute of about 400 employees and not a skeleton staff. Will the Government not agree to the recommendations made by three Progressive Conservative Members of the region who do not want the institute to move? Is the political will expressed during the electoral campaign still ! there?
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Eastern Townships need this institute. You know as well as I do how high is the unemployment rate in the region. You know as well as I do how great are the expectations of the people at Sherbrooke University. What I want to know is quite simple. Actually, this should not require three minutes from the Parliamentary Secretary's time if he is in a position to tell me tonight that indeed the Institute of Cartography will be moved, that a specific timeframe will be followed and we will not have to wait until the pigs start to fly and that, Mr. Speaker, you have no intention of making an election on that issue! There have already been three, in my view, so said your leader! He even went as far as five, but we know his natural propensity to exaggerate!
Mr. Speaker, I think this is important for the people in the area who are now getting involved. You will certainly be visited by the Mayor of Sherbrooke, accompanied by people from the economic summit who led an absolutely extraordinary fight on the Domtar issue. There was tremendous regional solidarity on that. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, I know you are aware of the regional solidarity that exists in the Eastern Townships and that, like myself, you will want to make sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not disappoint anyone. You will want to make su-e the Parliamentary Secretary is equal to his enormous task, that he gives us a forthright, direct, and specific answer. I know that when he was in Opposition, he was a champion of clarity. This is the kind of clarity I am expecting from him tonight, Mr. Speaker, and despite his interests in forestry, I am sure his interest in regional economic development is still greater and he can tell us tonight what is the definite and specific intent of the Government.
I think the Government has procrastinated beyond reason. If it is credit the new Government is looking for, we will be ready to applaud as soon as the work starts. But, for heaven's sake let it start! Because this has been a specific commitment by the Prime Minister, by the candidates in the election, and it is the kind of commitment we want to see implemented within the shortest possible time, because the area is in tremendous need of it.


Mr. F. Oberle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the 1
Hon. Member's question. He is championing a cause for a region which is similar to the region I represent in another part of the country, and I am most sensitive to the needs of that region. In fact, the Hon. Member will recall that I have in the past made many efforts in many different directions to sensitize the Government to the special needs of regions such as Sherbrooke.
The Hon. Member correctly analysed the situation. It was in 1977 that the Government of the day for the first time announced that there would be a program of decentralization of certain Government Departments to different parts of Canada. Soon thereafter the proposition was advanced that a part of the programs maintained by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources should be relocated to Sher-booke. The commitment became a very seasonal kind of thing, as happened to many of these things in the past. As elections came near, the commitment became stronger, soon to be forgotten after the election. In fact, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke about this subject during the election campaign he was not, of course, aware of how much planning had gone into this proposition and whether or not an impact statement had been prepared on both the region which was to benefit from this project and, of course, the Department.
I can tell the Hon. Member that the proposition which has been advanced, namely, to relocate the mapping and surveys branch or the Cartography Institute of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to Sherbrooke involves about 400 positions. There is some planning which has gone on in the intervening period. There have been discussions with unions. It has been decided that only about one hundred of the existing positions would move from Ottawa to Sherbrooke. The rest would be recruited there.
The Prime Minister and the Government, of course, immediately sensed the urgency associated with this matter, and the need and potential of that region to absorb that kind of facility. Unfortunately, however, the planning had not been done, but will be done. The plan needs to demonstrate maximum utilization and benefit to the region and, of course, minimum disruption to the existing program. We want to get the best out of this project.
The Hon. Member has been waiting for eight years. I know how often he spoke when he was in the Government-likely behind the scenes because I never heard him in the House. He will just have to be a little more patient. I can tell him that the program will have to fit in within the new fiscal framework of the Government and must be co-ordinated with a set of other priorities. There is no intention, however, of doing anything other than to perhaps postpone, hopefully for a shorter period of time than eight years, this important project.
May 13, 1985


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House
Adjournment Debate
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Stand ing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 14, 1985