1988-03-09

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this Government is always first in line to take credit for job creation-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -but it is amazing how quickly the Ministers disappear when there are job losses.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Government is first in line to take the credit but it is ducking in terms of the blame. There were 1,300 jobs lost at Firestone and there was not a word from the Minister who should have been responsible. There were 3,000 jobs lost at Massey Ferguson in Brantford. We now know that 5,000 workers, their families, their widows, have now lost their health care coverage as a result of the decision by the company to terminate Green Shield benefits.
I call upon the Prime Minister to follow up on a request from Bob White-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -the president of the United Auto Workers. As a 20 per cent shareholder in the company the Government should immediately reinstate Green Shield benefits so widows who have drug costs of over $200 a month, retired people, and people on disability benefits, can at least rest assured that they will continue to have health care coverage.
Stand in line for the blame because in this particular case, as a 20 per cent shareholder, the federal Government has a
responsibility to continue that health care coverage for those
5,000	people.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, this week marks a major event for Amnesty International as it begins its "Human Rights Now" campaign here at home and around the world.
"Human Rights Now" heralds the fortieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United Nations and which defines the rights of humanity.
This campaign will strive to raise mankind's awareness and recognition of every individual's entitlement to human rights, and to encourage the Governments of the world to strengthen their domestic and international protection of human rights.
Today in Ottawa and across the country Amnesty International groups will be approaching Canadians to sign petitions promoting human rights which will then be circulated worldwide throughout the campaign. We as Canadians should applaud and support Amnesty International in its ongoing battle to protect our human rights and to improve the quality of life for people the world over.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been promising an adjustment program to help laid off older workers since the 1986 Budget, but nothing has been implemented.
Major lay-offs resulting from plant closures in cities such as Hamilton, Brantford, and now Winnipeg-St. Boniface have produced no specific help for these employees. At the Canada Packers plant in St. Boniface a detailed study by two university professors, Jeremy Hull and Jim Silver, done after last

March 9, 1988
year's lay-offs, shows that four months later fully 35 per cent of former employees were jobless and that those with jobs were earning an average of $3 an hour less than when they worked for Canada Packers.
A second group of 400 workers at Canada Packers will be laid off March 31, and fully one-third of these are 55 years of age and older.
The treatment of these workers, many of whom will have great difficulty finding alternative work, is a test case for the Government. If there is no help for St. Boniface, Brantford and Hamilton now, what hope is there for the thousands of workers who will lose similar production jobs under the proposed free trade deal?
I call on the Government to make good on its promises to older Canadian workers by putting in place a meaningful-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Manitoba are going to be asking the following questions of Mr. Pawley's defunct Government. Were the NDP able to manage auto insurance?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Felix Holtmann: Were the NDP able to manage workmen's compensation?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Felix Holtmann: Were the NDP able to manage Manitoba's telephone system?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Felix Holtmann: Were the NDP able to manage Manitoba's Crown corporations?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Felix Holtmann: Was Mr. Pawley able to speak for Manitoba on free trade?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Felix Holtmann: The socialists here in this House have been crying: "Call an election on free trade! Call an election on free trade! Call an election!" Well, my socialist friends, you've got one! You can all come to Manitoba to share the blame for Pawley's flickering flame.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, today is Canada-Israel Friendship Day, a day that celebrates the friendship that has existed between Canada and Israel for the past 40 years. Since 1948 Canada has constantly supported Israel's right to exist as an independent state within recognized boundaries, and has played a leading role in peace-keeping and moderating in the Middle East.
This friendship has resulted in closer cultural and economic ties, including the establishment of a Joint Economic Committee on Trade and Economic Expansion, a Canada-Israel Cultural Foundation, and a Chair in Canadian Studies at Hebrew University. This special relationship with Israel has existed alongside and has been balanced by Canada's friendly relations with Arab nations in the Middle East.
Recently, Canadians have become more and more disturbed by the situation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. I ask Israel as a long-time friend to use restraint in its dealings with Palestinians in the occupied territories. These violent actions aimed at crushing Palestinian unrest are contrary to the spirit and traditions of the Israeli nation.
Just as no lasting peace can be achieved without the recognition of Israel, there must also be recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people to a homeland. The animosity is real, and certainly presents a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to a lasting peace. But men and women of moderation must continue to work toward that goal. The Israel-Egypt agreement is a good example that the seemingly impossible can happen when historical enemies settle their disputes at a negotiating table.

O)


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Liberal Party financial contributors are aware that since 1984 the Liberal Party has used its election campaign contributions to pay nearly $3,000 a month, or $35,000 a year, to provide their Leader with an apartment in Toronto's fashionable Avenue Road and St. Clair district.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and members of the Official Opposition continually call for other Members of Parliament and other political Parties to be open, honest, and conflict free.
What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker!
March 9, 1988


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House are aware that the Pawley Government in Manitoba lost a Budget vote last night. Members of the House are probably not aware that half an hour ago Mr. Pawley announced that he will not be the Premier in the Province of Manitoba-[DOT]


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Everybody in this House came into politics to try to do something for our country. When a statement like this is being made, Members might pay some respect to someone else who undoubtedly was trying to do something for his country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: I do believe that Members of this House in all Parties, and Manitobans, wish to congratulate Mr. Pawley on his achievements, and wish to accept the fact that he has contributed many, many years of service to the people of Manitoba and to the people of Canada.
Not all of us have agreed on the issues, but that does not take away from the contribution. On behalf of our Party, and on behalf of other Members of the House, I do wish to offer our congratulations to Mr. Pawley for his courageous decision and for his contributions to all Manitobans.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, when the present Liberal Leader (Mr. Turner) was a member of the Government, he helped to accumulate this country's many billions of dollars of debts.
During the three years he has been Leader of the Opposition, his Party has yet to pay debts totalling $5 million, although that same Party is paying its Leader's rent, which amounts to $35,000 annually.
On our side of the House, for the first time ever a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is paying his own meal expenses, and also for the first time, the Prime Minister is not letting taxpayers pay the cost of renovating his official residence.
Mr. Speaker, the difference is that Conservatives know how to administer this country, while the Liberals only get it deeper in debt.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this House the plight of the striking steel workers at the Sydney Steel Corporation. This House should know that because of the strike some workers have been laid off. Workers such as those in Locals 6516 and 6537 are not eligible for strike pay from the union because their locals are not on strike.
Two days ago the members in both locals were informed that the Unemployment Insurance Commission refuses to pay them their unemployment insurance benefits because they do not qualify under Section 44(1) of the Act. All of the players involved in this decision know that this is not a good enough reason to refuse benefits; it is a technicality. These men are not working due to circumstances beyond their control. They have families to care for and they need financial assistance while the strike continues.
I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to overrule this ridiculous decision and to release the unemployment insurance cheques to those needy workers. It is time for the Government of Canada to show some compassion and economic leadership and provide justice to those needy workers.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on March 3, when Vote No. 314 was being taken in the House on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) asked: "Where is Mr. St-Julien?" Mr. Speaker, I was in Amos and Val d'Or to deal with unemployment and immigration problems and to prepare a request for a new federal program to promote mining exploration. I also had a few meetings with business people in connection with the Challenge '88 student employment program.
That same day I also received a very moving telephone call from Moses Idlout in Inukjuak. His five-year old daughter, Sarah, had to go to the dentist in Povungnituk right away, and he could not get a seat on the plane. After several phone calls between four and six that afternoon, I managed to get him a seat on the plane for the next day.
Mr. Speaker, as you can imagine, March 3 was a very busy day for me in Abitibi, and I was anxious to get home to my daughter Saunya and my wife Diane.

March 9, 1988
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As a result of American harassment, 7,500 fish processing jobs in British Columbia are now at stake. Canadians have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in ensuring the high quality of our fish, and now the Americans are trying to reap the benefit of that investment.
Could the Prime Minister explain why the United States continues to harass our fish processors, when the Prime Minister promised that such harassment would end with the trade deal? Could he explain why his trade deal with the United States does nothing to preserve the jobs of these thousands of fish processors in British Columbia?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on September 28, 1987, in Toronto the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote: "I believe the better route to greater prosperity, more jobs, and greater independence is a global trade strategy for Canada. The principal mechanism for realizing that strategy is the GATT".
What he refers to as harassment by the United States is an action that was taken under the GATT. This Government, which believes in the importance of international trading arrangements and believes profoundly in the importance of the GATT-


Mr. Gauthier:: You cannot have it both ways, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: -believes that the Leader of the Opposition, if I may quote his Whip, "cannot have it both ways". Either he is for the GATT or he is against the GATT.


John Napier Turner: We are for the GATT, and we continue to support the GATT process.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the question is to demonstrate to the people of British Columbia and Canadians on both coasts that the Government gave away our rights under the GATT.
Before the Prime Minister signed this deal, Canada could have fought back by imposing an export tax on fish leaving the
country, but now, under the trade deal, Canada is no longer allowed to impose an export tax to protect our fish processers.
I cite page 55 of the so-called trade agreement, Article 408, which prohibits Canada now imposing the type of tax that would have protected West Coast and East Coast fish processors under GATT.
Under existing rules, that is to say, prior to the trade agreement, Canada could honour international law, keep 7,500 fish processing jobs in British Columbia, ensure the high quality of our fish, and recoup Canadian investment.
Under the proposed trade deal, Canada has yielded its rights under GATT and its remedies under GATT by Article 408 of the trade agreement.
Why did the Prime Minister agree to such a deal which throws away thousands of jobs in the West Coast food and fish processing industries?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am a western Canadian all the time, not simply a western Canadian by constituency.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, sit down!


Charles Joseph Clark: As a western Canadian who represents a constituency involved in natural resource production, I am certainly well aware of the capacity of Governments to trade away the interests of Canadian resource industries under the GATT. That is what Liberal Governments, including Liberal Governments of which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was a member, did for years. That is one of the reasons this Government took a new approach to international trade, including an approach that respects the importance of those industries to Canada. Canada has available to it remedies that will be effective in the negotiations under way with regard to the processing industry in British Columbia.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I shouldn't respond to that cheap shot, but I will.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I want to remind the right hon. gentleman that my family has been settled in British Columbia since 1896 in the Kootenay Valley.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: And that the people of Vancouver Quadra gave me the right to speak on behalf of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MiHHHMIMHBnBB
March 9, 1988


John Napier Turner: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I take pride in speaking in this House as a Canadian and I expect the right hon. gentleman to reply as a Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


SITUATION OF EAST COAST FISH PROCESSORS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister gave away our ability to protect our West Coast fish processors, the ability we had under GATT before he signed his deal, he likes to pretend that at least he has protected East Coast fish processors.
Is it not true that under the trade deal, and I refer the right hon. gentleman again to the trade deal, the Americans now have the right to challenge internationally the New Brunswick Fish Processing Act, the Newfoundland Fish Inspection Act, the Nova Scotia Fisheries Act and the Prince Edward Island Fish Inspection Act? Why doesn't this deal prohibit the Americans from challenging our East Coast legislation and from harassing our East Coast fish processors? Why did this Government and this Prime Minister give up our rights when the Americans have not yielded any of their rights?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has me on one point. I was not there in 1896.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I also know that, while the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a Member for Vancouver, when he took it upon himself to attack the free trade agreement he did not do that in Vancouver-


John Napier Turner: Yes, I did.


Charles Joseph Clark: -he went to Toronto where he thought the attack might be popular.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Government of Canada has the capacity to deal with legitimate interests of Atlantic Canada and of the Pacific Coast. We intend to protect them. We have in the past.
There are discussions under way now with regard to the fish processing industry on the West Coast. We expect that we will be able not only to respect our obligations under the GATT but to serve the legitimate interests of industries in British Columbia as well.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


CANADA-FRANCE DISPUTE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, East Coast fishermen not only have problems with American protectionism but also with French overfishing. It was announced yesterday that France and Canada would resume talks on the problems associated with offshore Newfoundland. A French ministry spokesman said: "There seems to have been some movement in the Canadian position".
I ask whatever Minister is going to answer a question on this subject today. What kind of a movement has taken place in the Canadian Government's position? Is it the kind of movement that we have become used to by this Government when dealing with foreign powers? Has the Government bent over backwards once again to the Government of France?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. gentleman's Party was in office in 1972 the movement we experienced was illustrated by the old game, "Hoist your sails and run".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is what the Liberals did in 1972 with the treaty into which they entered.
In the last several days it has been agreed that the negotiators will meet together again to discuss what is the best procedure to try to reach a negotiated settlement of the dispute on fisheries and boundary matters. This is the same position we have been taking since October 9 when the French representatives left the talks. We will not bend over backwards for anyone but Canadians. In fact we will not even bend over Chirac-wards.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: France is not the only problem. Starting in April, we will have to say: "Le petit homard pour les Canadians ... et le gros homard pour les Americains". A nice "poisson d'avril"\


LOBSTER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
George Baker: I ask the
Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: And that was French, in case he is wondering. I ask the Minister of Fisheries now, the real Minister of Fisheries, if he realizes that for the first time in Canadian history, next month with the opening of the lobster season it will be illegal to export minimum-sized lobsters, legal in Canada, to the eastern United States because of new state

March 9, 1988
Oral Questions
laws? What will the Government do about it? It will not just be the lobsters that will be boiled alive this season but the Canadian lobster fishermen.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is definitely "petit homard'l


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: I try to keep up with my hon. colleague. Under U.S. federal law an exemption has been granted to undersized lobsters exported into the United States for some time by way of a certification recognizing that some of our lobsters grow smaller than theirs. The Hon. Member realizes that.
Some State Governments, and particularly the Government of Massachusetts, have increased the carapace size to something larger than our normal Canadian size for export of canners and small lobsters, representing some 3 per cent of all lobsters exported to the United States. The Government of Canada filed an official note of protest with the U.S. Government in January to seek an enforcement of the federal law which requires that Canadian exports by certification be allowed entry into the U.S. market.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question about the GATT ruling. I think we can all recognize that the Americans had a legitimate complaint about Canadian fish processors buying American roe herring. This $2-million to $3-million grievance should have been settled easily and amicably by the two countries, especially considering the Government's boast about better relations with the Americans. Instead, the Americans appealed to GATT whose preliminary ruling now threatens the $7 50-million industry and 4,000 jobs.
If Canada is not able to negotiate a satisfactory bilateral agreement with the United States in Washington today and tomorrow, why will Canada not exercise its rights under GATT, rights that are legitimate under the GATT agreement, to veto the preliminary decision?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am pleased if the NDP is coming back to the support of GATT that has been the policy it has pretended to claim most of the time. I would be pleased if that is the case.
The Hon. Member indicated that there are negotiations under way now on this issue. Those negotiations have fully involved the industry, the provinces, and others who are concerned. The Hon. Member would understand that it is prudent for this country, operating in full respect of our GATT obligations and our GATT opportunities, to take this a step at a time. We are involved today in negotiations and we expect to be involved tomorrow in those negotiations. I am sure the Hon. Member hopes that those negotiations will prove positive.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell the House, the representatives of the fishing industry who are here in the House today, and the people of British Columbia that if these negotiations are not concluded in a way that is satisfactory to Canada, Canada will exercise its options under the GATT to veto that preliminary ruling? That is what we want to hear.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I understand the question and I understand the interest. The Hon. Member will understand that we are involved in discussions now and we are hopeful that those discussions will prove productive. If something occurs that causes us to have to contemplate another step, we will then contemplate that other step.


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF DECISION AND OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister can answer this. Article 1205 of the trade agreement under "GATT Rights" says:
The Parties retain their rights and obligations under GATT and agreements
negotiated under the GATT with respect to matters exempt from this Part
under Articles 1203 and 1204.
Article 1203 is the section which purports to exempt Atlantic provinces' regulations regarding fisheries.
Will the Minister agree that if this GATT ruling is allowed to stand, and if this free trade agreement goes into effect, in effect our entire Atlantic coast fishery as well as the Pacific coast fishery will be jeopardized and the Americans will have their goal of a continental resource policy put into place by the Government?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that is a very extreme statement and one that is not accurate. However, I think the Hon. Member is asking if we will indicate today, a day on which we are involved in negotiations, a course of action as to what we might do if the negotiations today do not succeed.
We are anticipating that the negotiations in which we are involved today and tomorrow will succeed. If they do not, we will then consider the next step that would be open to us. That is a very reasonable position and I am sure the Hon. Member
March 9, 1988

would not want to suggest anything that might prejudice our capacity to succeed in the negotiations now under way.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who is also responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The Minister will know that a fundamental principle in fighting regional disparity is that one does not take jobs from one poor community to give to another poor community.
Would the Minister explain to the House why the Government of Canada is in the process of considering the possibility of funding Westray Coal company with $75 million of taxpayers' money to build a coal mine in Pictou County, thereby displacing 275 jobs at the Lingan Colliery in Cape Breton which is Crown corporation owned and operated by the Government of Canada? Would the Minister explain that to the people of Nova Scotia?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I will explain that to the Hon. Member with great pleasure. First, the question was why we are considering the request. It is incumbent upon any Government which receives a request in due form to consider the request. The request is under study within the Department. I have had representations from people in Cape Breton, from the Premier of the Province, from MLAs, and from MPs who are concerned about the project. All of those are being kept on file and will be considered before any decision is made.
We have no intention of shifting jobs from DEVCO to a new project which as yet has to be determined to be financially viable. For that matter, I have not seen the final results of the analysis. I have not received any recommendations. The request was made in due form, as I said, and we are looking at it. That is all I can tell the Hon. Member.
I have also been in touch, obviously, with the board of directors and the Chairman of DEVCO in order to hear their opinions about that potential development. No decision has been made and the study has not even been completed.


CROWN CORPORATION'S REPORT ON POSSIBLE JOB DISPLACEMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister will know that the federal Crown corporation, DEVCO, submitted a 12-page report to the Government of Nova Scotia and to senior officials of his
Oral Questions
Department no later than December 8, 1987, wherein it is spelled out very clearly that the decision of which they were informed, which was imminent in terms of the funding of the particular new mine for Pictou County, would cause a displacement of 275 jobs at the Lingan Colliery, reduce DEVCO revenue by $20 million, cost the taxpayers of Canada $90 million, and have negative effects on the economy of Nova Scotia.
I ask, on behalf of the miners, on behalf of the families, and on behalf of the people of Cape Breton that the Minister give an undertaking today that he will not fund this proposal in Pictou County.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the undertaking I am willing to give today to this House and to my hon. colleague is that we will do in this case what we have done in every other case. We will look after the workers. We will ensure that the workers' rights are protected in the same way as we have just done in the case of Hawker Siddeley, as we committed to do. That was done yesterday. We will do that in this case.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister confirm that the Government was aware of a U.S. Congressional Committee report that said that the multinational drug companies misrepresented the facts in claiming that much higher drug prices were required for research and development, and that the Government nevertheless followed the drug company line, hook, line and sinker, in passing Bill C-22 without a provision requiring the production of research and development in this country?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Waxman report to which the Hon. Member is referring is a study done in the United States. The Hon. Member knows that the period of exclusivity in the United States is 17 years. It is 10 in Canada. The Hon. Member knows that Bill C-22 provides for commitment to research and development. There is no such commitment in the United States. The Hon. Member also knows that in Bill C-22 there happens to be-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the problem that Hon. Members are having. I am sure they understand Bill C-22 because they lobbied against its benefits for Canadians.

March 9, 1988
Oral Questions
Is the Hon. Member telling this House that Canada should wait to do something for Canadians until the Americans have made a decision on what they would like to do? Is that what the Hon. Member is saying?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, that is a strange answer from the Hon. Minister. His question as to whether we understand the Bill is most peculiar and is a demonstration that he does not understand it at all if he thinks it includes a provision for research and development to be produced in this country.


PROVISIONS OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we understand that it is the position of the Government that after review this legislation can be changed and that, in the event of failure to adhere to the pricing requirements, exclusivity might be withdrawn.
How will that be possible? Is it not true that the United States Government will be in a position to retaliate under Article 20(11) of the trade pact in respect to nullification and impairment of an advantage by an American firm in Canada on that account?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I really fail to understand the concern of the New Democratic Party that we should wait to do something for Canadians until the Americans make a decision.


Mr. Althouse:: Listen to the question.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member does not understand the benefits of Bill C-22. I have in my hand examples of the research and development that was brought about by Bill C-22. It includes $10 million at Burroughs Wellcome in Montreal, $45 million at Nordic Laboratories, and $70 million in new research and development in Halifax and Saint John. In Calgary and Edmonton there was $132 million.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF M. PAUL OKUMBA
Mr. Speaker:: Order, I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Secretary General of the Agence de cooperation culturelle et technique, Mr. Paul Okumba, who is on an official visit to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week, in response to a question asked in this House on a proposed United Nations study of treaties with indigenous peoples, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Canada was "looking for, working for, and arguing for a broader mandate for" this study.
Is the Minister aware that what Canada is actually arguing for in Geneva is not a broader mandate, but rather the mere preparation of an outline to look at the potential utility of these treaties, and all of that to be considered further 12 months hence? To me that looks like a watering down, a shift away from the issue and deliberate delay.
Will the Minister not agree, and will he tell the House what Canada is actually doing in Geneva on this important issue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not agree. I indicated to the House earlier, as the Hon. Member said, what Canada is doing in Geneva.
I remind the Hon. Member, and I think he knows the facts better than other Members of the House might, that the proposal now before the commission in Geneva would have more limited rather than broader application. Canada believes that the actions by that commission should have broader application rather than more limited application.


CANADA'S HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have good evidence to the contrary, but I ask the Minister if it is not really the case that Canada fears international scrutiny of our Indian treaties because we know such scrutiny will reveal that our record on human rights in this country is not everything we want the world to believe it is?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Ministers of this Government, from the Prime Minister right through the Cabinet, have frequently indicated that we believe improvements have to be made in the status of aboriginal people in this country. We are acting to accomplish those improvements.
When an issue comes before the UN in the normal way, in other words, when avenues in Canada are exhausted, and the UN comes to a judgment, as was the case in one particular instance, a former Government, of which the Hon. Member was a part, did not act to correct the problem. This Government acted.
March 9, 1988


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. To celebrate International Women's Day a coalition of groups involving the whole spectrum of the movement across Ontario invited the Prime Minister to be a panelist on a discussion of the free trade agreement. We understand he was not available and I can sympathize because I understand what his timetable must be like. However, it seems to me that when the Prime Minister can authorize $15 million to sell an agreement-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry but that was not a question, that was a statement. The Hon. Member on a supplementary.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, why could the Prime Minister not find a single Conservative politician to be on the panel to discuss the trade agreement with the women of Ontario?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the comment of my hon. friend. There is a story today in the Star-Phoenix about an independent study dated March 8, 1988, which says that free trade is seen as being very beneficial to women. The study was done by Katie McMillan and says: "Far from sounding an economic death knell for working women, the agreement will result in more women getting better jobs at higher salaries."
That has been the record of economic development of this Government. More than 1,100,000 new jobs have been created, and in excess of 55 per cent of those jobs went directly to women. That is progress, that is social justice, and the free trade agreement is going to enhance and expand upon that to ensure greater justice for women.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain on a very short question.


NON-REPRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT ON PANEL
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister authorized $15 million to sell an agreement. Why could a politician not be on the panel to defend this agreement to the women of Ontario? Please answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Benjamin:: Send somebody. Anybody.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: If we send anybody, we will send you, Les.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be happy to try to answer. My hon. friend has a panel she would like us to appear on. I have not-
Oral Questions


Marion Dewar: You were asked.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Pardon me?


Marion Dewar: You were asked by the Ontario women.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to give an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I think in the interests of other Hon. Members we must proceed. The Hon. Member for Egmont.


EXPORTS OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY-PROTECTION REQUEST FOR PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the federal regulation plan, or I guess we could call it the deregulation plan, for energy.
The Minister will be aware that on March 6, 1986, the Government asked for a review of the export regulations. The review panel has made its recommendations. Therefore, will the Minister assure this House today, and all Prince Edward Islanders, that the proposed amendments to the National Energy Board Act regulating the export of electrical energy will not alter the fundamental rights contained in the second price test as it is now interpreted, which protects the interests of power consuming provinces such as Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in several sectors, including the energy sector, the Government's policy is to use deregulation to expand trading in those sectors.
Furthermore, the Government is committed to carrying out this process in consultation with the groups concerned. In the case of electric power, the Government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are engaged in frequent consultations with the Minister's provincial counterparts, and as part of this process, next week I will have the pleasure of meeting with the Minister from Prince Edward Island to discuss these matters.


PRICE PAID FOR ELECTRICITY BY POWER IMPORTING PROVINCES
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite satisfied with that answer. I want assurances from the Minister today, as indeed do all Prince Edward Islanders, that any changes in the regulations governing the export of electricity will ensure that power importing provinces such as Prince Edward Island will not pay a higher price for their electricity from exporting provinces than would be charged to

March 9, 1988
Oral Questions
American energy consumers. That is the assurance we want today. It is incumbent upon him to ensure that this does not happen under free trade or anything else.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the specific problems of Prince Edward Island will be given due consideration by the Government.


MARINE ATLANTIC
Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, an employee of Marine Atlantic recently complained that material sent to him by the NDP contained his personal identification number. He feels that is a breach of confidentiality and an infringement upon his democratic rights.
Is the Minister of Transport aware of this incident and, if so, has he investigated it?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have had this matter investigated. As the Hon. Member said, an employee of Marine Atlantic received a two-page letter from the Leader of the NDP attacking free trade and asking him to send an enclosed card to the Prime Minister, postage free. It also asked him to fill in a second card and send it back to the Leader of the NDP, postage free. The NDP never pay for anything, you will notice, Mr. Speaker.
We had this piece of political propaganda looked into. On the envelope there was the personal identification number of the person involved. I am assured by Marine Atlantic that they did not release his name, nor would they release any names of their employees to any political Party. It so happens that the company had to supply the union involved with the union dues deduction listings.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That listing has a label with the number on it. I have advised that particular employee to apply to union officials to discover why possibly they were supplying names and identification numbers to the Leader of the NDP so he could send out unsolicited propaganda, untrue propaganda, inaccurate propaganda, to people who work for Marine Atlantic, encouraging them to bog up the mails with free cards directed to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. As of Monday, health care benefits for some 4,000 Massey workers, retirees and spouses were cancelled. Given that the Government of Canada is one of three major shareholders in this company, will the Government, in this difficult interim period, move at once to cover the health costs for these people? Will it show some compassion at least this once?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not accept the latter part of the question, "at least this once". I think once again this Government will show all its compassion. We are aware there are some problems concerning health care benefits with the workers of this particular company. I have instructed my officials to look into it. Not through my instructions, but I understand as well that officials of the Government of Ontario are looking into this very matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor on a short supplemental.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR WORKERS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, given, once more, the Government's major shareholding position in this company, will it take responsibility as well for setting up immediately adjustment assistance programs for the workers who are affected in this particular, very difficult case?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member no doubt knows, the situation that exists at the moment is not a new problem. Governments have been struggling with this situation since 1981. The former Government dealt with the situation in its way to try to redress the problem. The latest attempt by Governments to do something was in 1986. It has now proven to be futile. It has been proven we cannot get that company on a viable course.
What we as a Government have done is deal with the pension issue, to ensure the company would live up to the undertakings it made in 1986 vis-a-vis the pensions of the workers of that corporation.
We are also in negotiation at the moment with the Province of Ontario in terms of older worker adjustment programs. We hope those negotiations will be concluded soon so that the workers, and I emphasize the workers, not the corporation- we have done everything we can there-are fully protected. That is what this Government stands for and that is what this Government will fight for.
March 9, 1988


DEVELOPMENT OF OLD PORT OF MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in November 1986, the Committee chaired by Mr. Laurent Picard published its recommendations for the development of Greater Montreal. These recommendations included asking the federal Government to grant funds for the development of the Vieux-Port in Montreal and to locate the space agency in that city.
Unfortunately, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion responded to these recommendations with some wellmeaning platitudes, and the business community, the unions and even the Mayor of Montreal were disappointed in the federal Government's failure to act decisively.
My question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Could the Minister inform the House whether the Conservative Government is going to announce the injection of the $140 million needed to develop the Vieux-Port in Montreal before or during the election campaign?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer the Hon. Member's question, and I may say that recently, I had several meetings with my Quebec counterpart who is responsible for the Montreal area, Mr. Daniel Johnson, and with Mayor Jean Dore.
As you know, the development of the Vieux-Port in Montreal involves all three levels of government, which are working together on this project.
Saturday, before he left for Europe on an economic promotion tour, the Quebec Minister called to let me know that matters were proceeding to his satisfaction.
We have been ready to act for months. We have to wait-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Liar!


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary, please.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been giving the same answer for months. Here is my supplementary: The Mayor of Montreal and Quebec authorities disagree with the statements and the federal Government-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but this is not a supplementary question.
The Hon. Member for Beaches.
Oral Questions


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister knows, there have been delays of a year or more between the time an individual lodges an appeal against a decision to disqualify him or her from receipt of Canada Pension disability benefits, and the hearing on an appeal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: Could the Minister tell the House and those Canadians what steps he has taken to speed up those appeal processes because-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: -as the Minister must know, many, if not most of the appellants, are living in real financial stress-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can understand there may be disagreement between the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie and a few of his colleagues, but other Hon. Members have not yet had an opportunity to ask questions. Let us extend some courtesy to other Members.
The Hon. Member for Beaches.


Neil Young: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question. As the Minister knows, there are many, many appellants who are appealing decisions of disqualification for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. Many of those individuals' appeals have taken a year or more even to be heard. Could the Minister advise the House what steps he has taken to have these appeals speeded up? As he knows, many of these individuals are suffering real financial hardship as a result.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member says is correct. It goes back, I think, to a number of points. I know of both his interest in the field and his understanding of it.
The Canada Pension Plan and the disability clauses in the Canada Pension Plan, as he knows, were structured very tightly at the time of the passage of the Act. The point was that Governments of the day, both provincial and federal, did not want the disability clauses to reflect, for instance, on Workers' Compensation, both rulings and programs, within the given provinces.
I have also not been satisfied with the appeal process on two counts. First, to my mind there is lack or a gap within Canadian programs in terms of disability. That has been discussed many times in this House and in various pension reform committees. Second, is the matter of-

March 9, 1988
Privilege-Mr. de Cotret


John Napier Turner: Order, Jake!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have asked the Pension Review Commission to give me some recommendations as to how we can speed up that process. I do not have that report.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the hour, I am going to proceed with some single questions. The Hon. Member for Trinity.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the current trend for foreign owned firms in Canada to buy out their Canadian minority shareholders. Does the Minister agree with this activity, which runs counter to previous government policy of encouraging foreign businesses to have Canadian shareholders thus obliging public disclosure and accountability in Canada?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to examine how important that phenomenon is in the over-all investment intentions in Canada. It was just announced today that 17 per cent increased investment is expected next year in the Canadian economy. This is the highest rate in the last nine years. The vast preponderance of that investment will be different from what the Hon. Member suggests. However, I will be glad to look at the magnitude of the question she asks.


Aideen Nicholson: Supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: Just a single question, 1 am sorry.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I have in my hand the Guidelines on Research Involving Human Subjects released on March 3 by the Medical Research Council of Canada. On page 11 it states: "-at this time the use of Guidelines within the current body of law is sufficient to reinforce the ethical conduct of research with human subjects."
Did the Minister play any role in the development of these guidelines? Does he consider this to be an adequate framework
for those decisions that must be taken for the protection of human life rather than treating human life as a commodity?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines to which the Hon. Member refers were developed by the Medical Research Council. That council has an ethics committee.
As well, we have convened in Canada under the G-7 umbrella a study on ethical questions relating to research involving human subjects. In fact, the report of that committee was taken by the Prime Minister to the Summit in Venice.
There is a larger question involved here. I know that the Hon. Member has been very active in the area of whether, from an ethical point of view and from a public policy point of view, Canadians should examine this question in a larger or in a broader context, not only within the medical community but without. I have had a fair amount of representation not only from the Member of Parliament but from others that we should consider that. The Government has not taken a decision on that specific part.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the time for Question Period has ended.
I understand that there is a question of privilege to be raised by the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret).


QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I was replying as honestly and as fully as possible, within the time limits provided during the Oral Question period, to a question asked by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), the language used by the Hon. Member was at the very least unparliamentary. Mr. Speaker, I consider myself an honourable and honest man, and I have tried to reply to questions asked in this House with all the honesty and the knowledge available to me.
Twice, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has called me a liar.


An Hon. Member:: As usual!


Robert René de Cotret: I ask the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie at least to withdraw his offensive and unfair comments and also to apologize to the House, because I find such an occurrence unpleasant and an affront to all Members of this House.


March 9, 1988


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the truth would hurt the Minister. However, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for yourself and for the rest of this House, I shall withdraw my comments, but I maintain what I think because I know that I was right!


PRIVILEGE
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at 3 p.m. the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) rose to allege a question of privilege relating to an announcement which had been issued by my office on Monday morning, March 7. This announcement related to a number of important conservation measures designed to reduce the toll taken of our precious lower Georgia Strait Chinook salmon stocks in British Columbia waters.
I can assure the Hon. Member that this announcement was finalized at about 8 a.m., Vancouver time, and on my instructions members of my staff distributed through the parliamentary mail system copies of this release to all Members of Parliament from British Columbia. I only regret that the Hon. Member did not receive it until 4 p.m. It was placed in the mail system at 11.30 a.m. here in Ottawa and distributed to all British Columbia Members of Parliament.
Motions
occasion. I thank the Minister for coming into the Chamber to explain the facts as he sees them. I hope that on other occasions every effort will be made, as it clearly ought to be, to ensure that all Hon. Members receive communications from Departments at the same time. 1 think that that closes the matter.


INDIAN ACT
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: for leave to introduce Bill C-115, an Act to amend the Indian Act and another Act in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
Next time we will call the Hon. Member in advance so that he knows that such an announcement is coming.
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The facts are that there were five Conservative Members of Parliament who received advance notice of this statement. In the past it has been the practice of the Minister's Department to courier notices to the official critic of the New Democratic Party. This was not done. Simply to place something in the mail and expect that staff will pick it up after the mail has been cleared first thing in the morning is not a satisfactory procedure.
I thank the Minister for his assurance that in the future such items will be hand delivered and that we will receive advance copies.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, not to prolong the debate, I believe I indicated that the copy was finalized about 8 a.m., Vancouver time, or 11 a.m. Ottawa time, because of some changes that I requested upon viewing it on the Sunday evening. It was distributed equitably to all Members' offices some two and a half hours before the actual announcement was made in Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands (Mr. Manly) raised this matter on an earlier


AUTHORIZATION TO TRAVEL
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think Your Honour would find that there would be unanimous consent to move the motion which I will read and to pass it immediately. I move:
That, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the necessary staff be
authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. from March 21 to 24, 1988 inclusive
for the purpose of continuing its ongoing study of the current international
crisis in grain and oilseed prices.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be sure that the record will indicate that there was unanimous consent to move the motion without notice, and then unanimous consent to the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 9, 1988
Petitions

B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly certified petition bearing a substantial number of signatures from the people of Dubreuilville, which is a small isolated community in northern Ontario. The petitioners know what it is to be underserviced. They have no bus service, no resident doctor or dentist, no bank, no lawyer or social workers.
They call upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to broaden the regulations so that they may be included under the northern tax credit benefit program.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that was drawn up, certified, and signed today. It is from Canadian citizens who live in Prince Rupert, Surrey, Richmond, Vancouver, Powell River, Uclue-let, and in other places.
The petitioners point out that the preliminary GATT ruling has struck down Canadian export restrictions on unprocessed salmon and herring; that the majority of the West Coast fishing industry is opposed to the adoption of the ruling knowing that it would put the 4,000 jobs of B.C. shore workers in jeopardy.
The petitioners point out that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have all failed to give assurances that they will do all in their power to stop the adoption of the GATT ruling. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has even refused to meet with members of the fishing industry lobby who are presently in Ottawa.
Today officials of the Department of External Affairs are proceeding to Washington to try to negotiate a bilateral agreement, but are unlikely to reach a satisfactory solution due to the U.S. intransigence.
Therefore, the undersigned citizens of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present the petition asking that Parliament fully support the West Coast fishing industry in its fight to stop the adoption of the GATT decision and take unilateral action to protect the jobs of Canadian workers, and retain our sovereign right to make decisions on allocating Canadian resources with the Government of Canada.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions signed by residents of communities in the Northwest Territories, namely, Lake
Harbour, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Cape Dorset, Sachs Harbour, and Fort Smith.
The petitioners are seriously concerned about the potential environmental results if plutonium is flown over Canada's north, as well as the potential contribution to nuclear proliferation.
The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to recognize the dangers of such flights and say no to plutonium flights over northern Canadian territory.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from a number of western Canadian constituents who believe that the Government does not have a mandate from the people of Canada by which to conclude a trade deal. The petitioners believe that the trade deal that was negotiated threatens the fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty.
The petitioners have many other concerns, Mr. Speaker, which you can read later. I will simply say that they are calling upon Parliament to dissolve to enable the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions on two different topics.
First, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of the Abbey district in Saskatchewan. They are concerned about a National Film Board of Canada film entitled The Kid Who Couldn't Miss. They note that the film has done grievous damage to the reputation of Air Marshall Bishop, caused grief to the surviving members of his family, and demeaned Canada as a nation in the sacrifice and heroism of Canadian veterans everywhere.
Therefore, the petitioners urge that the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) instruct the National Film Board to take action to have the National Film Board production of The Kid Who Couldn't Miss removed from distribution because it defames without proof whatsoever, Billy Bishop, V.C., Canada's most highly decorated serviceman.


Geoff Wilson: In
addition, I have 13 petitions from all over southwestern Saskatchewan. They are signed by more than 600 producers who note that, whereas farmers have for many years enjoyed the right to block average their income, and whereas the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in December, 1987 indicated his intention to eliminate block averaging, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the necessary steps to retain five-year block averaging for farmers, as
March 9, 1988

recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in its report on the White Paper on Tax Reform, stage one.
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated with an asterisk)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 214 will be answered today. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Kaplan: What application of funds was made or undertaken to be made of the
contribution under the Industrial and Regional Development Act to the West
Edmonton Mall Fantasyland project?


Robert René de Cotret: During Phase II of the West Edmonton Mall development, a number of amusement rides had been introduced.
The applications submitted under the Industrial and Regional Development Program (IRDP), which applied to part of the Phase III development, was provided to expand this concept and to incorporate an amusement park, a water park, a marine world and a miniature golf course to function as major tourist attractions and to be promoted as "Fantasyland".
The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion contribution of $5 million was offered toward eligible capital costs including construction sitework for the Fantasyland portion of the Mall; equipment (rides) and animals; fees (engineering, architects) and other associated costs.
IRDP contributions are eligible for payment after 50 per cent of eligible assets have been in operation for 30 continuous working days. This occurred on April 15, 1986, and a payment claim was received from the applicant.
Standard claim auditing procedures found $56.1 million of these costs to be eligible under the contribution agreement; accordingly a cheque for $4.5 million was requisitioned representing the amount of the departmental contribution less a 10 per cent holdback.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 82-DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain) moved:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to make significant progress towards eliminating discrimination against women, especially in areas such as employment equity, child care, and programs for native women.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to the concerns of Canadian women. This is certainly a week when we celebrate the accomplishments of women. We must also recognize that many of the things that women have been fighting for over the years are not being realized.
Among the temporary special measures taken by the Government to eliminate discrimination against women is the adoption of employment equity legislation in June, 1986, legislation responding to the recommendations of Judge Rosalie Abella's landmark study on equality in employment. Judge Abella certainly did give us many recommendations that were worth while. Unfortunately, those recommendations were not taken into total consideration when the legislation was brought forward.
What does the legislation actually do? Does it truly respond to Judge Abella's recommendations? Does it work effectively to eliminate employment discrimination against women? The first major problem with the Act is that there is no real enforcement mechanism. Judge Abella had stated that, to be adequately enforced, the implementation of employment equity requires an independent agency to oversee the development of equity plans.
What does the legislation give us in terms of enforcement powers? First, it requires employers to file annual reports on the workplace composition, occupations, and salary ranges. While there is a penalty for not filing a report, it is too minimal to be of consequence for many of the large firms covered by the legislation, and could simply be absorbed by these firms as a business cost. There is no penalty, however, for failure to improve the workplace in terms of employment
[Stage Direction]
March 9, 1988
Supply
equity. An employer could file the same report year after year and not be penalized for workplace discrimination.
Companies are also required to prepare action plans with goals and timetables to remove discriminatory practices. These action plans are held strictly confidential-don't let anybody know how we are discriminating, keep it a secret. There is no penalty for failing to develop an action plan. Employers are not required to file their action plans with the CEIC or with the Human Rights Commission, or even to post their plans in the workplace.
Employers are required to evaluate their "employment practices" and to institute "positive policies and practices" to achieve an equitable representation of target groups in the workplace. Neither "employment practices", nor "positive policies and practices" are defined in the legislation. This makes it difficult to determine what constitutes employment discrimination, and what constitutes effective redress for employment discrimination.
The second major problem with the present legislation is that it makes no reference to equal pay for work of equal value. Such groups as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Canadian Labour Congress have urged that pay equity legislation be included in any employment equity plan. Judge Abella stated, "Equal pay is an integral element in the implementation of employment equity. It must be included in any undertaking by employers to make the practices in the workplace more equitable".
[Stage Direction]
There has been for almost 10 years a federal law under which employers are required to pay the same salary to both men and women assuming similar functions.
However, redress of pay inequities depends essentially on complaints lodged by individual employees who feel discriminated against. But it is the employers who are responsible for eliminating pay disparities based on sex.
As for the Federal Government, it must introduce legislation positively requiring employers to implement a pay equity program. We know that if we rely on voluntary measures, women's salaries will be slow to improve.
Last summer the Canadian Human Rights Commission called upon the Government to introduce stronger pay equity legislation, specifically legislation which would require employers to work with employee representatives to implement pay equity measures.
We have seen the success of this collective approach to pay equity in Hamilton where an historic collective agreement was recently signed. The Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Hamilton School Board agreed to work together to develop a plan which would close the wage gap between female
cleaners and male caretakers within two years. Hopefully this agreement opened the door for other public service unions to bargain pay equity.
The role of bargaining and negotiation is neglected in the Government's employment equity legislation. While the employer is required to consult with the employee, there is no obligation to negotiate. I point out the large difference between consultation and negotiation. As the Hamilton example illustrates, unions have been at the forefront of the struggle for employment equity. The invaluable knowledge of the workplace that the union can provide must be recognized by requiring employers to negotiate with union representatives.
The present legislation is also flawed by its limited application to federal government contractors. It only applies to firms with 100 or more employees. It only applies if the contract exceeds $200,000, and it does not apply to construction. Firms seeking government contracts must only indicate their intention to implement the employment equity guidelines. They are not required to submit annual reports or workplace data. They are subject to random inspections to monitor compliance. No effective mechanism exists to enforce this legislation.
Finally, the legislation does not even apply to all federal departments. The Government claims that the departments not covered by the Act are already protected by adequate affirmative action plans. However, we know that these programs are totally management controlled. Many of them are not subject to bargaining under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Most seek to promote some women to higher management positions, while they ignore the majority of women workers. Like the employment equity and equal pay legislation, they lack the force and commitment of law.
Judge Abella recommended that all federally regulated employers be included under the legislation, but the Government chose to ignore her recommendations. When we are talking about the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women which the Minister tabled in the House, certainly Judge Abella's report was mentioned. However, what was not mentioned was the lack of legislation being introduced which was comprehensive enough to follow through on the recommendations.
Also I would like to look at some of the problems in employment equity, job training, and job re-entry. We know that the Canadian Jobs Strategy program specifically designed for women-they were the target group-required women to have spent at least three years out of the labour force to be eligible for training. This does not make any sense whatsoever. Many women who want to re-enter the labour force have spent much time in part-time, low-paying jobs. They had to do things to keep body and soul together and, therefore, they do not comply with the terms of reference for job re-entry.
We are also very concerned about the lack of language training for immigrant women. We know that a lawsuit has been launched respecting discrimination against immigrant
March 9, 1988
[Stage Direction]
women who are not allowed to take language training. The Government has not seen fit to say that these women are eligible for language training even though they were certainly welcomed into the country. We look forward to them being a strong component of the country. We say, in terms of Canadian policies, that we want immigrant women to add to the fabric and rich culture of the country, yet we discriminate against them and do not allow them to have language training. The tensions and anxiety we put on these women are very difficult to document in that they are so vast. They need language skills and communications skills just to get their report cards from school, to talk to teachers, for home and school interviews, or to know what kinds of jobs are available to them in the workforce. It really is important, for them to become part of society, to be eligible for language training, but the Government has refused to incorporate that.
I would like to deal with single mothers who have looked at job re-entry. Very often these women find themselves in a situation where they have not been out of the workforce for three years. Often they are the sole bread-winners, whether they be separated, divorced, or widowed, yet they find themselves not eligible for job re-entry. I was dismayed when I heard at committee just this past week that it was thought that the eligibility recommendations should not be changed because it would cost too much. Well, it will cost much more if we relegate these women to a role of poverty and inability to participate in the labour force for many years. It is a very crucial matter as far as the whole program of Canadian Jobs Strategy is concerned.
The skills and shortage program of Canadian Jobs Strategy had a female participation rate of 8.5 per cent. It is a program with an abundance of non-traditional occupations for women. Clearly women continue to face substantial barriers in entering into non-traditional occupations, evidenced in regional employment and immigration managers being committed to the equity principle in differing degrees. Some of it is very discriminatory and very subjective depending upon region. Some areas of the country are encouraging women to enter non-traditional jobs and better paying occupations. However, there is need for an over-all national strategy to tackle the occupational segregation of women.
We also recognize that in some areas it is an attitudinal problem and that we must encourage women by telling them that there is a future for them and that they do not have to stay in low-paying jobs.
I should like to refer to some of the facts in the report of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. For example, in Newfoundland, four out of eleven re-entry programs teach office skills. In New Brunswick, all four re-entry projects teach home-making, clerical, and word processing skills. Six out of ten entry projects are for training to women in sales, food services and hospitality. 1 must say those are not non-traditional occupations. In Toronto, Ontario, 15 out of 16 re-entry projects were in sales, clerical occupations and health services. It is all very well to say that we are encouraging women to take
Supply
on non-traditional occupations but the reality is that it is not happening. In British Columbia and the Yukon 36 per cent of job development training provided to women was in the clerical, sales and service occupations. Nearly every one of the 20 re-entry projects was related to office skills and clerical occupations. Women are being ghettoized into job occupations that are low paying. They have little opportunity for advancement and they experience a very high rate of unemployment.
We have heard a lot from the Government about the kind of child care needed in the country. A task force was appointed but we did not need another task force. We knew that there were two million children in need of child care. The task force recommended the phasing in of a publicly funded universally accessible cost shared system between the federal and provincial Governments. We also know that that is not what the Government's progress report is to the United Nations. The Government said that it had appointed a task force, but the Government ignored the recommendations of the task force which makes a very different kind of report. Had the report been complete it would have shown the recommendations of the task force and what the possibilities for Canadian children of the future could have been. However, the national strategy on child care will not provide Canadian families with affordable, accessible quality child care.
We know that the child care strategy which the Conservative Government is talking about is a strategy that will allow for tax benefits to people who already have their children in child care. There are no national standards to ensure quality. Yet the task force cried out for the kind of national standards that would guarantee that people who are giving care to our children will be trained in what pre-school child development is all about.
[Stage Direction]
The federal Government rejected the principle for national objectives determination in its child care plan. It is therefore quite possible day care services offered Canadian families will differ from one province to the next.
[Stage Direction]
Fifty per cent of the strategy budget is allocated toward tax measures, such as the doubling of the child tax deduction which does not benefit any low-income families. Tax measures also do not result in an increase in day care spaces. There will remain important shortages in day care spaces. That surely is what the priority must be.
The Government intends to create 200,000 new day care spaces over seven years. This rate of increase is actually less than what we saw in 1974. The program limits the rate of increase of funds presently being put forward by the Government. It seems to me it is very clear that the Government is implementing the kind of legislation that will meet the needs of women of Canada. There has been absolutely no action on extended parental leave.
[Stage Direction]
March 9, 1988
Supply
[Stage Direction]
The New Democrats had hoped some measures would be initiated regarding long leaves of absence for parents who could then stay home with their young children. The Conservatives' strategy does not take that valid option into consideration for working parents.
Canadian families deserve a better national child care program. The New Democrats have asked that parents be offered real choices.
An equitable system must create a greater number of places for 1,800,000 children who need them. It will also have to try to help parents by allowing them to take long parental leaves of absence and by providing for more community resources.
[Stage Direction]
If we really do believe that there will be equality for women in this country we have to recognize that there will be economic equality. There will never be economic equality if we do not provide adequate child care. To the present, at least in technology, women are the only ones who can produce children. If women can be competitive in the workforce outside the home it is imperative that they enter into the labour force without having concerns of what is happening to their children.
There are far too many latchkey children in the country today. There are far too many children who are being looked after in informal care. Some of it is very good but a lot of it is informal care and we do not really recognize the downfalls and the downsides until we see the results and we have had some tragedies already. We know the most crucial years are the first eight years of a child's life. We have known that for a long time. We are requiring child care workers to have two years post-secondary training, so surely we should not expect these people to work below the poverty line, but that is what is happening in Canada today.
If the Government is sincere about Canadian women having equal opportunity with men, the wage gap must be closed. We have to make sure that real opportunities and real choices for women are there in the labour force. We have to implement a child care program with national objectives and national quality in its delivery. If the Government were sincere, it would have implemented some of these things instead of shadow boxing with the legislation.
Mrs. McDougall:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify for the Hon. Member some things about the jobs strategy and employment equity that I think are important for the House to recognize.
In terms of employment equity, I think the Hon. Member does know that Rosie Abella, who prepared the very excellent employment equity report, was very pleased with the quick response of the Government to many of her recommendations. Our employment equity initiative continues to go into effect, I think, in a very positive way. In terms of trying to expand it or change it, let me say that mandatory annual reports are due in
June, 1988 and those reports will be available to the public. The failure to report can result in a $50,000 fine. I have been in business a long time, Mr. Speaker, and no company likes to pay that kind of a fine nor does a company like to be publicly embarrassed.
Under the federal contractors program, as of January 1, 1988, approximately 900 companies had signed certificates. By January 30, 44 companies had been reviewed and arrangements were in progress to review an additional 24 companies in accordance with on site compliance. This is very active. Companies that do not comply can be barred from future contracts. Bids from two companies which refused to comply have been rejected. We have been fortunate because we found in most cases that companies are prepared to comply when we put their feet to the fire. The program is working and it is a big incentive.
I want to talk briefly about the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program. Of the participants in job development, job entry, skill shortages, skill investment, training has been received in the following occupations: managerial, professional, semiprofessional, technical, supervisory and, for women, skill crafts trades and semi-skilled workers.
Women comprised 42.5 per cent of the Canadian Jobs Strategy participants last year and preliminary figures for this year indicate an increase to 44 per cent. Also, there has been $48.5 million in dependant care allowances directed to approximately 22,000 of these participants.
One very important point on the Canadian Jobs Strategy is its particular sensitivity to the needs of immigrant and native women because by transferring this severely employment disadvantaged option from job development to job entry it ensures easier access for native and immigrant women.
So that the Hon. Member is not expected just to take my word for this, I have a couple of letters from people who participated in the job entry program. One says:
In addition to just providing me with a formal education in a marketable skill the job re-entry program also made day care affordable, which in turn allowed me to attend daily classes. The job placement enabled me to put a recent previous employer on my resume. Without all three parts of this program I know that I would not be here, out in the work force, today.
Another woman writes:
-thanks again for giving me this wonderful opportunity to acquire this knowledge and self-confidence needed to get a job I really want and need. (1 was already offered an excellent position that I couldn't have dreamt about just a few months ago). I hope you will continue this program, so other women will get the same education I was privileged to get.
I want to leave the Hon. Member with these thoughts on the programs. She talked about the need to extend this program and about how many women are underemployed as well as unemployed. I certainly recognize that difficulty. We are, of course, trying to extend our resources as far as we can, given that our legacy from the previous Government is that 25 cents out of every tax dollar Canadians pay us goes to pay the
March 9, 1988

interest on the debt and is therefore not available for worthwhile programs such as these.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to say that reports will be filed this June, but the point I was trying to make was that though there is a punishment if reports are not filed, there is absolutely no punishment if the reports identify discrimination. There is nothing to remedy that. That is our major concern.
It is very good that some women have been able to take advantage of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, but the committee heard brief after brief from witness after witness indicating that women were mostly in job re-entry for the lower-paid jobs, the traditional jobs. As I said earlier, the Minister's own report of the advisory council indicates that 8.5 per cent of women were able to get non-traditional jobs. That is not adequate for equality for women in the economy.
It is important that we not use just one or two cases and say that these women have been successful. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the reality, about what the facts and figures show us, and the programs do need to be expanded. There is a limitation to the programs because women have to be out of the labour force for three years. Those are the kinds of things I would like the Minister to look at so that she may recommend to her colleague in Employment and Immigration that more women participate in the job reentry programs and that job skills be non-traditional skills so that women as well as men can get well paid jobs.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what my friend from Hamilton Mountain had to say. However, I do not want to let her speech go by without noting something from this side.
Not only did we hear brief after brief from women's group after women's group in city after city from one end of the country to the other when the Standing Committee of the Secretary of State was investigating funding for women's programs, but we produced a report entitled "Fairness in Funding". That report was unanimously adopted by members of all three Parties, including the Hon. Member's colleague from Vancouver East who made a very valuable contribution to that unanimous, all-Party report.
In essence, the report recognized all of the questions which were raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) in her remarks and also recommended that this Government, and I cannot think of any other Government before this one which has so urgently and responsibly addressed this matter, look at the bottom line as being equality of women in the workforce, in the market-place and in any way possible.
Our report contained a series of recommendations which would make it possible for women across Canada to address the very matters the Hon. Member has raised, matters I am sure the Hon. Member from the Liberal side will also raise. We wanted to make sure that women have access to the wide
Supply
range of programs that the Government is providing so that the bottom line will be equality for women in Canada.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did appreciate the committee's unanimous report. We are looking for implementation of those recommendations as quickly as possible. Certainly some of the programs I addressed are the kind of programs that will put some substance into the report's recommendations.
Women across Canada have experienced the discrimination that has been dealt out over the years and are saying that they will not wait any longer, they need equity. I was addressing the programs that are in place now, programs which are not adequate to address the inequity that exists. Certainly, they are a first step but they are not enough.
We should not say that we have done enough and that women are now equal partners. It does not work if companies simply have to file reports. There must be some kind of implementation of the recommendations of reports like the one to which the Hon. Member referred. I believe the Hon. Member heard that as well while travelling with the committee.
Women do not want lip service any longer, they want action. They need money for programs and they need action. The work of the committee will certainly help, but we want the Government to implement stronger legislation.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House condemns the Government for its lack of progress in giving women a fair deal in the workplace and the labour market. We in the Liberal Party support the motion.
We support the motion because there is still too much systemic discrimination against women who try to enter certain trades and professions. We support the motion because there is still too great a gap between women's wages and men's wages, even when they are doing the same work or work of equal value. We support the motion because there are still too many barriers to women gaining access to training, especially training for non-traditional work. Finally, we support the motion because there are insufficient support programs for women who want to work or train. Here I have in mind in particular adequate day care programs, and my hon. colleague from Outremont will deal more fully with that subject when she speaks.
Yes, we should condemn the Government for this lack of progress. I will give details on each point I raised. The reason we have not had the progress we should have had is because the Government is basically a laissez-faire Government. It is basically a small "c" conservative Government that does not have the political will to do what it says is right.
Government members say the right things. They say that they are in favour of employment equity. They say that they are in favour of closing the wage gap. Then they introduce

March 9, 1988
Supply
half-measures to accomplish the goals they say they favour. They adopt measures which do not effectively accomplish the goals that they say are good goals. They talk a good game, but they do not follow it up with action.
A good example of this is the employment equity legislation which was passed in June of 1986, Bill C-62. That legislation does not provide for any sanctions whatsoever if the companies touched by the legislation do not advance employment equity or affirmative action for women. As my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain said, there are fines if the companies do not file reports indicating how many men, women and visible minorities are employed. However, if they do not progress along the road to employment equity, there are no sanctions. There are no fines.
Judge Rosalie Abella was appointed by the former Liberal Government in February of 1983 to study the whole problem of employment equity. She came to the conclusion that there was systemic discrimination against women and minorities in the workplace. She said there had to be enforceable legislation to correct that. The Government introduced a Bill but it did not provide what Judge Abella recommended, enforceable legislation with sanctions.
During the debate on that Bill, Bill C-62, we in the Liberal Party presented 36 amendments to make it stronger, provide enforceable mechanisms, and so on. Members on the government side voted down every amendment except for a few minor ones. As I said before, the Government talks a good game with respect to employment equity and the wage gap and all these other things, but it does not have the political will or political philosophy to do something effective about it.
Are these criticisms I am making just those of the opposition or just criticisms that we make in Parliament simply for the sake of criticizing? Let us look at the record to see who else makes these very same criticisms to show it is not just Liberal or NDP Members. Here we have a former Conservative Member of Parliament, then chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, who said, as quoted in The Ottawa Citizen of June 26, 1987, that: "Human Rights Commission urges system of fines to enforce pay equity." It continues:
The Canadian Human Rights Act must be given teeth to force employers to pay women the same as men for work of equal value, Canada's chief Human Rights Commissioner says.
He went on to say:
It is time for a major shift in the way in which we pursue equal pay at the federal level.
That was not a Liberal or NDP Member, that was a former Conservative Member of Parliament who was then chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He saw that the legislation was not working. He pointed out that there are
300,000	women who work for federally-regulated employers and there was a 35 per cent wage gap relating to those women.
Then there is a 1986 report published by the Economic Council of Canada. It deals with women re-entering the labour force and training programs and was written by D. Boothby. What does it say? At page 42:
I conclude-that discrimination is a significant source of occupational differences between men and women.
He goes on to say:
While employment and immigration personnel do not select trainees for these programs, the use of federal funding makes it imperative to ensure that these programs are operated in a non-discriminatory manner.
He is talking about training programs and he said that was not being done at present. Again, those recommendations have not been acted upon. The Government did not act upon the recommendations of Judge Abella, Mr. Fairweather, or Mr. Boothby to strengthen the legislation.
In 1987, for the first time in 18 years, the wage gap between men and women widened. For 18 consecutive years the gap had been narrowing so that women's wages were getting closer to men's, but in 1986, under a Conservative Government, they widened for the first time. Thank goodness that last year they started to narrow again, but in 1986 the wage gap was $10,257. That is the largest gap in the history of Canada since statistics have been kept. Again, that is not Liberal or NDP Members speaking, that is StatsCan. If that rate of progress was to continue, it would take another 79 years for women's wages to equal men's wages for the same type of work. That indicates that a laissez-faire, small "c" conservative approach will not work. We need legislative action.
The Human Rights Commissioner called on the Government, as I said earlier, to introduce a federal law similar to the pay equity law introduced in Ontario. Eight months have gone by and nothing has been done. Here we have a situation where women have been put into traditional type jobs, are moving into service type jobs which are low-paying, non-union, often at minimum wage, and without pension, health or other benefits. Many of them are single working mothers taking care of children all by themselves.
As a result of this growing wage gap, we are seeing a growing poverty rate under this Conservative Government. I have not a Liberal or NDP report, but a report put out by the National Council on Welfare in November, 1987. It pointed out that over one million children in Canada live in poverty. It referred to StatsCan figures which show that in 1986 there were 1,016,000 children under 16, more than one out of six, who were members of families whose incomes were below the poverty line. It points out that while that proportion, 17.6 per cent, is down from the peak of 20.8 per cent in 1984 during the recession, it is still higher than the rate in 1981, before the recession, of 16.5 per cent. Under the Conservative Government we have a rate of families living under the poverty line greater than prior to the recession in 1982.
The figures also point out that the average income for a family with a single parent taking care of the children was $17,353, compared to $44,919 for two-parent families. That is quite a gap. Between 1971 and 1981 single-parent families headed by women increased by almost 60 per cent. The number of those families now amounts to approximately 600,000.
March 9, 1988

It is not just these figures that point out this very sad state of affairs. 1 refer to an article in the Montreal Gazette dated October 17, 1987, following a study on poverty done by an investigative reporter in the year. It was found that there were more soup kitchens in Montreal than there were during the depression of the 1930s. We have several in my own constituency and it is a very sad state of affairs. A large number of those people are women who have been abandoned or divorced, single mothers taking care of families with no other resources except welfare, which is not sufficient, and they have to use soup kitchens.
1 have further evidence that these programs which the Government is very proud of are not working. I have a report by la Federation des femmes du Quebec which says the economic future of women in Quebec and the rest of Canada appears more cloudy than rosy. They point out that women are being relegated more than in the past to job ghettos. Nothing is being done to take them out of those ghettos and the programs of the Government are not working.
There are several studies on this subject which back up the contention that progress is not being made in employment equity despite the boasts and bragging of the Government. On that point, in statements which Ministers of the Government make in the House in answer to our questions and in debates such as the one which is taking place today, they keep glossing over the problem and presenting the picture in a very rosy way. One would think that they would finally realize that that is not being bought by the Canadian people, that it is not credible.
These reports tell why it is not credible. For the last two years the Government has been down in the polls. It has been down to 23 per cent, up to 27 per cent and 30 per cent, and back down to 27 per cent. One would think they would realize that people are not believing them.
I am sure that the Minister will get up and say what a rosy place Canada is because the Conservatives are doing so many wonderful things. She compares what is happening in 1988 to figures from the depths of the recession of 1982 and 1983 to show what great progress she has made. However, she does not compare the figures of 1988 with either 1980 or 1981 or the period which I pointed out the other day, 1970 to 1975.
If she wants to compare the Conservative record with the Liberal record let her do it over a period of years. She will find that the rate of unemployment under Liberal Governments from 1965 to 1980 was 5.6 per cent. In 1981, the year before the recession, the rate of unemployment was 7.5 per cent. The rate has now been reduced to 8.1 per cent, four years after the recession, and they think they have done a wonderful job.
Everyone knows that during the recession of 1982-83 there were high rates of unemployment in the United States, Britain,
Supply
Belgium, Holland and all over the world. The Minister should know that we are living in an interdependent world economically. The great crash of last October did not take place only in New York City. The crash of stock markets took place in Toronto, London, Tokyo, and around the world.
One could go on for a long while criticizing the programs of the Government. With regard to the Canadian Jobs Strategy, we on the Standing Committee of Labour, Employment and Immigration have been doing a study of that program for the last two or three months and are going to issue a report very soon in which we will show the inadequacy of the program.
The Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) who just spoke pointed out some of the inadequacies including the program's inflexibility and its targeting on groups such as women's groups. It is just not working the way it should. One of the harshest reports which the Auditor General ever made was his report last October with regard to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. It is not doing the things that it should do and it should be changed. I think the committee will make a unanimous report which will point to those failings in the program and call on the Government to change it.
If the Government is serious about employment equity, let us see something which will strengthen the legislation which we now have. Let us see the Government bring forward amendments and act on the recommendations which Mr. Fairweather made last summer as Chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Let the Government amend the employment equity Bill to provide enforcement mechanisms and wider coverage than it presently has, such as Judge Abella recommended. The Government did not do what Judge Abella recommended. She recommended that there be enforceable employment equity legislation rather than the wishy-washy type of legislation which we have. Let the Government put something into the legislation which will mandate a program of equal pay for work of equal value.
If the Government did those things it might see its credibility improve and it might see its fortunes go up in the polls. That may be bad for us in the Opposition but it would be good for the Canadian people because they would realize that when the Government says something it means it and it does it. However, up until now the Government has said one thing and has come forward with half measures, wishy-washy measures which are not accomplishing what it says it wants to accomplish.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed that the Hon. Member suggests that every time we stand up over here we suggest that things are really rosy. I do not think we have ever suggested that. We have suggested that we are trying to ensure that things continue to get better for women. That is an entirely different kind of debate.

March 9, 1988
Supply
One of the reasons that we have worked so hard to ensure that things get better for women is because things have not been good for women in Canada, certainly throughout my lifetime and certainly throughout the tenure of the previous Government. You can pick any year you like. You can talk about the prosperity between 1965 and 1970. I was in the workforce at that time and I do not recall that it was a singularly wonderful time to be a woman working in Canada with regard to discrimination, employment equity, and wage gap. I do not recall the then Government, which is now the Opposition, saying one single word to help me as a working woman in Canada.
I am a little bit bemused because members of the Government are trying to ensure that women are prepared with flexible career opportunities and child care. Child care was first declared an urgent matter in 1970 by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. I do not recall a whole lot being done between 1970 and 1984. When we came into power we appointed a parliamentary committee to travel across Canada to talk to women and other people who were interested in child care. Out of that came a strategy which will meet the needs of Canadians. We did that within three years. It did not take us 17 years. Whereas I am quite prepared to accept that things are not all rosy across Canada for women, I know that the Government has increased the momentum for women quite considerably.
As well, in terms of women being poor, the Hon. Member quoted some poverty statistics from Montreal. We are very aware of this and that is one of the reasons that we have tried to enhance training and apprenticeship programs with the provinces. The number of adult women living below the poverty line increased by 227,000 between 1981 and 1984 during the Liberal-induced recession.
Our economy during that recession was considerably worse than that of other countries. We suffered much more severely as a result of that recession, in part because of Liberal Government policies, because the deficit had run away with us long before the recession ever began, because of the National Energy Program, and because of other things done by that Government. That was harder on women, as things always are, than it was on other Canadians.
The number of adult women living below the poverty line in the last three and a half years has fallen by 178,000. I would hope that the Hon. Member would be happy to celebrate that.
I am delighted to hear it.
The wage gap has taken a little downturn and I remain concerned about that 34-cent gap; we must continue to work toward an improvement of that. That means, of course, moving women into non-traditional jobs as well as employment equity and so on.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that the previous Liberal Government had so much power, that we were able to induce a recession not only in Canada but in
Britain where the rate of unemployment went to over 13 per cent and in Belgium where it went to over 14 per cent. The entire western world had extremely high rates of unemployment at that time. Anyone who looks at the statistics will see that they jumped significantly in all those countries from 1981 to 1982 and started coming down in 1983-84.
When the Hon. Member says she cannot recall anything being done in 17 years, I do not know where she was. It seems to me that a very significant measure was passed in 1982. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights was passed by this Parliament, by a Liberal Government, which has led to some landmark decisions with respect to women. I could point to the establishment of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1978, the Affirmative Action Program in the Public Service in 1983, the ratification of the Convention of the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in December 1981.
I would refer the Minister to a short booklet put out by the Library of Parliament. It is entitled Unemployment in Canada-Its Differential Impact by Age and Sex. It lists a long number of things, going back to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1967, all of which were accomplished by Liberal Governments.
I admit that the Minister and perhaps some of the people in the Government do not say that things are rosy all the time. However, if one listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and some others, one would think this country is nirvana under the Conservatives.
1 would agree with the Minister that she is trying to improve things, but the difference between her Conservative Party and our Party is that we, in trying to improve things, are willing to legislate enforceable laws to do so. The Party opposite is not willing to do that. It says it wants to get rid of discrimination in employment for women but it introduces a law with no enforceable mechanism.
Yes, the Conservatives are advancing slowly, bit by bit, but if they did what Judge Abella recommended, it would advance much faster. That is exactly what the motion before the House says. It criticizes the Government for its failure to make significant progress. If the Government did what Judge Abella and Gordon Fairweather, the former chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, recommended and legislate enforceable mechanisms to get rid of discrimination against women, things would move faster. Things are moving too slow under this Government.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I certainly found the Hon. Member's comments very instructive and agreed with many of them. I would like to remind the Hon. Member, however, that it was not just one Party that was dedicated to ensuring that women would be recognized in the Charter. I do believe it was the women of all Parties who fought very hard to ensure that the equality of women was included in the Charter.
March 9, 1988

I would like to ask a question with respect to affirmative action about which the Hon. Member commented. As I recall, in 1984, the Leader of the Liberal Party at a meeting of Liberal women said that he did not support affirmative action for women in the private sector. "Instead", he said, "I prefer to negotiate such goals on the basis of goodwill". In the past, goodwill has not really done much for the women of Canada. The Charter debate, to which 1 referred earlier, I think is a very good example of that. Does the Hon. Member's Party still consider that voluntary programs are an appropriate response to the systemic discrimination that women face in employment?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, but I think we were debating the employment equity Bill before the Hon. Member came to this House. As I mentioned in my remarks, our Party moved 36 amendments, one of which was to make employment equity and affirmative action enforceable for all those industries under federal jurisdiction.
It may be that in the election campaign of 1984 our Leader took that position, but we had discussed this at great length in our caucus over the two years prior to that legislation coming in. We looked at the Abella report and became convinced that the only way to solve the problem was by enforceable legislation. We took that position and moved those amendments.
On the Hon. Member's other point, I would agree there was among women in Canada, and among minorities in general, great support for an entrenched Charter of Rights. However, I was simply responding to the Minister when she said she could not recall anything being done in 17 years. If I had the time I could have put on the record a large number of things.
The problem, of course, is that we all know, for example, that in 1950 only 23.2 per cent of women were in the workforce. It was as we moved into the 1960s that women decided they wanted to work and then ran up against problems of discrimination, lack of day care, and so on. Then Governments had to start dealing with these problems.
As time went on it became necessary for parliaments and governments to deal with these issues. That is why in 1967, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, who was Prime Minister at the time, set up the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. From that time on this Party has introduced some of the recommendations. We have been moving ahead. However, I think there is a big difference between the Minister's Party and our Party in that she takes a more laissez-faire attitude. She is also the Minister of Privatization-let the private sector do it. We do not believe that. We believe we need legislation in certain cases. That marks the difference between the Liberal and Conservative Parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now terminated. Debate.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today against this motion as presented by the Hon.
Supply
Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar). As a member of this Government, and as a woman, I am somewhat bemused that the Hon. Member would condemn our Government for its efforts to eliminate discrimination against women in Canada. This Government has made more progress in enhancing women's equality in Canada than any Government, in fact, more than all previous Governments combined.

Our Goverment and our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) certainly did not opt for the path of least resistance, as the Hon. Member implied in her attack on the Government. The Prime Minister was very demanding in the objectives he set for this Government. He promised we would double the percentage of women appointed, from 15 per cent to 30 per cent, and we have reached that objective. In Cabinet alone, there are five women, and there are now more women judges, ambassadors and deputy ministers, as well as senior officials responsible for policy development and decision-making.

Today I can reinforce what my colleague, the Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), said today, that the federal Government has reached its first major hiring target for women in the management category of the Public Service. The Government has been striving to more than double the number of women in the management category from 217 in 1983 to 475 by March 31, 1988. As of yesterday, we are beyond 475. There are now 509 women in the management category. I think the Government is to be congratulated.
We are now about to set new targets for the next three years. We will see, I think, a more positive momentum forward. Special training in employment programs within the Government is being provided, with 250 person-years and $8.8 million over five years to assist women in pursuing nontraditional occupations. Together with 13 Public Service unions, the Government has launched one of the largest equal pay studies ever, involving more than 4,400 employees. The results will be available in late 1989.
If all of this had been in place when we came to office, we could be moving forward a little more rapidly. But we are doing, I think, extraordinarily well because our Government does not talk about equality, we do something about it. Unlike the Hon. Member whose motion this is, we do not believe that women must continue to be presented only as victims. We are determined to create a social and economic environment in which women can be full participants, as they deserve to be, and in which women can contribute to the full extent of their skills and their talents.
We do not believe that the state or the Government can manage every aspect of a woman's life better than the woman herself. The NDP would like to help women. They would like to give women everything except opportunity and the choice for women to be themselves.

March 9, 1988
Supply
[ Translation]
We do not believe women are all alike, and we praise their differences. There are women who choose to work in the home and women who want to work outside the home. There are women who earn their living in traditional occupations, and there are women who have been pioneers in forestry, engineering, architecture and even in space.

We are no longer living in the early 1900s when women did not have the vote. They had to fight and fight to get it. Nor is it 1929 when women had to fight and fight to be declared persons. This is not the 1950s when women who served overseas or who worked in factories during the war returned home and stayed home. It is not even the 1960s when women organized themselves into what we now call the contemporary women's movement.
This is the 1980s. Women do not and will not take a back seat to anyone. Issues that once were never discussed in public, issues such as family violence, sexual harassment, defaulting spouses and unequal pay are now front and centre, not only because women have put them there, which they have, but also because women have developed allies, women and men who will do something about these issues.
The Hon. Member who presents the motion condemns our Government in the area of child care. Let me correct just one point in this area. When I said nothing had been done I referred to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which declared child care an urgent matter in 1970. What was done about child care? That was the point that I made earlier, and I will repeat it now. Nothing-nothing was done about child care, except there was a great deal of talk, promise and more spending on other items by the former Government so that it became less and less affordable; and another whole generation grew up.
Our Government has acted. We have a national child care strategy that will create over 200,000 new subsidized child care spaces. We will provide support to families, whatever their preferred choice for providing care to their children. Choice is the key word.
This is a telling difference between our Government and the Parties opposite. We believe that Canadians everywhere know best how child care should be provided. That is why we have a special child care initiatives fund that will provide $100 million worth of assistance to Canadians to meet the child care needs of special situations such as children who are ill, children who are disabled, as well as the needs of rural women, seasonal workers and those in other situations which we expect will be brought forward. I refer to items such as culturally-centred child care.

As a Government, we want to act as partners with the parents, day care experts, teachers and provincial and municipal governments-with all parties that have an important role
to play in this sector. We do not intend to lay down a single set of rules for what is good for every child in Canada.

If giving women in families a choice in child care is discrimination then, yes, we are guilty. If putting billions of dollars where others put volumes of rhetoric and promises is discrimination then, yes, we are guilty. If trusting in the good sense of Canadians to know what is best for their children is discrimination then, yes, we are guilty. If the definition of discrimination by Members opposite is choice, concerted action and faith in individual Canadians and their families then, alas, yes, we have failed. But I believe that the hundreds of thousands of Canadian women, men and children who will benefit from our child care initiative will tell the Hon. Member and her Party that they are tired of outdated definitions, false accusations and hollow condemnations.
Our Party has shown common sense and the practical management experience to shake the Canadian economy out of the doldrums that threatened to mortgage the lives of our children and our grandchildren and make child care not affordable.

The NDP would keep women in traditional jobs. Under the NDP, women would have to pay their union dues but their advancement to executive positions would be blocked.

While we are talking about unions, let me just point out that women comprise 36.2 per cent of union membership and only 19.3 per cent of union executive boards. That figure is up by only 1 per cent since 1978. So where is the union leadership and the leadership of the NDP?
By working with the private sector we are able to make a great many changes. The federal Government has set up a joint program with the Canadian Construction Association- and someone mentioned construction earlier-to look at the barriers to women entering that field. This is the first time ever that the Government and the private sector have taken a sectoral approach to this problem. This is a project worth $345,000, much of which is being paid by the federal Government in order to ensure that in that non-traditional sector there will be more momentum. This is the best way we can get at the wage gap.
No, the Hon. Member opposite and her Party are not the great protectors of women, any more than those Members of the last Government that mumbled on and on for all those years are the great protectors of women. Let me say that the Hon. Member who has presented this motion has worked for women and for women's issues long and hard throughout her career. I have a great deal of respect for her and her point of view.
However, in terms of our Party, we realize that there can be no social progress unless we have the economic framework that can support the development and the expansion that is
March 9, 1988

necessary for women who comprise 52 per cent of our population to be contributors, as they want to be. That is why we have worked hard on a program of economic renewal. It is why we made our first objective jobs, a tangible, measurable indicator of performance.
Have we performed? Some 1,156,0000 jobs have been created since 1984. Of those jobs 611,000 went to women, 85 per cent of them full time. Compare that to the fact that under the previous Government-and pick your time, Mr. Speaker- only 20 per cent of new jobs created were full time. We have broadened the opportunities for women by expanding, training and skills development through the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We have made special provision for the needs of immigrant women and visible minority women.
[ Translation]
We have also used our influence as an employer to accelerate women's equality on the labour market. We passed the Employment Equity Act, obliging Crown corporations and federally regulated businesses to implement employment equity programs under which women and visible minorities are offered better employment opportunities. Corporations and businesses which have one hundred or more employees must set objectives, establish action plans and time frames, and submit annual reports. The legislation affects about 1,000 businesses with over 950,000 employees. This is a major step towards employment equity.
The federal contractors program requires companies with 100 or more employees that bid on federal contracts worth $200,000 or more to introduce employment equity. We mean business. They are subject to on site compliance. We have already invoked this clause a number of times for multimillion dollar contracts where bidders were not compliant.
I believe that it is more than evident that on the matter of our Government's record on employment equity, the Member's motion flies in the face of reality. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous Member of the Official Opposition who spoke, that the number of low income women in Canada has declined by 5.7 per cent. By pushing away on all those factors we are making it better for women.
The Member raises the question of programs for native women. That is something that I personally regard as very important, as does our Government. With the passage of Bill C-31 discrimination on the basis of sex has been eliminated from the Indian Act. There are more than 45,000 native women who are taking advantage of this. That was something that native women had requested many years ago. We went even further last year for the first time by making the aboriginal women's program a permanent program. That signals our long-term commitment to supporting the full social, cultural, and political participation of aboriginal women in Canadian society. In 1986-87 alone, 69 groups, 87 projects, received
Supply
support under this program on a wide range of issues of particular interest to native women.
As a Government we are committed to the native peoples of Canada, women and men, and we will continue to work towards a better future for our native peoples, protecting the cultural heritage of their own traditions and respecting women within that native community.
I could go on and deal with other areas that have eliminated long-standing forms of discrimination against women, such as family order enforcement, pension reform, and new roles for women in the military.
I would like to conclude with a statement of our Party's over-all philosophy in the matter of discrimination against women. It is our view that women represent not only 52 per cent of the population in Canada, but 52 per cent of the total capabilities of this country, the talents and skills that we have. Any law, policy, or measure that restricts women's full equality lessens our effectiveness as a nation. Our Party will continue to work for the full legal, social, economic, and political equality of women. We will not rest until that equality has been achieved.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hovdebo:: I wish to comment a little and ask a question of the Minister. The Conservative Government has done a lot of talking, and perhaps a certain amount of putting in place of reports, but there has been very little action or leadership as far as a number of areas are concerned. I particularly want to talk about the area of child care. There is still a major shortage of child care spaces. The Government's policy, of which it speaks a lot but on which it has not taken much action, will not increase the number of child care spaces any faster than they were being increased before.
Low income people who need the child care do not get any tax breaks. In many cases, they are unable to make use of the breaks that are available to them. There is no parental leave established in the sense that it be made available for those people who need it the most. There are no increased resources to the community which would support parents in the home. The $200 tax break is quite inadequate for anyone who needs to make use of it. There has been a lot of talk about what the Government intends to do, or what it will do sometime in the future, but very little action or real movement toward making child care available to the people who really need it.
That is the type of smoke and mirrors which this Government seems to think is good enough to treat the really major problems of women who want to be in the workforce.


Barbara Jean McDougall: In terms of action, it is very important to know what the Government has done on child care. We have a national child care strategy, something that we have never had in this country before.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: No action.

March 9, 1988
Supply


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Hon. Member knows that this has to be negotiated with the provinces. It is under provincial jurisdiction. The Hon. Member also knows that funding will be available as of the next fiscal year starting April 1. The funding is there and it is in place, as soon as the details can be worked out with the provinces. This is an enormous step forward.
The Hon. Member made reference to the myth of the NDP that spaces would have increased faster under the old system. There were several things wrong with the old system. First, the shared cost program with the provinces meant that hardly any of the provinces could afford to increase child care any faster. Second, it was under the Canada Assistance Plan. That provided some relief, but it was essentially a welfare-based program. This is not a welfare issue. This is a national issue of some significance. By taking all of that and moving it into a new child care strategy, we have given child care a life of its own on a national scale. This is a seven-year program, but at the end of that seven years it will continue. There will be more to be done.
I know that the Hon. Member comes from an agricultural area. In developing this strategy we were very sensitive to the particular needs of farm women, who need child care perhaps 24 hours a day during the planting and harvesting seasons and perhaps not much in between, but their pattern is very different from those of women. With the special initiatives fund they have been given an opportunity to develop the types of solutions that they need when the nearest town may be 40 miles away, or when they are helping their husbands in the field.
Our national child care strategy is an attempt to be sensitive to different needs across Canada in little communities, in big communities, in isolated regions, for farm women, shift workers, and so on. It is a very exciting step forward on behalf of the women of Canada and, more particularly of course, for the children of Canada.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for the status of women mentioned that a seven year program would be targeted at specific projects and would be made available to people as of April 1.
However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tolds us, when the Government tabled its answer in the House that these funds were definitely earmarked for special programs over a seven year period, but should they all be used up after two years, the programs would have to be terminated.
Therefore, I would like the Minister to tell us whether it would not have been better to put a little more money in the programs, in child care spaces rather than allocating funds to programs where in a matter of perhaps two years, there would not be any money left.


Barbara Jean McDougall: In our program we have come up with a balanced approach. Women who stay at home and work in the home and care for their children also deserve some consideration. We found when we discussed this with the women across Canada that they expressed some frustration around a space being the only answer. Not everyone wants to put their child into a child care space. We recognize the need for spaces, and we want them to grow as fast as we can develop a program for better spaces and more spaces. We know that the provinces' ability to fund these spaces varies from one province to another. It is up to us to try to help them meet their objectives as well as our national objective.
Women at home, women who want time to be with their children, deserve some recognition as well. That is one part of the tax side. Of course the other is a tax with receipted expenses to allow people to take advantage of it and to recognize better than before the legitimate costs. It used to be that the maximum one could claim against tax was $2,000. We have doubled that amount for pre-school children to $4,000. It is another area which should have been changed a long time ago to reflect the reality of the workplace.
With the combination of our tax provisions, our special initiatives fund, which is sensitive to needs across Canada, and the new spaces which will be developed, we are seeing a momentum in this area that we have never before seen in Canada. It will carry us further over the next seven years and will recognize that child care is an issue for all Canadians- women working outside the home, women working in the home, and fathers. We want to work with all of them because, of course, it is on behalf of our children.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up on child care spaces. A $200 tax credit is certainly not adequate to encourage a mother to stay at home. For either a mother or father to stay at home for a $200 tax credit per annum is an insult to the value of the work he or she does. Tax breaks do not come to low-income families.
When we are stressing the need for more spaces, we are talking about a variety of ways; they can be flexible. However, for goodness' sake, let us look at reality and recognize the fact that children need an identifiable unit of care. This is what we are really talking about. I do not think that a tax break actually provides that. It is really important to clarify it, because low-income families will not benefit from it.
Does the Minister have a commitment to ensuring that the federal Government will respond to the Canadian Human Rights Commission by bringing forth the effective and mandatory pay equity legislation for which it asked?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, on the child care issue, the credit will be $700, not $200. This was an augmentation, and we recognize that it is not an income replacement program.
March 9, 1988

As far as spaces for women who are poor are concerned, there are a number of ways in which they are helped. One is that they qualify for subsidized space. Second, if they are taking a training program, they frequently get a child care allowance. There are many ways to help them.
Let me say, in terms of the pay equity provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, that we will be watching how it works over the next while. We are pleased that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is monitoring the situation. In fact, I met with the Human Rights Commissioner just today, and we discussed a number of issues affecting the status of women in Canada. We recognize very much their role, but I think it is premature to move into some new aspect when things are clearly getting considerably better. We do not want to come down with a great anvil on a situation that we think will be considerably better over the next few years.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar). As one who has also been involved, as have many Hon. Members in the House, in the women's movement for a number of years, it seems that each year we keep discovering women again and discovering new aspects of women. We have shown some progress over the years. Women are represented in the labour force in greater numbers. There has been legislation to reflect that, and there have been programs to reflect that. As I said, I am pleased to speak today on the motion because there is still lots to do. I do not suspect that the Minister or anyone else would disagree with that.
I should like to address two specific areas which I think illustrate perhaps different reasons for putting forth the motion today. The first one deals with Bill C-31 and Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act, to which I believe the Minister referred. For those who are not familiar with it, it is an example of legislation brought in to redress discrimination. I think it was a very positive measure. The purpose was to allow women who lost their Indian status through marriage to regain that status and membership in bands upon application, as well as their dependent children and first generation children. It was a positive aspect to address discrimination, and I will expand on some of the problems that I see in that regard.
The second issue about which I would like to talk is the trade policy of the Government that is directed generally to the economy and how it impacts negatively on certain sectors of the women's community perhaps more severely than on others. It addresses this motion not because it has an aspect of discrimination per se, but certainly the fall-out from such a policy will, in my view, have a discriminatory effect on women in certain segments.
The struggle for equality for women is not over. It is ever continuing. As I mentioned, the two issues about which I will speak highlight that.
Supply
Turning to Bill C-31 and Section 12(1 )(b) affecting aboriginal women, it is an example of a piece of legislation brought in to redress discrimination, to correct some of the discriminatory actions of past legislation. When the Indian Act first came in, women were seen as chattels of their spouses and, therefore, their rights were not considered. If they married a non-aboriginal person they lost their status. We now recognize that that was certainly an historical mistake in attempting to redress it.
The problem is not that the intent is not good. The problem is that we must have adequate resources committed to implementing the intent of such legislation. We are sadly lacking in this area. There has been a problem right from the start of the two years that Bill C-31 has been in effect in ensuring that the legislation can be implemented in a fair and just way. I should mention, first of all, the fact that there were not adequate resources. We see this now in the areas of housing, post-secondary education, and in the simple processing of applications.
I would mention, for example, that in February of this year a constituent of mine, Jean Gleason, who also happens to be on the executive of the Native Women's Association of Canada, representing 95,987 native Canadians, came to Ottawa to speak to the committee on Bill C-31. In a February 23, 1988 article in The Toronto Star, she is quoted as identifying a number of the problems that she sees with the implementation of the legislation. What she mentions, for example, is that native Canadians are being required to do great amounts of research to prove their status. She says that someone had to find birth certificates of relations. Others have had to retain lawyers to help them wade through the paperwork required. This, as we see, does not enable women to take advantage of these attempts to redress discrimination. Miss Gleason and the Native Women's Association of Canada at that time were urging the Government to hire more staff to work through the great backlog of applications. They were hoping that the Government would look at such things as more toll-free telephone lines and would hire native Canadians to work in this field helping people find appropriate documentation for their status applications.
It is clear, and the Government has said on several occasions, that the number of people re-applying for Indian status was greatly underestimated. Now is the time to put in adequate resources so people who are re-applying can take advantage.
I would like to go on a little bit about the problems when adequate resources are not committed to legislation. As we all know, Sandra Lovelace a number of years ago went to the United Nations and began this fight for the rights of Indian women. Mary Two-Axe Early was also involved and was a great leader. At great personal expense they have carried on and paved the way for the bringing in of such legislation.

March 9, 1988
Supply
As Miss Gleason pointed out in her presentation at the committee, there is great concern within the Department of Indian Affairs among its employees about the inability to process applications, thus creating a huge backlog, with the result that many people are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Nowhere does this inadequacy of funding become more apparent than in the area of housing. It is a well-known fact in this country that housing on Indian reserves and the money available for housing has been woefully inadequate. We have some of the most shocking housing situations on reserves, and the resources have not been committed to addressing that. Housing is a right under the Indian Act. The Government does have an obligation to provide housing for aboriginal people. Under Bill C-31, with the reinstatement of a number of new additions to the band list, the need for housing has simply increased exponentially.
So we have a situation which is very, very serious and is creating another kind of social situation. What about new people who are being added to a community who, in a sense, achieve some special status, in this case under Bill C-31, and who may receive funding for housing while others who have been waiting do not? This is a very serious problem in some communities but not in all. Again, we come back to the issue of not putting in adequate resources to implement nondiscriminatory legislation.
In a second area there are such issues as post-secondary education. Many aboriginal people and groups themselves have talked about the necessity to increase educational and training resources for their people so they can become self-sufficient. But there are inadequate funds in the Budget for postsecondary education. We see many people who may take advantage of this benefit and who have the right to take advantage of this benefit under the legislation but who are unable to do so because the Government says, "Sorry, we have run out of money". This is just not good enough. It is not good enough to have the words and not the resources.
A number of groups have commented on this. For example, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women in March this year in presenting its brief to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, mentioned the need for housing resources and post-secondary resources. There were a number of recommendations that would, I think, ease the situation if the resources were committed. Another issue in the brief is that the funds of the Department of Indian affairs are not available for many applicants who wish or need to take their cases to court if they feel there are violations to the law. Funds should be available so women who have rights given to them by law can take advantage of them.
In The Toronto Star for October 29, 1987, Ontario leaders were charging that again Parliament and the Government had not lived up to its promise, that it had not put in the resources, that the resources of Indian bands and reserves were being strained and this was creating both dissension within the community as well as unfairness to women.
There are many ways to look at the question of discrimination. We applaud such things as Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act and Bill C-31, but things are only as good as the funds the Government is willing to commit to implement legislation.
Second, I want to say a few words about the potential effects of the trade deal on certain women in the workforce. Poverty, as we know, has largely been shown to be a female phenomenon-I think the Minister referred to that this afternoon- whether it is single mothers, working mothers or working mothers who are having trouble getting child care. I believe that about 66 per cent of those who live under the poverty line are women. It is my contention that the trade deal will seriously impact on many of them. I want to mention certain sectors. First, the manufacturing sector. In a recent release from the Canadian Labour Congress, it was shown that women comprised 51 per cent of the workforce in poultry products, 62 per cent in leather products, and 79 per cent in the clothing industry. We know from the Government's own studies that these sectors will be most severely impacted by the trade deal. We have large numbers of women working in those sectors.
About 83 per cent of women who are employed work in the service sector, including education and health, social services, transportation, advertising, banking and so on. Here is another sector which will be severely impacted. In an Ontario study it was estimated that 44 per cent of the women in the manufacturing sector were at risk, while 27.6 per cent of men in that same sector were at risk.
I would like to address some areas that we see are in jeopardy under this trade deal and which will lead to further discrimination against women. For many years, Parties have worked for legislation, such as maternity benefits, minimum wage, health and safety regulations and employment standards. Many of the women in the manufacturing and service sectors are not unionized. Those women are relying on government legislation to protect their right to ward off deterioration in health and safety in the workplace. Under the trade deal these things could be in jeopardy if our trading partners were to say they are unfair subsidies. We want a level playing field. Women have never had a level playing field. This trade deal will not make a level playing field for women. It will simply increase the already existing imbalance.
I believe the Minister mentioned this afternoon that about 32 per cent of unionized workers are women. I am sure that this is quite true. When people have job dislocation-and the Government's own studies have indicated dislocation in this sector-women have not fared nearly as well as men in reemployment. For example, one Ontario study indicated that after job dislocation in a number of sectors, 72 per cent of men were re-employed but only 62 per cent of women.
In many sectors, we often see immigrant women, women whose first language may not be French or English. We see
March 9, 1988

women who have less transferable skills. There are no unskilled women, only those with perhaps less transferable skills. These are the women who will have difficulty finding reemployment.
I mentioned earlier that it is legislation that has protected many women in the workplace. Unions have also fought for many of these benefits. We have seen through further studies on dislocation that unionization is often reduced by about 30 per cent as there is a greater pressure to decrease wages and be more competitive.
These are important impacts on women in the workplace. For example, today we had a fair degree of discussion about the GATT ruling on the West Coast fisheries. This is a situation that exemplifies what I am talking about, namely, sectoral impacts on women. About 70 per cent of those working in fish-processing plants are women. Many of them represent that group I just mentioned, immigrant women, women who will require considerable retraining to take a place in the job market.
That brings me to another factor of history from which we can learn in the issue of impacts on women leading to more discriminatory measures. The Canadian Jobs Strategy program has been referred to in the debate this afternoon. It has not been a great success for women. The Canadian Jobs Strategy has not attacked the needs for upgrading and for literacy skills or many of the other specific training needs. In the attempt to privatize the training sector by moving funds over to private industry, we are shortchanging these people, many of whom are women.
We see here some very serious potential difficulties. I received a letter from one of my constituents, Joyce Hayden, who expressed her concern about the impact of this trade deal on older women. Again, older women tend to be the last hired and the first fired. We have also seen that adjustment programs for older workers promised by the Government have not come into effect. Again, this group of women will be very negatively affected.
In supporting this motion, we have to be very aware of two things. First, we must put the resources behind the rhetoric. As well, and the Minister said this this afternoon, when there is dislocation, women are often impacted very severely.
I would like to end on a more hopeful note by quoting some statistics. As usual, the Government of the Yukon is leading the way, being a New Democratic Government. The report of the Secretary of State on the elimination of forms of discrimination against women contains some very interesting statistics. The number of women represented in legislatures across Canada range from about 2 per cent in Newfoundland to 7 per cent in Ontario and 10 per cent in British Columbia, but in the Yukon, it is 18.7 per cent, topping the list. The representation of women on municipal councils, in the positions of mayors and councillors, ranges from about 8.5 per cent in Manitoba, 6.4 per cent in Ontario, 13 per cent in Prince Edward Island, and 33.3 per cent in the Yukon. The representation of women
Supply
on school boards is 35 per cent in Quebec but it is 56.2 per cent in the Yukon. Finally, federal appointments to provincial, territorial and lower courts range from 6.1 per cent in British Columbia to 6.3 per cent in Alberta, zero per cent in the Northwest Territories, I am sad to say, 4 per cent in Saskatchewan and 33.3 per cent in the Yukon.
Where there is a will there is a way. We need to put some teeth into anti-discriminatory legislation and we need to look forward to more programs which will effectively eliminate all forms of discrimination against all women in Canada.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from the Yukon for her very clear positions on how women are suffering in the labour force. The employment equity Bill requires that annual reports be filed. Has the Hon. Member looked at what effect that has had on women in the workforce who will be threatened because of the readjustment program which will be necessary if this dreadful trade Bill ever gets implemented? Is there an ability, by passing legislation with clout, to protect these women? What kind of adjustment programs would the Hon. Member be suggesting?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the kernel of the problem. I mentioned earlier a level playing field and what will constitute an unfair subsidy. This is one of the problems with the whole trade deal.
In terms of programs which may assist women who are dislocated through this deal or through other measures, there are a number of things that could be done. Certainly there could be programs to assist older workers. Older women contribute much to our economy.
As I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Jobs Strategy has glaring gaps. In study after study, there has been identified one of the basic needs which is for literacy programs and upgrading programs for both men and women. Again, we are simply seeing more money going to the private sector and less money going to the colleges that do this kind of work. This is a very severe crisis.
I have spoken with many people in my constituency and in others about funding for literacy programs, for example, and that level of funding is abysmal. Yet we do not seem to want to come to grips with the fact that a very large percentage of our citizens are not literate.
There are many programs that could be put into place to assist women in getting training. Some of the CEIC programs are very restrictive in terms of the allowances given for child care. We keep coming back to child care. I am sorry to say that we have to keep coming back to it.
I was speaking about aboriginal women earlier. Child care is an extremely serious issue on reserves. Many women who want to work simply cannot. In fact, many native women to whom I have spoken in my constituency simply cannot work because there is no child care available. Similarly, if they wish to obtain training they cannot because there is no child care

March 9, 1988
Supply
available. We keep returning to that issue, and that will certainly be a very major factor.
Child care is not a woman's program, it is a family program. However, it will certainly help those women who are dislocated, either through simple changes in industry or through the trade deal, and those women who wish to upgrade their skills so that they can be more competitive in the market-place.
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in this House in support of the effort to provide more equality, freedom and opportunities for women. I would like to thank my colleague of the New Democratic Party for having moved this motion.
I believe that the Conservative Government has made some effort to help women achieve equality. However, there is still a lot of room for improvement. We only have to look at child care, employment equity and programs for women in nontraditional sectors. I think that the Government should do more in these areas.
First, however, I would like to deal with what women do now and how they live today. I know that the Canadian family has changed a lot and that 60 per cent of couples with children work full-time because they need two salaries to raise their children properly.
Naturally, the majority of women today try to combine their heavy workload at home with their job in the labour force, and as everyone knows, the cost of raising children is increasing. From the moment a child starts to go to school until the age of 18, he will cost $106,000. In addition, a couple with children must earn $6,000 more a year to have the same way of life as a childless couple. Moreoever, child care costs between $4,000 and $8,000 a year per child.
If we look at single-parent families, we wonder how they can possibly afford these services. We must not forget, as was mentioned by a number of our colleagues, that 72 per cent of single-parent families are headed by women, and that half of that 72 per cent lives on less than $10,000 a year. These are recent statistics, and the figures are not for 1981 but for 198586.
These figures should come as no surprise, when we consider that the majority of part-time workers are women, and that these women do not get maternity leave, annual leave or sick leave.
These are things most people take for granted. The unemployment rate is considerably higher for women than it is for men. Women's salaries are still only 60 per cent of men's salaries. Women make up 82 per cent of the labour force in low-paying clerical jobs, and 63 per cent of the unskilled manufacturing jobs.

Mr. Speaker, these figures tell us that the role of women and the role of the family has changed. Although women have more choices than they had before, they still have a long way to go, and we should not forget that the majority of women are relegated to employment ghettos, in other words, to low-paying jobs.
Is it so surprising that one million children in Canada live in poverty? Is it so surprising that our birth rate is only 1.7? Is it so surprising that parents decide to have fewer children? They cannot afford more, and our society does not provide them with the support services they need to raise happy, healthy children.
As a society, we claim to believe in equality. We support the principle that women must have the same opportunities as men. How can we expect to achieve equality if we do not help women to carry the heavy domestic burden that is traditionally theirs?
What will ever become of Canadian families if we continue to expect each working woman to be a superwoman, busy with a full-time career and all the while raising her children? Pious wishes are simply not good enough, Mr. Speaker, action is what we need.

One of the things the federal Government has done is to allocate $5.4 billion to a new national strategy for child care. This sounds very impressive, but if we look closely at the program we see that the Conservative Government has actually cheated the less-privileged children in Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised affordable, quality child care for all Canadian children, but on December 3, 1987, he broke that promise.
The government program allocated $3 billion of the $5.4 billion to federal-provincial cost-sharing programs, with the objective of creating 200,000 new day care spaces.
[ Translation]
We have a problem here, Mr. Speaker: only 10 per cent of all children aged 13 or under have access to child care programs. Over a million children are looking for day care space, yet at this time the Government can respond to only 25 per cent of all applications.
We know that over the past five years day care spaces have increased by 19 per cent; now if that rate were to be maintained during the next seven years, and without assistance under the program established by the Conservative Government, we would end up with more than 900,000 spaces in 1995, but instead we will have only 400,000. Thence the impression that the Conservative Government limits instead of speeding up the creation of day care spaces.

The Liberal Party has been demanding a national child care program for a long time. The Government did a good job of
March 9, 1988

avoiding the issue for a long time. The Liberal Party demanded and is still demanding immediate funds to meet the immediate crisis of a lack of child care spaces, but we do not know when we are going to see those new spaces created. The Government will hand out money for space creation only when it has negotiated with the provinces. When will these negotiations be completed? Next month? Next year? Two years from now? What will Canadian children do in the meantime?

It will also be very important for the federal Government to set a goal in terms of the percentage of spaces it would like to fund through the CAP because, depending on the wealth of each province, the Government could provide support and ensure access to low and medium income families.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party also proposes both the establisment of a program of quality and the provision of funds that would also be paid for staffing those child care centres. But right now there is very little spaces being created and very little money paid to ensure quality, because the Government set no standards and established no supervision program as to how the money will be used, how it will be spent and what types of child care services will be created in the various provinces.
There is a danger of course of having service disparities based on the direction taken by each province, and we could wake up with child care services that would be operated on the same basis as senior citizen homes, namely that if you have money you will have good services for your children in those child care centres-if parents have the money-and if you have less money there would be lower quality services. I do not think Canada is on the verge of collapse to the point of not being more open to child care. People always state child care centres are a priority, more money is needed. But those who want to operate a parking lot can more easily get bank loans than people who want to open child care centres, because let us not forget, people who want to open child care centres cannot get bank loans!
In fact, they will be told that this is not a business, it is not taken seriously. On the other hand, you can obtain a bank loan for any small concern that you want to set up. However, daycare centres are not considered a business. As far as I can remember, the federal Government has not responded to one of the recommendations made in the report suggesting that people who would like to open day care centres at home or elsewhere be entitled to bank loans.
In addition, when we consider the cost of day care centres, we realize that a child can cost from $4,000 to $8,000 per year. Of course, at present most families cannot afford such services. The cost of those services should be divided among federal and provincial governments, employers and parents. And the parents should not pay more than a pro rata of their earnings or half of the fees at day care centres, especially the average family.
Supply
And of course, there is the famous CAP which should be open and made available to low and average income families. We are still waiting for it. The Government says that it has taken steps, but once again, we would like to speed them up. Unfortunately, the Tory government did not hear our pleas. Instead of creating more spaces, it provides $2.3 billion for new income tax deductions. This means that those who can afford to pay $5,000 per year for the care of their children can obtain a $4,000 deduction. However, those who cannot pay that amount, will receive absolutely nothing.
Canadian women need immediate funds from the Government to create new child care spaces now. Every province should be adhering to nationally set standards of quality and affordability. We need money put into programs for latchkey children, for longer parental leave at birth, for day care at night and for quality day care training, not for regressive tax deductions. This is an issue of extreme importance for Canadian women and the present Government has bypassed it.

In this Tory Government's response to the majority report, there is no mention of parental leaves. Recommendations have been made to the Government because we feel that if we want couples to have more children, we must provide them with support services. In addition to day care services, we must provide them with parental leave.
The majority report on day care services was not the only report which had made recommendations to this effect, Mr. Speaker. The Forget Report and the equality report had asked for an extension of up to 26 weeks of parental leave. There is no mention of this in the Government's response. There is no mention either of what will happen to the "latchkey children". We know that 54 per cent of all children between the ages of 6 and 13 are alone at home when they return from school. Of course, the Government is quite silent concerning the recommendations we had made in this report.
In the United States, according to a recently published study which appeared yesterday in the media, an increasing number of children between the ages of 6 and 13 find refuge in libraries. In fact, the Governments of several states have introduced legislation to make it illegal for parents to leave their children in libraries after school. It is because the need for day care services has not been met there, and I would not want a similar situation to occur in Canada. Several parents came forward with a request to see to it that parents may have access to school premises once school is over. We know that the province of Quebec is the only province where school principals are authorized to keep school premises open for parents who want to organize supervision committes to keep an eye on their children until 6 p.m. or 7 p.m.
A number of recommendations have been made to that end-we know that this is a provincial responsibility-and

March 9, 1988
Supply
when the time comes for the federal Government to meet its Provincial counterparts to discuss the CAP program, it might show leadership and ask provincial Governments, especially through their Ministers of Education, to act with extreme diligence in this matter to take care of these children. It would certainly be far less expensive for the federal Government and the provincial Governments to provide day care for children than to pay delinquency costs. We know that a deliquent child costs us $44,000 a year. Children who are in foster homes cost a lot of money to the Government, but if we had a prevention policy, we could plan and it would be less expensive and our children would be far better off.
Furthermore, the Government committed itself to the promotion of job equality for women and to their participation in the job-entry programs in non traditional sectors. I think that my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) demonstrated very well that the Conservative Government has been dragging its feet in this area and that it has not yet kept all its promises. I would also like to mention-

The Conservative Government has cut spending on job training by 23 per cent since 1985. Under the Canadian Jobs Strategy program funds were shifted from the public to the private sector for on the job training. It has been found that employers have favoured men over women for training. There are no controls in place to monitor employers or to evaluate the work skills acquired by training.
Also, there is almost no funding in language training to help female immigrants. The Government seems to assume that female immigrants will be provided for by their spouses or will take jobs that do not require language skills. As a result, many find themselves doing menial labour with no benefits and no way out.
Some programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy are targeted at women. To be eligible for most of these programs women must be unemployed anywhere from eight months to three years. Any woman who cannot afford to stay out of work that long cannot profit from these training programs.
Training allowances are still less than minimum wage. How can a woman who supports a family afford to get job training if the Government gives her no financial aid? Unless the training programs change and unless the Government allocates more funds soon, many women will have little hope of bettering their economic prospect.

There is still looming on the horizon the free trade agreement. We have heard women and we know that for several months now they have been voicing their concern about that agreement because it will affect the service sector in which most of them work. We ask the Government to move quickly, to establish programs that will help women adjust to the new conditions. I just want to say that I recognize the Liberal
Government had made room for women and I wish the Conservative Government would follow in its steps. I think the Liberal Government showed the direction in which I would like to see the Conservative Government go. I agree of course with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and I know she cares very much about the condition of women in Canada, but I would like her party to be as concerned as she is and act with greater vigour and leadership.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, in her remarks, the Hon. Member referred to what is occurring in the United States where parents, mothers, leave their children in libraries. I wonder whether she could provide more information about that.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, there have been reports published about libraries being the favorite places for kids to gather after school. Having no place else to go after school hours, and with parents still at work, kids are invading every public library.
Confronted with that situation, library managers have complained that their premises were no child care centre. And parents were thus requested to look after their children. With the result now that several states just passed legislation providing that parents will be charged with gross negligence if their children, between 6 and 13 years of age, are found in a public library after school. Those parents will have to arrange to have their children looked after elsewhere.
That worries me because it shows there is a problem, not only here, in Canada, where 54 per cent of our children are concerned, but also in the United States, and, as the saying goes, when the United States has a cold, Canada catches pneumonia six months later! I would not like the same to happen here. I believe it is still time to remedy the situation in Canada, providing the Government establishes a program and makes recommendations regarding "latchkey children" because, right now, some have nowhere to turn. It could, as I mentioned earlier, co-operate with provincial Governments and the Ministers of Education. The latter could decide to open their schools to these children. Surely, parents would agree to sharing the cost of paying a salary to those who would supervise their children after school hours.
Unfortunately, however, I am somewhat concerned since the Government did not respond at all to the recommendations contained in the majority report.
Thus the Government must act diligently on this issue, and without any delay.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by this statement about children being left in libraries in the U.S. In her comments, the Hon. Member seemed to say that they were of course left by themselves without any supervision.
Could the Hon. Member gives us more details? What did these children do during the long hours they were left alone? Were they going around looking at books? I understand the librarians did not like it very much.
March 9, 1988

I was also wondering about the children's age. She said they were from 10 to 12 years old, but were there among them any children under six left without any supervision?
Of course, that would make the example more concrete and understandable. If there were three or four-year olds left by themselves, then it would reinforce the example just mentioned by the Hon. Member.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, the report was referring to school children from first grade up. Those children range in age from 5 to 12. They invade libraries where they take up space, and adults cannot read in peace. You know what six-year-old children are like, how they whisper and so on-all peace and quiet was gone. Above all, librarians said that their job was to serve customers and not to keep an eye on children running everywhere. They can be allowed to read a book but... The library was turning into a day care centre!
However, I was told that in Montreal and some other big cities Canadian parents are already using the same strategy. They say, "We are going to leave our child at the library because it is safe." They tell the child, "Wait for mommy or daddy to come and pick you up at such and such a time." Then, after school, the child goes to the library, sits down and reads. If there is only one or two, they will be quiet. But if you have 10 or so children of the same age, they are very difficult to control and it is no longer a library. Adults were also quite disturbed and said: "It is impossible for us to come and read peacefully because at those hours, children invade the libraries."
What worries me, is the fact that the Government adopted a very strict law accusing parents of gross negligence with their children. But on the other side, parents need only a service to help them with their children. I don't want the same kind of situation here. Usually, we don't do anything for those children. During the committee hearings on child care, parents from all over Canada asked us the same thing: "Please, do something for our children!" It would be socially less costly to act. Some say that there are too many delinquents, that our children are depressed, that teenagers commit suicide, and it has always been our conviction that if we could provide good child care services to low income families with low education, those children would graduate from high school, probably go to college and would be in a position to find a job instead of becoming members of a third generation of welfare recipients because nobody ever took care of them.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate this afternoon on the motion of the Hon. Member for Hamilton (Ms. Dewar). To begin with, I must say that I do not agree with her motion. In fact, I would say the situation is quite the opposite. Since this Government came to office in September, 1984, we have deliberately and intentionally taken initiatives and advanced
Supply
policies which clearly demonstrate our support for the aspirations of Canadian women.
We have also attacked the sources of discrimination. It sometimes seems as though opposition Members want to turn a blind eye to all of these accomplishments and a deaf ear to our achievements in fostering equality for women. As the Hon. Minister has already indicated, and as I have myself, we are particularly proud of our achievements with respect to the opportunities for women in the labour force. We look over the past three and a half years and we see over 1.1 million jobs created, the majority of those jobs being for women. We have seen an increasing number of women coming into the workforce. In fact, the recent Statistics Canada report indicates some very major changes which are taking place in our society. It shows that the women's labour force participation rate has increased from 51.8 per cent, to 55.9 per cent and that the highest participation rate is for married women living with a spouse whose children are under the age of six. In fact, that rate has increased from 49.5 per cent in 1981 to 62.1 per cent in 1986. Obviously, the majority are women in their twenties and early thirties. They may have taken a break for a period of time when bearing their children, but they are now going back to work and pursuing a career or job for a variety of reasons. It could be for their own sense of self-fulfilment and in other circumstances it could be economically necessary. I do not think the reason matters. We are seeing some major changes taking place in Canadian society.
I wanted to focus my remarks today on a very important strategy of the Government which, I think, appropriately reflects this change in the workforce, particularly the fact that so many women with children under the age of six are maintaining their role in the workforce. That, of course, is the issue of child care and the recognition of its importance with the introduction of the national strategy on child care as a case in point.
We have heard that there are about 250,000 child care spaces in Canada. These spaces are all that exist to serve the needs of working women, women who seek to improve themselves through education and training. One might conclude from the recent report of Statistics Canada that a quarter of a million spaces is obviously not enough to provide the child care services required for working mothers. I remind the House that this situation did not arise suddenly and without warning. It was allowed to develop over a succession of Governments. This Government sought election on the promise of the expansion of child care services in Canada. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has delivered on this promise with his presentation of the National Strategy on Child Care.
It is both unreasonable and unfair to assert, as does the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, that the Government has failed to address discrimination against Canadian women. Indeed, the national strategy is clear and irrefutable evidence that this Government is deliberate in its support of the rights

March 9, 1988
Supply
and aspirations of women to participate as equals in the Canadian workforce.
Let us consider Canadian mothers who, because of income or circumstances, cannot afford the necessary child care to free them to take a job or to seek education. Over the past 15 years federal Governments have shared, through the Canada Assistance Plan, provincial development of child care systems. As we all know, the delivery of this service is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. To date this has resulted in the creation of 140,000 subsidized child care spaces across the country. We know that this number of spaces is not sufficient to meet the needs of lower income working women or single mothers who need child care to allow them to take the training which would give them access to the workforce. The Government did not, like others before it, simply pay lip-service to the need for more subsidized child care spaces. Nor was it satisfied to see an unsystematic increase in spaces. Rather, within the national strategy, it intentionally set a goal for the creation of new subsidized spaces.
Within the next seven years we will see the creation of some
200,000	new subsidized spaces. Within seven years there will be almost three times the number of currently subsidized spaces. Within the next seven years there will be created almost twice the number of subsidized spaces created over the past 15 years. I think that record of progress and its acceleration is very dramatic.
Surely any fair and reasonable person would accept the Government's commitment to the creation of this number of subsidized child care spaces as evidence of sensitivity to the needs of those women who have the greatest child care needs because those are the women at whom this program is directed. It is directed at those women in the lower income areas who need access to subsidized child care. It is also evidence of concern that the lack of affordable child care is a barrier to women assuming an equitable place in the workforce and a commitment to reduce discrimination against women.
In short, it is self-evident that the national strategy on child care is predicated upon addressing a fundamental basis of discrimination against women. As mothers we are the primary care givers to children. Yet our choices are often fewer because our priority will always be with our children. In the interests of our children it is sometimes necessary to either sacrifice or to reduce our career aspirations. When we do venture into the workforce we have had sometimes to settle for jobs that are lower paying, below our capabilities and sometimes not particularly challenging because we are having to balance the issue of addressing our responsibilities to our families with trying to maintain a job.
However, in other circumstances, there really is not even a choice for the single woman, for the woman in a low income household. They really have to venture into the workforce to provide a semblance of economic stability for themselves and
their children. However, often they are very vulnerable to discrimination. Thus working mothers without access to child care are, by definition, the victims of discrimination.
The longer Canada's child care policy and system was allowed to unfold as it might without any set goals, the longer such discrimination continued. It was this Government which recognized the simple fact and intervened deliberately to see that more child care spaces would become available to working women and that more of these spaces would be affordable and thus accessible to women who need them most. That is an important differentiation to make.
When I hear members of other Parties suggest that child care should be universally available or free I do not think the majority of Canadians feel that way. I think the majority of Canadians feel that it is important to have high quality child care services available and that for those women who need the assistance there should be appropriate subsidies available for them.
It is a very familiar complaint, particularly of young parents, that the bulk of the incomes of working mothers goes to pay their child care costs. While working mothers may be satisfying career aspirations, they are not left with enough take-home pay to make much of a difference in the quality of their family lives. Child care has become an onerous cost of employment for women. That, too, is a form of discrimination.
Thus, as we saw with the national strategy on child care within the recent Budget, the Government recognized that the burden of child care costs was discriminatory. We have taken steps to reduce that burden through changes to the tax system as it applies to child care. The child care expense deduction has been doubled from $2,000 to $4,000 per annum for each child six years and younger and for children with special care needs beyond that age. As a result, parents will be able to deduct more of their real child care costs when calculating their income tax. The working woman will be able to have more of her income in hand. Even though my children are well beyond those ages I know, from looking back at the time when they were small and I was working, that that certainly would have been a very welcome initiative. In those days my income was not very great. This is something which will help women from all sectors in coping with the increasing costs of child care.
Young and growing families will benefit from the removal of the $8,000 ceiling on their child care expense deduction. Parents are now allowed to deduct $4,000 of child care receipts for each of their children six years and under, and $2,000 for children age seven to fourteen years regardless of the total of these deductions. Thus for larger families child care has become more affordable. We are no longer discriminating against larger families. It seems to me that the policies that were in place before were unfair and inappropriate to larger families.
There are many Canadian families which make use of informal child care, the baby-sitting type arrangement. They
March 9, 1988

do not receive receipts for the costs of the care. Under the tax deduction for income tax one has to have these receipts. This is to ensure that people are not trying to fool the system. Elowever, this measure will allow more flexibility for families to choose traditional day care arrangements, to have someone come into the home or to have other arrangements. I believe that Canadian families want that kind of flexibility. They do not want one limited kind of system. Those who are not taking advantage of this, such as lower income parents, will benefit from the new $200 supplement to the child tax credit. Beginning this year, 1988, such parents will receive a supplement of $100 in respect of children six years and younger. They will receive an additional $100 next year.
These supplements will increase the child tax credit from about $535 to $760 per child in 1989. That is really quite a significant amount of money, particularly for lower income families. The effect of these changes in the tax system is to make child care more affordable to Canadian families. They reduce the burden of child care as an expense in employment for the working mother. They address a source of discrimination against tens if not hundreds of thousands of women. Once again, any fair or reasonable person would not see in this initiative a failure to address discrimination against Canadian women. Indeed, any fair and reasonable person would see in this initiative an attempt to ensure for women increasing equity in their disposable incomes.
Sometimes discrimination is a matter of locality or geography. Because Canada is such a large country this sometimes happens. No one would deny that farm women are partners in operating Canada's farms. They work as hard and as long as any woman who has a career in business, industry or the professions. However, they do not usually have access to care for their children. Canada's child care system has not expanded into most of rural Canada. Similarly, young families in the northern reaches of our provinces and in our two northern territories generally do not have access to child care.
As part of the national child care strategy there is the new child care initiatives fund. It will support innovative demonstration, development and applied research projects to child care. It will look at opportunities to provide child care in rural and under-serviced areas to provide for the needs of women going into special training programs. I hope it will also look at the needs of young women in the school system. In Ottawa, Rideau High School has established an informal child care program, and they are talking about expanding it. This will support the teenage woman who wants to go back to high school. She would have the child care facilities right there in school. That would be a big encouragement for those young women to be able to return to school and complete their education, and ultimately become economically self-sufficient. That seems to me one way of not only reducing discrimination, but of creating real opportunities and choices for the women of this
Supply
country. Surely, that is the goal of all of us on all sides of this House.
As the country proceeds to expand the availability of child care spaces, there will be a continued demand for qualified child care workers. The expansion of Canadian child care services will create 40,000 new jobs across this land. Under the Canadian Jobs Strategy program the Government has supported and will continue to support the training of new child care workers, most of whom will probably be new entrants into the workforce.
Even this very cursory examination of the national strategy on child care would lead any fair and reasonable person to conclude that we are indeed preoccupied with the equity of women as participants in Canadian society, with the economic equality of Canadian women, and with equality of opportunity for women. The national strategy is not an element of discrimination, and does not fail to address discrimination against women. Rather, it is a full-blown attack upon a major source of discrimination.
The Government is providing, in partnership with the provinces, territories, and parents, a tremendous boost to the expansion of child care services. We have allocated $5.4 billion over the next seven years to support that expansion. That breaks down to federal Government cost sharing expenditures of $3 billion, tax measures of $2.3 billion, and the special initiatives fund of $100 million. It lays the ground work for a new social utility in this country to support the aspiring and working women of Canada.
In looking in more detail at only the federal-provincial cost sharing aspect, I would ask you to consider this fact, Mr. Speaker. In the 15 years that the federal Government has been cost sharing child care with the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan, the Government has spent approximately $1.5 billion as its share of the cost. However, within the new national strategy, the Government proposes within only the federal-provincial cost sharing arrangement to spend $3 billion over the next seven years. In other words, the Government will spend twice the amount of money in half the amount of time on cost sharing federal-provincial programs for child care.
If this magnitude of commitment to child care is judged by the Hon. Member to represent failure, then one is hard pressed to characterize the performance of previous Governments. No, Mr. Speaker, this Government has not failed Canadian women. It has decreased sources of discrimination, it is empowering women to participate more fully, and it is promoting their economic equality. Any fair and reasonable review of the national strategy on child care would conclude that this is so, and not only in the field of child care, but in employment and in all the policies of this Government. Canadian women can look forward to increased economic opportunities and increased opportunities for social justice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there are no questions and comments, shall I call it six o'clock?

March 9, 1988
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1 pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.

1 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 10, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers