October 19, 1976

PC

Jacques Flynn (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Flynn:

Mr. Speaker, this is the time to bring up a question of privilege. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) raised his question of privilege which you heard and you were correct in that. I should like now to hear the minister's rebuttal.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Trinity.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Steve Eugene Paproski (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Progressive Conservative Party)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Papcoski:

Mr. Speaker, if there are any more interruptions I think the time should come off the Liberal side.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Trinity.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity has the floor.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Aideen Nicholson

Liberal

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):

Mr. Speaker, in joining in the debate on the Speech from the Throne I should like to limit my remarks to issues directly concerning the labour force.

For most families the single highest expense concerned with being employed is the cost of child care. This was recognized in the last budget when income tax deductions for the cost of child care were doubled. The announcement in the Speech from the Throne that the government will help provide more day care services by encouraging provincial governments to adopt a new system of income related fees carries this thrust

further and is an important step in adapting to the changes in Canada's labour force.

From 1971 to 1974 the number of day care centres in Canada doubled and the number of spaces in centres more than tripled. Nevertheless, in 1974, fewer than 3 per cent of the children of working parents under three years of age, and fewer than 9 per cent of the children between the ages of three and five, attended day care centres. Alternative types of care, such as matching the school hours of children with the working hours of one or both parents, relying on another adult member of the household, or the brothers or sisters, or neighbour or friends, or leaving school-age children alone after school-are estimated to provide for about four fifths of the care of children of working mothers. While some of these arrangements are undoubtedly adequate and may even be preferable to paid care, there is no doubt that there are many parents who would choose a professional day care service if it were available and affordable.

The measures proposed by the government to increase the availability of partially subsidized professional day care will also give parents more choices and options in the care of their children.

The measures announced in the throne speech and described yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to improve labour management relations and industrial safety, are urgently needed. Canadians are very concerned, and rightly so, about the loss of productivity due to strikes. What is not generally realized is that more work days are lost as a result of industrial injuries than strikes. Canadians concerned about productivity, and particularly about our competitive position in world markets, generally think in terms of time lost from work stoppages due to strikes and lockouts. Certainly these figures give cause for concern, 1,183,080 days lost in June according to labour Canada's recent report, or 62 man days per 10,000 days' work. It is important to find ways of ensuring peace in the life of a labour contract as well as more effective ways of negotiating contracts, but it is also important to keep in perspective that time lost because of industrial injuries still exceeds time lost because of strikes and lockouts.

The proposed collective bargaining information centre with its emphasis on providing clear, useful information, in the context of the state of the economy, including comparisons with other countries, particularly Canada's major trading partners, should go far to remove one very basic cause of conflict between labour and management. It is natural that labour and management will have different views on dividing up the pie, but now there is often disagreement on the size of the pie, with labour and management each bringing in different figures and neither believing nor accepting the other party's figures. If at least there is agreement on what is possible, there is a more appropriate base for negotiation.

The causes for industrial conflicts, strikes, and lockouts are usually complex; wage demands are seldom the only issue. Questions of general working conditions and unsolved griev-

October 19, 1976

ances are often extremely important and may in fact be the more serious underlying cause of a dispute apparently about wages. It has been a great disappointment to me that, since controls were introduced, labour did not make more use of the opportunity to bargain over non-monetary issues. One Canadian survey of employee job satisfaction in 1968 reported that nearly 20 per cent of those surveyed expressed low job satisfaction for reasons connected with pay or advancement, but nearly 30 per cent expressed low job satisfaction for reasons such as recognition, use of skills, etc.

Inflation certainly introduced new tensions into labour-management relations. There has been a trend toward contracts of shorter duration; there have also been more instances where union members refused to ratify contracts negotiated at the bargaining table. As inflation is brought under control, and as people begin to have more confidence in the economy, these problems should be reduced.

Compared with other industrialized countries the number of strikes in Canada and the percentage of workers involved is not high, but the length of time needed to settle conflicts is excessive. When measured by the average number of working days lost per worker, the figure is over 17 days during the 1968 to 1972 period, or more than triple the time lost in some western countries.

One factor in labour unrest seems to be the extraordinary duration of negotiations. Of major negotiations in the past few years, only 15 per cent were settled within three months and 20 per cent required closer to one year of negotiations before settlement was reached. The duration of negotiations would be less of an irritant if settlements were achieved close to the expiry date of the previous contract-in fact opening negotiations at an early date often eases the situation by allowing issues to be resolved in a calm, orderly way. But the tendency toward protracted negotiations long after a contract has expired understandably creates frustrations and often contributes to the bitterness of disputes. The measures announced by the Minister of Labour last night to improve arbitration services and improve training for conciliators and mediators may be important measures in restoring labour peace.

Some of the conflicts we have seen in recent years have occurred in situations where collective bargaining is relatively new and where the parties lack experience. The proposals for labour education may help reduce the problems inherent in this kind of situation.

But, important though it is to improve the collective bargaining process, we still have to deal with the fact that far more days are lost as a result of industrial accidents than as a result of industrial disputes. A chart published by the Occupational Safety and Health Directorate of Canada Labour shows that since 1969 the number of man days lost due to strikes and lockouts has been considerably lower than the number of days lost due to work-related injuries. In 1969 a United States Department of Labour survey indicated that 71 per cent of all workers considered occupational safety and health a higher priority than wages. With changing economic conditions since 1969, the priorities of workers both in the United States and

The Address-Miss Nicholson

Canada have probably shifted, but I am under the impression from talking with workers in many fields that concern about factors affecting health is at a high level now.

Government, management, and labour representatives working with health and safety professionals have made considerable strides in developing and furthering occupational health and safety. In the past century many obvious hazards have been eliminated. However, increasingly workers are exposed to potential hazards such as noise, radiation, vibration, ultrasound, and so on. Chemical usage has experienced considerable growth. Over 500,000 chemical products are currently used in industry and each year, in the industrialized nations, 250,000 new chemicals are invented, or synthesized, of which about 3,000 are put in production. The United States has developed occupational health standards for only about 400 of these chemicals. Toxic research and information generally lag behind the introduction and use of chemicals in industry. Recent reports indicate that environmental carcinogens may be more numerous and ubiquitous than previously suspected.

Occupational health was identified as a priority area by federal and provincial deputy ministers of health in June of 1975. The important thing now is to find ways for all the interested parties, federal, provincial, and municipal health authorities, and labour and management, to combine their efforts.

Canada lacks universal reporting and recording systems and, hence, a data base for numerous aspects of occupational health relating to accidents, injuries, disease, and death. Development of a national code will be an important tool for planning further progress.

Finally I wish to congratulate the government on its courageous decision to include in human rights legislation the principle of equal compensation for work of equal value performed by persons of either sex. Between 1951 and 1972 the labour force grew by 70 per cent. A large part of this growth in the work force is due to the number of women working or actively seeking work. In July, 1974, Statistics Canada estimated the growth in participation for these years, that is, 1951 to 1972, as being 157 per cent for women, compared to 46 per cent for men. This influx of women has affected very little the pattern of women entering the so-called traditional female occupations. Even though women make up only about a third of the labour force, 72.2 pel cent of all clerical workers and 60.1 per cent of workers in service occupations are women.

The so-called job ghettoes, that is, the jobs done rqainly or only by women, have traditionally been badly paid. There are many reasons for this, but perhaps it is more profitable now for us to look at solutions and corrective tools than to deplore history. When the principle of equal pay for work of equal value is established by law in the federal public service, Crown corporations and so on, they will have to do their job evaluations differently. I know that many senior public servants fought hard against the inclusion of this principle, but really the technical difficulties that it presents in terms of updating

October 19, 1976

The Address-Miss Nicholson

and modernizing job evaluations are not insuperable, and the benefits in terms of greater mobility and job satisfaction for both men and women surely outweigh the difficulties.

The Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations prepared by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in consultation with Statistics Canada aims to provide:

-a standardized terminology of occupations and a code that can be used by employment offices in interviewing, counselling and placing applicants and by employers for recruiting, promoting, transferring and job classification purposes.

Universities, research organizations, and other institutions are also encouraged to use CCDO to obtain statistical data. Therefore this is a major work of reference.

It is a very useful work for industrial type skills which are easily measured. It is less useful when applied to personal service occupations, and these are the occupations which have a disproportionate number of women. For example, foster mother is included in the same unit group (6149) with butler, tattoo artist, child care attendant, locker-room attendant, and cabana boy. The DPT code (data, people, things) for grading occupations according to the skill content required in dealing with data, people, things, uses a digit from 0 to 8 in each of the three categories (data, people, things) to indicate the skill required with 8 being "no significant relationship" and 0 the highest requirement. On this scale a dog trainer's DPT number is 227. The implication is that the dog trainer needs a high level of skill to deal with data and people and a low level to deal with things, whereas a foster mother's DPT code is 637 which implies that she needs very limited skill in dealing with data, less skill in dealing with people than the dog trainer, but she is equal with the dog trainer in terms of handling things. One might well question even the last one as one thinks of the complexity of domestic appliances today. However, this is a rating which does not take into account the qualities of heart and mind that a successful foster mother needs to provide not only for the physical needs but also for the emotional and intellectual needs of a young child.

The discrepancy probably does not represent so much a downgrading of caring, nurturing functions so much as it represents difficulty in measuring. When a dog is sent to obedience school the criteria are clear and it is easy to measure whether the dog trainer has achieved results. It is much harder to measure a child's development.

The SVP in this dictionary is the specific vocational preparation. The code for a foster mother is 3. That code number indicates the training for the job is to be accomplished in a period of more than 30 days and less than three months. In other words the factors of life experience and suitability are not included in the SVP, which might be all right if they were included in the coding for general education, but a foster mother's requirement is not high there either.

I have dealt at some length with the example of a foster mother. However, it is merely one example in which personal service occupations are not highly rated.

Men who might wish to enter these occupations and who might find satisfaction in working with people are, of course, deterred now by the low pay and prestige. A more sophisticat-

ed evaluation of personal service occupations, especially the para-professional occupations in the health and welfare field, and some updating, would not only benefit the women now in these positions but would also make it possible for men with talents and abilities in these areas to move to them.

In closing may I quote from the Director-General of the International Labour Conference who said last year:

It can indeed be maintained that the success or failure of modern societies will depend on how they solve this key problem of the inter-relationship between employment, remuneration, working conditions and environment, education, health and leisure.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Otto John Jelinek

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):

Mr. Speaker, since first being elected to the House of Commons roughly four years ago I have had the opportunity to take part in all three debates on the Speeches from the Throne. Therefore it gives me great pleasure to keep my record intact by once again taking part in this latest episode beginning the second session of the Thirtieth Parliament of Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate two capable backbenchers on the government side, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), for moving and seconding the Address in Reply to throne speech. It is very easy for me to understand their enthusiasm toward a government Speech from the Throne oozing with promises, pretty phrases, and vague generalities aimed at perhaps not all segments of our society, but certainly at a great number of Canadians from coast to coast.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is, however, that if these gentlemen followed the progress of their government's legislative policies in respect to the throne speech, they will surely lose their initial enthusiasm only to have it replaced by wonder and awe at how their peers could have the nerve to stray so far from throne speech promises when introducing and implementing consequent policies.

I, too, was enthusiastic when I first heard a throne speech delivered with such majesty and tradition during my first days as a member of parliament back in January of 1973. It did not take long, however, for my enthusiasm to turn first to surprise, then to dismay, and eventually to anger when I realized that the promises made were mere political rhetoric with very little consequential follow-up. The fact is that nearly half of the promises enunciated in the last throne speech in 1974 never materialized.

For example, what happened to the new consumer credit legislation, including the disclosure by lenders of effective rates of interest on loans?

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

It's coming.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Otto John Jelinek

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jelinek:

In every throne speech it is coming. Hopefully by the next throne speech there will be a new government.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Otto John Jelinek

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jelinek:

What happened to the total revision of bankruptcy laws to help the consumer debtor, to the improvement

: [DOT]

October 19, 1976

of urban and inter-city transportation services, to the legislation to provide for an efficient port system, to the measures for government intervention in cases where a Canadian company may be prevented by its foreign ownership from fulfilling export orders, to the revisions to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, to the human rights legislation, or to the provisions to broadcast the proceedings of the Commons? 1 know the latter is back in the throne speech. What about the guarantees for the domestic control of uranium mining, and on, and on, and on? Promises, promises, promises! All of these were vivid, definite solutions proposed by the Trudeau administration in the last throne speech over two years ago, none of which were introduced, let alone materialized. Surely the government cannot say it has had no time to introduce legislation dealing with the great promises it made on that uneventful day in September, 1974.

We all know that the last session of parliament was the longest in the history of Confederation, and perhaps one of the reasons for the lack of popularity the government is experiencing today is that the Liberal administration did not see fit to make further futile promises prior to this last Speech from the Throne. I suggest, based on past performance, that anyone who believes the sincerity of the government's promises must surely be over-optimistic and unrealistic. I further suggest, again on the basis of past performances, that a great many of the government's promises to the public at large are made with the knowledge that it is intentionally misleading the electorate.

I hear snickering from across the way. What better example could there be than the now famous Liberal flip-flop on wage and price controls? Was that misleading in the 1974 campaign, or not? In an attempt to conceal the inefficiency of the government in this and other regards the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) now stirs up, by way of diversionary action, what I believe to be the most divisive issue in Canada, that of bilingualism.

I am all for bilingualism and the principle behind it. But why stir up this subject on a regular basis with phony issues? To me it is beyond comprehension. The principle of bilingualism was accepted by all parties in the House, and if it were left alone in the hands of the people the nation would be better off for it.

I should like to give an example of a nation which has more than two official languages. I am thinking of Switzerland. Do we ever hear of any problems relating to language issues in Switzerland? It is left in the hands of the population in that country. Mr. Speaker, I realise that members opposite on the government side are getting a little flipperty so I shall change the subject and deal briefly with a matter which members before me have already documented in some detail, namely , the cabinet shuffle and the continuing resignations from the cabinet. I should like to touch on the two new sub-ministries which I am certain have been formed in the hope of making a smokescreen to conceal the government's inability to cope with the massive problems relating to small business on one hand,

The Address-Mr. Jelinek

and physical fitness and amateur sport on the other. Ironically these are two areas with which I have been closely associated at different times as spokesman on behalf of our party.

It was nearly three and a half years ago, when government spending was at a far lower level and the inflationary cycle had not yet begun to spiral, that I recommended for the sake of a physically fit nation, as well as for a semblance of order leading up to the Montreal Olympics within the amateur sports world, that a sub-ministry for physical fitness and sport should be established. The response I received at that time from the then godfather of the Canadian Football League, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), was simply incredible bearing in mind the action taken by the government in these times of restraint. I believe he had just finished sticking his nose in where it didn't belong, that is to say, into professional football, when he found out about my suggestions, and recommendations.

Perhaps Your Honour would allow me to quote from a speech given by the minister to the Sports Federation of Canada on March 16, 1974, part of which was in response to what I had said. Talking about the lack of a fundamental amateur sports program, he said:

I am aware of the concern felt by the hon. member for High Park Mr. Otto Jelinek, concern for these very same matters. Unwittingly, I think there is a very strong recommendation for a Canadian Ministry of Sport. How surprising, to me at any rate, that a man with Mr. Jelinek's credentials as an accomplished athlete should be endorsing the creation of-and I say this with some trepidation because of my own experiences-what appears to be a rather relentless bureaucracy.

Consider for a moment such a ministry with all its possibilities. It is true that I have in my department two deputy ministers-one for Health, and one for Welfare-but can you imagine for a moment the problems for a minister of sport? He would need to hire a hall just to meet with his deputy ministers. There would be the deputy minister of ballooning, the deputy minister of bowling, the deputy minister of trotting and it would go on and on-

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Jacques Flynn (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Flynn:

Mr. Speaker, he is speaking, and I should like him to be more explicit about which minister he is speaking and why he is speaking-

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Who?

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Jacques Flynn (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Flynn:

-on which sport he is speaking and to what he is speaking, because he is alluding to all different sports.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Denis Éthier (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):

Order. That appears to be a matter of debate rather than a point of order.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Otto John Jelinek

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jelinek:

I believe the hon. member could not have been listening to what I said earlier. As to what he has just said, 1 am sure the translators must have found it difficult translating the mish-mash that came out of his mouth.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh!

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Jacques Flynn (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Flynn:

I do not think the hon. member understood what I said at all. I understood perfectly what he didn't say and I would like to have him explain now what he intends to say.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Denis Éthier (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):

I do not believe an argument as to facts gives rise to a legitimate point of order. I

October 19, 1976

The Address-Mr. Jelinek

still ask hon. members to exercise restraint. I believe the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) should be allowed to continue.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

October 19, 1976