Empowering Union Women:

Toward the year 2000
Report from the 7th Biennial CLC Women’s Conference
Ottawa, November 19, 1990

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONFERENCE PROGRAMME................................................................................................ 3

REPORT FROM WORKING GROUPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................ 5
OPENING REMARKS
Nancy Riche
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress......................................... 9

GREETING FROM THE OFL
Julie Davis
Secretary-Treasurer, Ontario Federation of Labour...................

11

OPENING ADDRESS
Shirley G. E. Carr
President, Canadian Labour Congress...................................................................13
PANEL — CELEBRATING OUR ACHIEVEMENTS
Huguette Plamondon
Past Member of Executive Council, CLC
United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union..................................17
Grace Hartman
Past President, Canadian Union of Public Employees....................................... 21

KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Audrey McLaughlin
Leader, New Democratic Party of Canada.......................................................... 25
PANEL - WOMEN AND UNIONS: THE CHALLENGE AHEAD
Muriel Collins
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 ............................................... 29
Nicole Désormeaux
Service Employees’ International Union, Local 298 ....................................... 31
Peggy Nash
Assistant to the President, National Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada......................................... 35

KEYNOTE SPEAKER - WOMEN, PROTEST AND POWER
Judy Rebick
President, National Action Committee on the Status of Women.......................39
CLOSING REMARKS
Nancy Riche
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress................................................. 45

CONFERENCE PROGRAMME

Purpose
As we move into a new decade and toward the year 2000, it is important to take stock of our progress in the
struggle for women’s equality, and to prepare for the future. What do women want unions to look like in the
year 2000? How will women achieve power? In alliance with whom?

In plenary sessions and in workshops, participants will discuss the response to women’s demands for equality over
the past decades and will assess the impact of organizing efforts to increase women’s participation in unions.
The conference will focus on developing strategies to ensure increased empowerment through collective action
in our unions, in the workplace and within our communities.

Programme
Wednesday, November 14, 1990

Thursday, November 15, 1990 (cont’d.)

4:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m.

Registration

1:30 p.m.
5:00 p.m.

Working Groups

4:00 p.m.
6:30 p.m.

Orientation

8:30 p.m.

Social/Cash Bar

7:30 p.m.

Conference Opening
Welcoming Remarks

Cultural presentation

Friday, November 16, 1990

Nancy Riche
Executive Vice-President, CLC

9:00 a.m.

Working Groupa (cont’d.)

12:00

Greetings from the OFL
8:00 p.m.

12:00

Lunch

1:30 p.m.
5:00 p.m.

Working Groups (cont’d.)

Opening Address
Shirley G.E. Carr
President, CLC

"Celebrating Our Achievements"

9:00 p.m.

Panel présentation and discussion

Saturday, November 17, 1990

SociaVCash Bar

ç. 9:00 am Plenary Session
Summary and Recommendations

Thursday, November 15, 1990
8:30 a.m.
9:00 a.m.

11:30 a.m. Women, Protest and Power
Judy Rebick
President of National Action Committee
on the Status of Women

Late Registration

Guest Speaker

International Guests

Audrey McLaughlin
Leader, New Democratic Party

12:30 p.m. Farewell and Adjournment
Nancy Riche
Executive Vice-President, CLC

10:00 a.m. Women and Unions: The Challenge Ahead
Panel Presentation and discussion
12:00

Lunch

3

REPORT FROM WORKING GROUPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

"We’re the women of the union and we’ve just
begun to fight."
Union women have clearly come a long way; we
are now an ever-growing force.
We are
transforming our unions in both outlook and
structure.
Identifying the issues, gathering strength and
moving forward, we realize that change towards
equality does not happen overnight.
This conference has provided a crucial impetus
to the further empowerment of women.
In our workshops, we talked about power and
empowerment: What is it? How do we get it?
How do we keep it?
How the workshop participants defined power
often depended on their own experiences, both as
women and as trade unionists. Some were initially
uncomfortable even talking about the issue, because
power was something they had not discussed before.
For others, the concept of power was
frightening, evoking images of control, domination,
and physical violence; something masculine,
something negative, something external to their
experience. Many questioned whether power was
even something women should want.
But when asked to look at both the positive and
negative aspects of power, we discovered that power
indeed has two sides. If power can be defined as
domination and oppression, it can also be defined as
influence, confidence, and the ability to control
one’s own life and one’s own destiny. Perhaps most
important, having power gives women the ability to
make positive changes, bringing us one step closer
to our goal of equality.
After considering these issues, many participants
came to the realization that power is not negative or
positive in itself, but that it can be used in a negative
or a positive way. It was also recognized that there
is a need to change the existing power structure,
which favours those who are rich, white and male.
The inequality perpetuated by this power structure is
doubly felt by our sisters who are visible minority,
native or immigrant women, disabled women or
lesbians.
Thus, there were aspects of power we wanted to
keep, and aspects we wanted to change. For the
most part, we wanted to change the abusive and
manipulative aspects of power, and the traditional
notion that if you give power to one person, it

means you’re taking it from another. They wanted
to keep the power of self-esteem, the power to make
positive change, and the power of collective action.
Most agreed that women tend to use power
differently from men. Women’s power is more
likely to be shared, rather than hoarded. At the
same time, there was concern that not all women
subscribe to this brave new world of power-sharing.
Some talked about women who were not supportive
of other women; others mentioned political figures
like Margaret Thatcher, who has used power to
promote policies that go against the interests of
women and working people.
We also discovered that power is not just
something for the workplace, the union, or the
political arena. Many women talked about power
and powerlessness in their own personal lives; about
their inability to convince their spouses to share
domestic chores; and about family resistance to their
union involvement.
In many of the workshops, sisters talked about
the difference between "power" and
"empowerment." One definition was that "power is
something that’s taken, while empowerment is
something that’s given." Once the concept of
empowerment was fully understood, there was a
consensus that when women have power, they
should use it to empower others.
The workshop participants told of their own
experiences in gaining power and empowering
others. We hear stories about women running for
union office for the first time, often in a maledominated workplace — and about women who quit
their former jobs to enter non-traditional
occupations. One women said she first felt a sense
of power when she took karate lessons: developing
her physical abilities gave her confidence in other
areas as well.
Another woman illustrated the concepts of power
and empowerment with a story about her 12 year old
daughter, who felt her school was not giving her an
adequate education, and that she was being put down
by her teachers. The youngster called the office of
Ontario Premier Bob Rae, and told a member of his
staff about her problem. A few days later, the
Premier called her mother, and suggested a school
she should contact.
Both mother and daughter were empowered by
the experience. They learned that if you believe in
5

your own power, you can have the ability to change
your life.
There was some controversy at the conference
about the decision to place male delegates in a maleonly workshop. It was clear that many of the men,
and some of the women, felt the workshops should
be integrated to allow the men to hear women’s
concerns. Others felt strongly that men need to talk
with other men about their role in the struggle for
women’s equality, and that women should be able to
deal with the often-painful issues of power and
powerlessness amongst themselves.
While the controversy generated some tensions,
it also allowed both male and female participants to
deal with the larger question of the role of men in
the empowerment of women. No consensus was
reached on the issue of male-only workshops, but it
was roundly debated. If there was one area of
agreement, it was that separate men’s and women’s
workshops — or women’s conferences for that
matter — would no longer be necessary once women
achieve full equality.
The men’s workshop also discussed a number of
issues relevant to women’s experience, including the
nature of sexism and sexual harassment.
There is no change without resistance. Women
are taking collective action and becoming
empowered, and there have been reactions against
us. We must have the tools to deal with this
backlash, so it does not hinder our progress toward
equality.
There were many examples of backlash
mentioned in the workshops. They included:
• Violence, or threats of violence.
• Funding cutbacks for women’s programmes and
other equality initiatives.
• The ongoing attack on reproductive choice.
• The organized political backlash of groups such
as REAL Women and the manipulation of socalled "Family Values".
• The divisive way in which some employers have
implemented employment equity, so that it is
destined for failure.
• Racism.
• Homophobia.
• The repeated attacks on pay equity by the
business community.
• Overt hostility toward women’s fight for
equality, such as the male reaction to a
campaign against date rape by women students
at Queen’s University.
Trade union women are well positioned to lead
the fight against this backlash. We already have in

place the necessary support networks and
organizational clout to bring about change. Women
who are already active in their unions must reach out
to their sisters and empower more women to accept
the challenge.
It is also crucial for the labour movement to
organize the unorganized.
The fastest-growing
sector of our workforce is the largely non-union
service sector, and the majority of these workers are
women.
In order to do that, we must develop organizing
strategies specifically aimed at women workers. We
must also make a conscious effort to recruit and
train women organizers, who have a first-hand
understanding of the problems working women face.
Some of the other strategies suggested in the
workshops included:
• Education — We know that one of the main
components of backlash is ignorance, and one of
our main tools is education. From informal
networking to the use of leaflets, videos and
newsletters, we must get our message across
with better, clearer information, in language that
is understood at every level.
We must also obtain and communicate more
statistical information about women in the labour
movement. We must find out the percentages of
women in our unions, and the statistics on the
number of those women who hold union
positions, attend conventions, and participate in
education programmes.
• Collective bargaining — Union women have had
some success improving their situation in the
workplace through the collective bargaining
process. We must step up our efforts to ensure
that contract language deals effectively with such
issues as sexual harassment, same-sex spousal
benefits, child care, women’s health and safety
issues, and leave for family emergencies.
• Public awareness — More work must be done to
focus attention on the issues that affect women.
We must generate more positive stories in the
media about women in unions and in society.
• Union structures — Women’s committees must
continue to be established by unions at all levels,
not just for expediency, but as legitimate,
recognized elements of the decision-making
process. These committees must be given
adequate budgets to carry out their activities.
But developing women’s committees is not
enough to lift the structural and systemic
barriers that prevent women from having equal
power in their unions.
6

We must review the structure of our union
executive boards and other decision-making
bodies, and find ways of making those structures
more representative of our women members.
We must also review such things as the times
and locations of union meetings, to determine
whether they present a barrier, particularly to
women with children.
• Coalition-building — Union women are not the
only ones in society who are fighting for
women’s equality. We must join forces with
other progressive organizations, such as the
National Action Committee on the Status of
Women, to gain support for our goals.
We need look no further than our home lives as
children to see women role models as power figures.
Mothers and grandmothers were often the decision­
makers, the problem solvers and the financial
managers. But the experiences and abilities of
women are not always recognized in the union, the
workplace and the community.
Women feel a lack of control over their own
lives. Barriers making it difficult for us to feel or
use power include:
• sexism, racism and homophobia;
• a lack of access to quality, affordable child care;
• a lack of respect from men and other women;
• a negative portrayal of women in the media;
• the right to choose to have children, or not to
have children;
• violence against women in the home, in the
workplace and on the streets;
• physical and verbal harassment;
• pornography;
• fear of power, because of a negative image of
power figures;
• unequal division of tasks in the home;
• lack of leave for family responsibilities and
families in crisis;
• lack of education and skills and lack of access to
education and training.
Change can come about in many ways, from
simple acts like voting to broader challenges, like
changing deeply-entrenched attitudes.
The union movement gives us tools, such as
support networks, to implement change, not only in
the workplace, but in society as a whole. Women’s
committees, for example, are the backbone of the
progress made in the labour movement.
We must also actively work to empower
ourselves and other women, by running for election
in our unions and at all levels of government. As

voters, we must work to elect more women to public
office, and support candidates who share our goals.
We must use our support networks to continue
the fight for better pay equity legislation and
affirmative action programmes; for child care, paid
maternity leave and family responsibility leave; for
the elimination of sexist language and against
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
We must demand better access to education,
including consciousness-raising courses and skills
training, not only in unions but also in the schools.
We must ensure that the education of our children
reflects equality, starting in kindergarten.
Women’s conferences, such as this, charge our
batteries because they give us strength and optimism.
We have to put this energy to work. We need
action: locally, regionally and nationally.
We must:
• speak out — go to union and community
meetings and be heard;
• support women in positions of power at all
levels;
• get involved in our children’s education;
• say "no" to sexist, racist or homophobic jokes;
• support "No Means No" campaigns on
university campuses;
• set guidelines to deal with violence against
women, harassment, discrimination, filing
complaints;
• have an ombudsperson to deal with complaints
of harassment at CLC functions;
• develop CLC publications on women’s issues;
• encourage participation of lesbians and native,
immigrant, visible minority and disabled women
at all union functions.
Many of the issues we have discussed at this
conference have been around for decades, but the
difference now is our growing determination to
exercise our power to bring about change.
"We’re the women of the union and we’ve just
begun to fight."

7

OPENING REMARKS

Nancy Riche
Executive Vice-President
Canadian Labour Congress
I’m very pleased to welcome all of you to the
7th Biennial CLC Women’s Conference. (This is an
easy crowd: all you have to do is say "welcome"
and they applaud!)
For some people in this room, this will be the
seventh women’s conference they have attended.
Some people in this room organized the first
conference. Some organized the things that came
before.
This is going to be a night of firsts. You are
going to hear from women who had been the first in
their field, in their careers, in their political careers
in the trade union movement.
It is important that we start the 7th Biennial
Women’s Conference with celebration. Because,
even in the midst of perhaps the greatest backlash
women in this country have seen, there are some
things to celebrate. The stories of our union sisters,
our pioneers, are among those things. This is our
history.
The theme of this conference is called:
"Empowerment to the year 2000." We are still
trying to be gentle. Once you get empowerment,
you get power, and there you go! We should have
skipped right to the Power part!
We have a long head table here and some of you
recognize all the faces. Some of you who are
attending the women’s conference for the first time
may not recognize all of the faces. But I know
when you leave tonight, you’ll know that all of those
faces belong to women who have led the way for us
— for you and me and our children, and our
grandchildren.
I have a number of introductions and I am going
to make them throughout the night. But I would like
to ask the CLC Women’s Committee to stand up.
I’m not going to introduce them. They are large,
they are many, they are the best.

Let me first call upon one of our first women of
firsts to bring greetings on behalf of the Ontario
Federation of Labour. Her first started with being
the first women in CUPE to go from a secretary to
a staff representative position. Then the first ever,
to date, full time office of the Ontario Federation of
Labour and currently the first women secretary­
treasurer of the Ontario Federation of Labour, Sister
Julie Davis.

9

■

GREETINGS FROM THE OFL

Julie Davis
Secretary-Treasurer

Ontario Federation of Labour
On behalf of the officers and staff of the Ontario
Federation of Labour, I’m very happy to welcome
you here tonight to NDP Ontario!
September 6th, as you all know, we elected the
first NDP government in the history of Ontario.
The first we hope in a long line of provinces electing
NDP governments — dry runs you might say for the
big one — the federal election in 1992-93 where we
will elect the first NDP government federally — and
— the first woman Prime Minister in the history of
Canada — Audrey McLaughlin.
Funny isn’t it, prior to September 6th, when I
made remarks like that, we would have all clapped
and cheered — but seriously — not many of us
would have really believed it possible, with the
possible exception of me — but then as anyone who
knows me — knows I believe in Santa Claus and
when you get to the part in the story of Peter Pan,
that if we all clap, maybe Tinker Bell won’t die —
well, I always clapped.
However, as important to me as winning the
government, is the fact that we elected another first
when we elected the largest number of women to
any parliament in the history of Canada — with 19
of them being in the NDP caucus. The fact that
over half of the total of 74 members we elected have
strong trade union ties and backgrounds, making our
government truly the most representative of working
people in the history of Ontario — maybe in the
history of Canada.
Remaining true to our Party’s drive for gender
parity — 11 of the 25 cabinet ministers are women
— six of whom come from the trade union
movement.
At a conference like this one, it’s important to
take just a few moments to reflect on how we got to
this important point in history.
A few weeks ago looking through some old
files, I came across an OFL women’s conference
report from 1966. That report outlined the barriers

that women were facing in achieving equality and
the solutions to removing those barriers.
One of the solutions identified was for women to
become politically active and become leaders within
their locals and within the broader labour movement.
The chair of that conference was Sister Grace
Hartman, who later became president of CUPE, and
one of the workshop recorders was Sister Shirley
Carr who, as we all know, is now president of the
CLC. These women have had a tremendous impact
on shaping the labour movement over the last two
decades.
A decade from now, the new leaders of our
movement are those who are attending women’s
conferences like this one. A number of you here are
already today’s leadership and a number of you here
will go on to become the union leadership of the
future. You will build the labour movement of
tomorrow.
This conference will enable you to assess where
you are now and plan strategies for that future.
Planning that will enable us to use our greatest
strength — our members — most effectively and
ensure that we are not driven by the daily crises.
Part of that planning will be political action.
Today we are poised on the brink of a new
political reality for Ontario. On November 20, a
new session of government will begin and I have no
doubt that the 11 women in cabinet will ensure that
women’s issues are in the forefront of the
government’s agenda.
Many of these women are trade unionists who at
one time began on their road to activism by
participating in women’s conferences as you are
today.
Frances Lankin, who I affectionately call Sister
Minister, is Minister of Management Board and
Government Services — a provincial negotiator for
OPSEU and, at one time, the equal opportunity
co-ordinator for OPSEU and a member of the OFL
Women’s Committee.

11

Anne Swarbrick, who is Minister for Women’s
Issues, was executive assistant at the Labour Council
of Metropolitan Toronto and York Region and a
member of the OFL Women’s Committee.
Evelyn Gigantes, Minister of Health, was
NUPGE’s national representative (women’s issues)
and a member of the CLC Women’s Committee.
Shirley Coppen, Minister without Portfolio, and
Chief Government Whip (she describes this as being
chief shop steward for the Legislature) was an RNA
and a member of SEIU and also president of the
Welland and District Labour Council.
Shelley Wark-Martyn, Minister of Revenue, was
a social worker and a member of CUPE. She has
also been an active member of the ONDP Women’s
Committee before becoming MPP for Port Arthur.
Zanana Akande, Minister for Community and
Social Services, a school principal, active in the
Federation of Women Teachers’ Association of
Ontario and the first Black woman in the history of
Ontario to hold a seat in the Legislature and to be
appointed to a cabinet post.
It’s important I think to understand that our
participation in politics is not just something we do
because it’s nice — it is quite simply essential if we
are to build the kind of better world to which we
and our movement are committed.
A world that gives priority to eradicating hunger
and to housing the homeless and yes, a world where
women and men are treated equal — regardless of
their race — or creed — or sexual orientation and
where women have control over and own their
bodies from the skin in.
There is a power in women that cannot and will
not be stilled.
We do have the ability by working together with
our sisters in the community and within our unions
to indeed change the world.
The hand that rocks the cradle can make a ballot
— sign a union card — write convention resolutions
— sign cabinet documents and yes indeed, run this
country.
In closing, let me congratulate Penni Richmond
and the CLC Women’s Committee on their planning
and hard work. These conferences are so important
for the continued growth of our unions and for the
empowerment of the delegates.
I know from my personal experiences — unions
who build strong women, build strong unions — or
put another way, strong women build strong unions.

12

OPENING ADDRESS

Shirley G. E. Carr
President
Canadian Labour Congress
• Maternity leave is now enshrined in law and in
collective agreements. As a result of a Supreme
Court decision since our last conference, men have
access to parental leave, which is very important;
but women’s right to maternity leave has become
clear and stronger in law.
• Just last week, a decision in the Supreme Court
of Ontario made illness related to sexual harassment
a legitimate claim under WCB!
This is a
tremendous victory for all of us. A victory made
possible by the hard work, the determination of
women across Canada to fight against the
degradation of sexual harassment.
• Equality is recognized in the Charter and in
human rights legislation — also hard-fought for
gains.
• Advisory councils on the status of women prod
provincial and federal governments. Employment
equity, not fully realized by any means, is
nevertheless well launched, as is pay equity.
But, in many ways, we haven’t come a long way
— sisters. Twenty years ago, when the Report of
the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was
published, women earned 60 cents for every dollar
a man earned. Today, that amount has risen — to
66 cents!
Abortion, a criminal offence then, is
about to be made a criminal offence again. Isn’t that
absolutely unbelievable?
We have a government in power which has cut
back funding for battered women’s shelters; cut off
support for women’s publications; broken its
promise to establish a national child care policy; and
by means of the free trade agreement, enlarged the
minimum-wage service sector ghetto. It has refused
to institute mandatory measures to enforce
employment equity.
Retrogressive economic
policies, which have now led to a made-in-Canada
recession, have accelerated the feminization of
poverty: the number of working poor women in
Canada increased by 160.4% between 1971 and
1986, compared to a 28.3% increase in the number

It is a genuine pleasure for me to be here with
you today as we open the 7th Canadian Labour
Congress National Women’s Conference. A record
number of you have registered for what I believe
will be a tremendously successful event, an
important step forward in our uncompleted journey
towards equality. I can feel the energy!
I think it is still early enough in the history of
our struggle for equal status for me to greet my
sisters here as pioneers: I like to think of us as
building civilization together in the Tory wilderness.
In this spirit I must salute two friends who have
truly earned the right to that title: Sister Grace
Hartman, and Sister Huguette Plamondon, the first
woman to serve on the CLC Executive Council.
Please welcome these ground-breaking union
women!
It is my duty to try to set the tone for our
conference; that is what keynote addresses are meant
to do. But this is no easy task. Our theme is power
and empowerment in the 1990’s, a hopeful concept,
but one which will require every ounce of creativity,
commitment and solidarity that we possess if we are
to make it a reality. I am an optimist by nature —
I’ve had to be — but I know only too well how hard
one has to work to justify one’s optimism,
particularly in these grim times. I want to share
with you my sense of hope and confidence. But to
do so, I must also share my anger and frustration at
the slow pace of change, and my grief for the
victims of prejudice, discrimination and hatred.
To know where we’re going, we need to know
where we’ve been, and assess where we are now.
To move ahead, we need to determine what barriers
remain, and then work together to remove them.
That requires power; and, since power is not likely
to be handed to us, we need to empower ourselves.
The purpose of this conference is to collectively
explore ways and means of doing this.
In the past two decades, women have certainly
made significant gains.
13

of working poor men. The deliberate erosion of the
social safety net by the Tories has hit women hard,
and aboriginal women, visible minority women,
disabled women and poor women, have been hit the
hardest.
Violence against women continues unchecked,
whether this violence is verbal (the epidemic of
campus sexism, for example) or physical (the
Montreal murders, or the scores of women killed in
domestic assaults or on the street). The government
expresses its concern through platitudes. But this
concern appears to have no substance — they have
ignored the calls of women and men in Canada to
establish December 6 as an offical day of
commemoration for the victims of such violence.
That, too, is incomprehensible.
Yet there is, I believe, a silver lining in this
terrible cloud. The New Democratic Party is rising
in the polls, and has a woman leader. Ontario has
an NDP government, one openly and proudly
committed to equality and to addressing women’s
concerns, such as pay equity.
A significant, unprecedented discontent with the
old ways and the old values is evident all over the
country.
Coalitions are springing up, unionists, and native
people and women and environmentalists and visible
minority and disabled people, community
organizations are joining together to oppose
oppression and exploitation and waste. Concerted
action is winning back some of our losses; funding
for women’s shelters has been partially restored, for
example, after a campaign of sit-ins and publicity.
Women are joining unions at a much faster rate
than men, and our presence in the labour movement
is being increasingly felt in terms of policy,
collective bargaining demands and day-to-day
operations. Mulroney, watch out — Canadian trade
union women, like all Canadians, are mad as hell
and we’re not going to take it any more. And
Canadian trade union women are some force to be
reckoned with.
But where do we go from here? Mary Collins,
the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women,
has one approach, as set out in her recent speech to
a Vancouver symposium marking the 20th
anniversary of the Royal Commision on the Status of
Women. This lawmaker tells us that we should be
trying to change attitudes, not laws. According to
her, we should abandon militancy, because it turns
people off and makes men angry. Small wonder that
one observer at the symposium remarked, "She’s
telling us to be good girls."

My approach — our approach — is a little
different. Attitudes are already changing, but only
because so many women are refusing to be "good
girls". We know from experience that militancy has
been, and continues to be, the most effective means
of getting the changes we want — laws and friendly
court decisions follow. The winning back of some
core funding for women’s centres came about after
a campaign of unladylike occupations and sit-ins.
Abortion clinics have been kept open by determined
women escorting their sisters through anti-choice
mobs.
Women across the country this past summer
demonstrated their support for Canada’s besieged
native people, whose own militancy, by the way, is
likely to result in a more rapid settlement of
outstanding land claims.
Quebec women have
played a leading role in demanding recognition of
the distinctiveness of their society. Women across
Canada have organized and walked picket lines with
their brothers, taking the same risks, suffering the
same injuries, and winning the same victories.
None of these women, by any stretch of the
imagination, were "good girls". None worried a
whole lot about turning people off, because they
knew, as we all know, that real change always
creates a reaction. We expect it, we plan for it,
and, if we work together, we triumph over it.
We should no more be afraid of the "militant"
label than of the "feminist" one. What is militancy?
Involvement, commitment to change. Not accepting
the fate that others define for us. Doing, rather than
merely dreaming (although dreams have their place).
Resisting, collectively those forces which hem us in,
impose roles and stereotypes on us, exploit and use
us. Why should we be afraid of being militant?
Our lives and our freedom depend on it.
To accomplish the changes we are seeking,
however, we need to understand power and
empowerment. Those who stand in our way, have
no end of power, and they use that power to try to
make us powerless. One example — the flow of
information and ideas is being blocked or
discouraged by the federal government: native and
women’s publications shut down, native radio
stations closed, the CBC budget drastically reduced,
and — to celebrate the Year of Literacy, no doubt —
the applications of the GST to books and magazines,
which could well be a death blow to the Canadian
publishing industry. One remembers that slaves
were punished for reading, and one has to ask — are
the Tories deliberately trying to create a docile,
ignorant, unorganized workforce? Or is all this
14

simply coincidence?
Whether by accident or design, we find our
forward progress increasingly hampered. But we are
not without resources, energy, intelligence and skills
of our own. The labour movement is a powerful
impetus for postive change, as we discover and
rediscover every time we win a good contract
clause, organize an effective strike, demand and
obtain rights in the workplace. Our movement is a
social movement, and in that sphere, too, we can be
effective, particularly when we ally ourselves with
other progressive forces — the women’s movement,
environmentalists, community groups and so on.
Solidarity with our sisters empowers us at work
and at home. But this doesn’t just happen. We
have to make it happen, now more than ever,
considering the forces which confront us. That is
where empowerment comes in.
In our unions, we empower ourselves by being
active in our locals, demanding our rightful place,by
networking and by bringing about structural changes
which help us get more involved and work together
more easily and effectively. In the workplace, we
empower ourselves by being organized and
supportive, staying aware of the issues, sharing
information and establishing bonds of trust and
support. In the home, we empower ourselves
collectively by refusing to put up with domestic
violence, by establishing shelters, by helping and
supporting each other. Our increased involvement
in our unions, in the community, in social change,
all part of our demand for equality, makes it
essential that work in the home be equitably shared:
our unions have a major role to play in educating
our brothers to assume their responsibilities in this
regard.
In our communities, we can and we do empower
ourselves with Take Back the Night marches,
coalition building and other involvements. In the
political sphere, we can ensure more victories like
the Ontario election, which will open the doors of
opportunity even wider.
Empowering ourselves, in the final analysis,
depends upon our willingness and ability to work
collectively towards our common goal of equality.
As unionists, we already have the advantage of
experience in collective action; those of us active in
the women’s movement have similar experience.
We cannot only play a significant role in bringing
about change, we can play a leading role.
We can do it. We are doing it. Conferences
such as this one, with such numbers and enthusiasm,
are an indication that we are well on our way, that

we will not be turned back. I am proud to be here,
and I wish you a productive and joyful conference.
Together we are strong. And we will win.

15

PANEL - CELEBRATING OUR ACHIEVEMENTS

Huguette Plamondon
Past Member of Executive Council, CLC
United Food and Commercial Workers ’ International Union
you can do what we have done and you will be the
ones who will open the doors in the year 2020.
Because 1991 is my last year. I will picket with you
if you ask me to but I will be through opening
doors. I have opened a few, and I must tell you I
was proud to be doing it.
I started May 12, 1945. I began working for the
Packing House Workers — a small union, but a
damn good one! Let me tell you:
militant,
aggressive, dynamic, and it did not pay lip service
to the protection of workers’ rights. We believed in
them and went after them.
I must tell you
something — when I began working in Montreal, it
was a good union, but we had no members. We
were just starting out. It was early on.
We were beginners. I grew with the union. We
had no members. We had about some 236 members
that had been given to us by the Steelworkers at the
time. They were generous. As I had quite some
time on my hands, I used to go to the plants to help
other unions distribute leaflets, talk to the guys about
joining a union, being on the picket line.
In 1953, I was appointed international
representative for the Packing House Workers. At
that time, I was the first woman in Canada for our
union. I was very pleased with it because this was,
as I said, not a big union but a damn good union.
In 1955, I defeated a lawyer as President of the
Montreal Labour Council. That was a big kick, let
me tell you. These are the things that make your
life giggle a little bit, spicy or bubbly like
champagne.
Then after that, again, the two central labour
bodies, the TLC and the CCL had decided to merge.
Because the TLC was bigger, they had a right to two
members in Quebec and the CCL one. I decided I
should try it, and believe it or not, that was against
the thinking of the leadership of unions. You know,
I beat the slate. That’s something. I was elected by
workers.

I will try and speak in both languages.
Sometimes it’s hard to do.
One thing I would like to announce this evening,
because I think a woman’s right to have an abortion
is very important, is that today Dr. J. Morgentaler
opened the first clinic in Newfoundland.
Last year, 1 200 women had to go out of the
province, to leave Newfoundland, to have a normal
abortion. Now, it won’t cost these women — and
I’m not saying that they have to have an abortion,
but that they want one — it won’t cost them any
more than it does other women. They will have a
clinic that operates normally, legally, with
specialized physicians and qualified staff. So I think
that’s something worth mentioning, because if
there’s one place that needs this, it’s Newfoundland,
and it’s in St. John’s, Newfoundland.
The reason I’m here is that I knew I would not
be speaking just to the leaders this evening. I’m
speaking to the workers, to the grass roots, as they
say, but who are extremely important to the
development of society and who also belong to
labour unions. Because when there are no labour
unions, there is no democracy.
When there is no union, and when unions are
not allowed to operate, there is no democracy.
There is no country that has democracy unless they
let the labour unions operate in a normal way.
I also want to show the female workers who are
here, and the male workers, because I have seen a
few, that you are welcome. I would even have liked
to see more of you. Because sometimes you need to
be given hell, and when you are not here you cannot
be given hell. Now we have unemployment and
they are going to start looking for reasons, to say
it’s because of the women who work. So we will
tell them that is not so.
But one of the reasons is that I think I would
like to show you that Huguette Plamondon and all
the rest are no different from you. If you want to,
if you put in the time, the energy, if you believe,
17

But then came the time, nobody wanted to present
the brief.
I said: "Look I’m a Catholic, and I’ll present
the brief. I believe in it and I should be able to."
And the leadership said: "But you know you are a
woman".
This was in 1968 and I’m not
exaggerating.
If I don’t tell you those things you won’t think
you have to fight.
You will say, once you are
there, things are easy. It’s not easy when you have
people who don’t believe. Usually we see when it’s
passed at a convention, it’s law. But that thing was
far from being law. Anyhow, we finally presented
the brief, and let me tell you, the only province that
did not talk about our brief was Quebec. We had a
good press coverage all over except in the province
of Quebec because it’s still very Catholic, not now
maybe, that was 22 years ago. It was very Catholic.
I have copies up to today. I don’t know if the CLC
has them, I should donate them because last night I
read those letters, some of them giving the CLC hell
for presenting the brief. Some of them saying that
Huguette Plamondon had no right to use the
platform of the CLC. I did not use the platform of
the CLC. It’s true, I believed in it, but that was the
CLC that passed it at the Convention....
The labour movement, it’s true, is the group that
does the most in society. But as for ourselves, to
preach is one thing, but sometimes you have to
practise what you preach. We had not done so well
with women in 1968. It was pitiful, very few unions
had women representatives. Very few unions had
even administrative secretaries. They would take a
man. You didn’t see women going higher up. It’s
refreshing to be here and see that.
So, we had the other brief to present to the
Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
Anyone who knows Donald MacDonald knows that
he was a very stiff president, looked like a banker —
very severe and for those who didn’t know him, it’s
too bad.
MacDonald read the brief and the chairperson,
Florence Bird, said: "Do you have anything to
add?"
I had something.
I thought Brother
MacDonald was going to have a heart attack, believe
me. And I said: "You know, I want to tell you one
thing too — the labour movement has done a job but
it has not done the job it should have done. We are
far from showing the example." He had a good
heart. That time, we were more people and it was
very good and very nice.
I have represented women also and I always try
to do a good job. I would never want to deprive

Unfortunately, you women did not have the
chance to vote for me but you see what we have
achieved at least. You are here tonight because
there were women like me and Shirley and Grace,
and I won’t name them because I’ll insult somebody
that I may forget. When I see this meeting tonight
you do not know how good it is because it shows me
that we have done something. We did not sit on our
fanny. We must have done something right for you
to be here tonight.
When I was chosen by the caucus in Quebec,
they went to my boss in Toronto, Fred W. Dowling,
whom I must say was behind me 100%. (We
always say there is a woman behind a big man, but
there were some good men behind me. Believe me.
I couldn’t do it alone.) They went to him and said:
"Fred, you have to tell her to resign because if she
stays, you won’t be able to be on the Board. You
won’t be Vice-President for Ontario." He said:
"For once, I’ve done something right and I’m not
going to undo it." And he was not elected as VicePresident of the CLC in 1956, although his place
was to be there. You see, I was a Packing House
worker, and we could not have two Packing House
representatives. But, that showed he was a short
man but a great human being. Believe me.
Then after that, I was alone with about 26 men
and some of them were saying: "You still have your
diapers. You are still wearing your diapers." You
know, very nasty remarks. And I had to take it —
not long. The first time you think it’s a joke but the
second time... You tease a dog the first time he
may not bite you, he’ll bark, but the second time he
will bite. Then after that, Grace Hartman came on
the Board. That was a relief. Then after that, we
started to have caucuses for women because we did
not have a Women’s Bureau. And then after that,
would you believe that I chaired the first women’s
conference and as Grace said, the platform was big
enough to hold all the women that we had. See the
difference. That’s what it’s all about...
We had a convention in 1968, and passed a
resolution that abortion be decriminalized and that a
woman should have a right to have an abortion
whenever she wanted. That was passed: not one
vote against. Don’t forget. Unanimously at the
Convention. Usually when resolutions are passed
you have to do something about it. You don’t really
put them in the book and say that’s good enough,
it’s in the book. You have to at least try to do
something. I said: "When are we going to do
something about it?* Finally, we said we would
appoint a committee, and we would draft something.
18

'

another woman of going somewhere because I have
done a bad job. I had the pleasure and the honour
to represent you at the ILO and even the CLC didn’t
want to send me because, you know, I’m
controversial. I may not behave properly. I did not
behave properly on the first day in 1964, but the rest
of the conference, I behaved good. I behaved badly
because the employer’s representative was a priest
who said that the role of women was to make
children.
I got mad.
I did not know the
parliamentary procedure and I got up and I said: "I
didn’t fly 3,000 miles to be told that I have to make
babies. I decided what I want to do and I’m not
going to stand here." And that night Kalmen
Kaplansky was mad at me, Joe Morris was in good
humour and I had a delegation of employers coming
to see me and apologizing for what had been stated
in the afternoon, that that was not the intent. After
that I followed the rules of the conference but, you
know, when you are being told that... In 1965, I
went back, and in 1970, I represented you again on
women’s technological problems, and married
women at work. I was not married but I know the
problems. I fought for you. I represented you at
the British Trades Union Congress, also represented
you at the ICFTU. All the time, trying to do my
damn best so that other women could go and you see
I did well, eh, Shirley went back. Look at that.
She’s a Vice-President, and she represented you at
the ILO for five years, and I’m sure she did a damn
good job. Now you know that anything is possible.
I’ve done it and you can do it. I don’t come out of
a planet or anything. I just went to school. I didn’t
speak English very well. I learned it. That is
something I had to spend some time on, and I hope
that everybody in Quebec will learn English so that
they can travel and don’t feel they are in the ghetto
whenever they travel. This is not the viewpoint of
the Quebeckers, of many Quebeckers, but I have my
viewpoint and I feel I have the right to say so. I
want to thank you. I think I have taken more than
10 minutes. Let me tell you, whenever you have a
problem, I’ll be around. I have not changed. It’s
not because I’m 64 years of age that I have stopped
barking, believe me. I can still bark and bite, and
I want to thank you.

19

PANEL - CELEBRATING OUR ACHIEVEMENTS

Grace Hartman
Past President
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Lucie said to me: "I’d like to watch Coronation
Street." Lot’s of you must know Coronation Street.
We said: "I wonder how we get the television
turned on?" We asked someone, and they said:
"You have to speak to that young woman there."
They did not say woman but girl. She was 16 years
old, and was in for breaking and entry. We very
politely asked her if we could have the television on
and she said no. It turned out that she was the
equivalent of a Shop Steward in there. We sure
learned about seniority and that sort of thing there,
I want to tell you! We went back to our puzzle and
needlepoint. It was an interesting time. I did learn
to mop floors with those big cot mops, and I did
learn to use the big mangle for the sheets and pillow
cases.
One day, when they handed us the men’s
underwear to fold — the men’s jail was up the
roadway — we refused. We didn’t know what was
going to come out of this but we said: "No way."
We were not going to fold the men’s underwear. If
they wanted them folded, let them do it themselves.
The man in charge of the laundry, who was a very
kindly man, came to me and said: "I’ll give you
something else to do, but please, don’t make a fuss."
I thought OK. I think we got pillow cases and
towels to fold.
There were a lot of things that happened in that
period of time. Now I can look back at them. I can
laugh at some of them. Others were not so funny.
I sure learned a little bit about the injustice system,
how judges, in one place, hand down sentences of
maybe two months for a particular misdemeaner,
and someone else hands out 14 for the same thing.
It was a learning experience. It was not one I
wanted, however I got there.
Coming up through the ranks in my own union,
and I started in CUPE in 1954, i did not experience
the discrimination that I did later on. I have no
answer for that because I certainly was not elected
by women. I was elected by men. It probably

Thank you very much. It’s wonderful to be
here. I know my time is limited too. I don’t have
very many opportunities when I have a captive
audience, so if I run over my time, Nancy, just tell
me.
I’m sure glad that Huguette talked about that
presentation to the Joint Senate Commons
Committee on Health where she presented the
abortion brief. The next day, the newspapers talked
about this volatile woman, this feisty woman, and
the exchanges she had with some of the members of
Parliament. She said to me: "What does that
mean?" I said: "Believe me, it’s good."
Many of you have drawn my attention tonight to
the picture of Shirley Carr and I dressed up for a
Klondike night in Edmonton. That was at a CUPE
Convention in 1971. At that time, I think we passed
a policy paper called "The Status of Women in
CUPE." I think that was the first policy statement
of that kind in any of the unions of the Labour
Congress.
It was not easy.
However, by
threatening the president — telling him not to put a
timer on us — we both were able to make fairly
extensive presentations, and the policy paper was
passed.
Over the last few years I began to think, with
the things that have been said and written about me,
that the only thing people are going to remember is
that I was one of the labour leaders who went to jail.
I went to jail alright. I can tell you that was an
experience in itself. We were angry, we were
frustrated, and not a little apprehensive about what
might happen to us once we got in there. However,
Lucie Nicholson was with me for the first ten days.
We sort of began to learn the ropes by that time and
were able to lean on one another.
The first Sunday we were there, we were sitting.
She was doing a crossword puzzle, and I was doing
some needlepoint. Yes, it was Sunday morning.
We had done our mopping, and we handled the big
mangles, and the washing, and all that stuff too.
21

changed by the time I was elected secretary-treasurer
in 1967. At that time, I found it was other unions
that were questioning "this" woman. They didn’t
call me a woman, they called me a broad. How did
she ever get to that position when she had never
been a full-time officer in her union? It was just a
different structure and different kind of union.
CUPE was very new at that time. It was only four
years old in its present structure. It was being torn
apart by internal political strife. In spite of all these
things, we were beginning to elect women to our
executives. You could see by another picture there
at the back, they elected two: Shirley Carr and I.
All the rest were men. Gradually, even that was
broken down. Even at that time I did not think —
like so many of the younger men would think then
and today — that I would become president. I just
thought of doing the job I had to do there, and it
was a big job. As anyone who has handled the
money in a union knows, there is never enough to
go around, and that was a big job. Also, I felt that,
while I didn’t have all the power and the decision­
making, at least I could make some changes. And
I did. I’m not sure of the dates. I am sure of the
fact that I had a great deal to say in the decision to
hire Cynthia Wishart and Julie Davis. I am very
proud of those decisions. Not so proud of some of
the others, but I am very proud of that.
Shirley was elected, as you know, executive
vice-president to the CLC in 1974. When she
decided to run for that office, I was able to use the
power I had then — by appointing a staff person to
act as her campaign manager or assistant. When I
went to the president to tell him that, he said: "Oh,
I wouldn’t even have thought of doing that." I
thought, well that’s right, you wouldn’t. But, it was
now done. It is wonderful to see how many women
have been and are being elected to office in the
labour movement. Like Huguette, I feel that we
have nudged those doors a bit for you. We have
pushed them open in some places. It was not easy.
I am not sorry for one bit of that time because I do
see the accomplishments.
When I was elected president of NAC, as they
told you, and was able to introduce some of the
trade union thinking there, I was also appointed in
1974 as the only trade unionist on the Federal
Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I don’t
think I made much impact there because when I got
up to speak I could see all these women from the
middle class women’s organizations turning me off.
However, I persisted.
I think a memorable day in my recollection is

Thanksgiving Day 1975. That is a day I will not
forget and it had nothing to do with Thanksgiving.
I was driving back to Ottawa from having spent
Thanksgiving with my family in Toronto. It was a
dark and rainy night. Over the radio came those
dulcet tones of the voice of the Prime Minister,
Pierre Trudeau. What he was doing was breaking
his promises, his pre-election promises, and
introducing wage and price controls. I am sure
there are a lot of you that will remember that period
of time.
Exactly a week after that, CUPE’s convention
opened in Toronto. I was elected president at that
time. I was starting out my presidency with the
Prime Minister establishing the agenda. Because,
believe me, those were days of struggle. At that
time, the postal workers were on strike. Our
convention was in the Royal York and they were
across the street at the post office. We took the
convention across the street at noon hour, and we
protested the wage controls and we supported the
postal workers.
I have been on a lot of picket lines and a lot of
demonstrations. I don’t remember ever seeing as
many plain-clothes policemen. They think you can’t
identify them. My God, they were there. We
learned it was not just that they were going to keep
an eye on us because when we returned to the hotel,
we found that Pierre Trudeau and Margaret were
just leaving a luncheon where he had been speaking
to a group of business people about the merits of the
wage controls. There was a little bit of shouting and
jostling. The next day, the papers wrote up how
these CUPE delegates had pushed Margaret around.
I don’t think anybody got within ten feet of her.
However, that was what they said. That was a
tough way to start in a job like that.
There were so many important decisions to be
made about the wage controls. How we would
handle them. What we would do. We had so many
low-paid workers to protect and I could see that the
small gains that we were beginning to make in wage
equality going down the drain. I knew it was going
to take a great deal of struggle and a great deal of
that militancy Shirley talked about if we were just
even going to hang on. It was a time of travelling
back and forth across the country, with no time for
vacations or days off. Just trying to do what you
could to help our members and staff fighting these
controls. We talked to provincial politicians about
getting out of controls. We were not very successful
with that either. It was a very difficult period for
women. As I say, our struggles for equal pay were

22

and assuming those positions in Cabinet with all the
confidence and aplomb of any man. There is no one
who could be any more sure of what they are going
to do and how they are going to do it. They still
need our help, they still need our support, and I
know it will be there for them.
Nancy laughed when I said I was doing
needlepoint in jail. I was. The interesting part of it
was when we went in, Lucie also had a piece of
needlepoint. They wouldn’t let her take hers in
because she had already started work on hers. I had
not started on mine so they let me take mine in.
Now if you can explain to me why, I am willing to
listen.
Anyway, just before I left home, I had a phone
call from an old friend of mine to tell me she had
just picked up a book on knitting. It’s called Canada
Knits. It is just a history, it is not knitting patterns
and that sort of thing. She said: "Grace, you’ll get
a paragraph in it as a notable who knits." So you
see, you go down in history in many ways. Where
I want to be known is here with the women in the
labour movement. I wish you well and I hope to see
lots of national presidents, etc., from this group in
the not too distant future.
Thank you.

really set back at that time.
A lot of the women in the women’s movement,
not necessarily in the trade union movement, thought
that now that I had that position, I could cure all the
ills, I could correct things overnight. Just the same
as they are saying about Bob Rae in Ontario now.
You know, like we want this yesterday. It does not
work like that as most of you know. How I was
only one vote, an influential one for sure, but we
struggled on.
Just after being elected president, I was a
novelty, a token women, and all that stuff. Yes, a
broad, right. Lots of the phone-in shows and the
interview shows wanted to talk with me.
I
remember being interviewed by Judy Lamarche.
Some of you who are old enough will remember
Judy Lamarche as a sort of a rebel in the Liberal
Party. Probably the first and only woman ever to
call Pierre Trudeau a "son-of-a-bitch" on television.
She was defeated and she had a television
programme. The first question she asked me was:
"Grace, what are you going to do with all this power
you now have?" I looked at her and said: "Power?
I always thought of that as a male word. I don’t
have it yet. I have some, and I won’t use it." I
thought it was a funny way to start an interview.
What are you going to do with all this power? I
thought, if I have all the power she thinks I have, I
better get busy and use it.
There have been some disappointments along the
road. It was not easy. There are no magic
solutions. There are no magic methods to obtaining
equality. When I was on the National Executive
Board at CUPE, the percentage of women on the
executive was equivalent to the percentage of women
in the union. When I retired, it went down. I was
really discouraged. I told them so in my swan song
to the convention. However, that has changed.
Things have changed.
As most of you know, CUPE now has a woman
secretary-treasurer. One of the two top officers is a
woman again. However, there have been great
changes elsewhere in the local unions, in the
councils, in the federations of labour, in the labour
councils and in the CLC. Those changes are
reflected here today and will be reflected no doubt in
the discussions that take place and in what happens
from here on in.
While the road was not always smooth, it was
certainly great to see women taking their place in the
struggles. It has been mentioned several times
tonight but I know how I felt when I saw a number
of my friends and trade unionists elected in Ontario

23

KEYNOTE SPEAKER

Audrey McLaughlin
Leader
New Democratic Party of Canada
Suffrin who led the first Eaton’s drive, like Grace
Hartman who became the first woman to head a
major union...
I want to thank all of the women who came
before us and I want to thank you for all of your
work on behalf of the women of Canada.
So women have played an important role in
advocacy politics. In electoral politics, the record is
less successful.
Electoral politics is really a culture of its own.
It has its own language, own dress code, own rules.
And it is male.
The result of this is plain to see. The political
system reflects the values of males, an elite group of
males at that. And the policies that result are
consequently policies which serve the interests of
these men.
We consequently live in a society which makes
room for great inequalities, a society where women
earn only 65% what men earn, where women do not
have control over their own bodies and where the
government pays for armament while it forces
women to hold bake sales to finance shelters for
women. Why not change things around?
There is little question that we need more
women in politics and political leadership. We have
to break into that exclusive culture and reshape it.
We have to challenge old assumptions, break old
myths, and rewrite the rule book.
Women like Nellie McClung, Agnes McPhail,
Therese Casgrain, and Rosemary Brown — these
women challenged old assumptions.
They
challenged the most fundamental assumption — that
there was no role in politics for women.
I remember a story about Nellie McClung
speaking at a rally in Winnipeg in 1915. A heckler
yelled out at her, "The Prime Minister would quit
politics if a woman were ever elected." To which
Nellie replied, 'This proves what a purifying effect
women would have on politics."
These women left us a wonderful heritage but

Good morning sisters. It is great to be here...
The theme of your conference is empowering
women. So let me start with a definition... Tome,
empowering women is about women having control
over our bodies, having control over our lives,
having opportunities to lead full lives and make full
contributions to the world around us.
And for all this to happen, women must have
physical and economic security, and our voices must
be heard where political decisions are being made.
I want to look specifically today at those political
decisions — how we can affect them, how we can
shape them so that they mean better policies for
women.
The best way to accomplish this, of course, is to
have more women — feminist women — in electoral
politics and positions of power.
Women have always played an important role in
social movements and advocacy groups such as
environmental and peace groups, community groups
and unions.
The fact that we are here today is proof of the
important role the labour movement plays in
promoting women’s participation and equality.
The success of women in the labour movement
is reflected not only in the fact that the CLC has a
great woman leading it, that other great women lead
various unions and provincial federations, that
hundreds of others serve on executives, and
thousands of others as shop stewards...
It is also reflected in the gains union women
have made and will continue to make, in attacking
the problems of sexual harassment, discrimination,
and ghettoization, and in the strides you have made
in employment equity and pay equity.
The bottom line is that unions mean better wages
and better working conditions for women. And the
progress we have achieved is thanks to all of you
and to the women who came before you — women
like Madeleine Parent who led the Quebec Textile
Workers in standing up to Duplessis, like Eileen
25

Because we are social democrats and union women,
many men support us: men who share our values,
who understand our problems and who fight, with
us, to help us achieve our goals.
What kind of action are we going to take to
empower women? First of all, we will give the
economic policies of this country a new direction in
order to redress our economy.
Then, we will change the order of priorities and
put economic growth and economic equality on an
equal footing.
Whether this government wants to admit it or
not, there is a serious recession in this country.
Women who have lost their jobs, 41,000 in the last
month alone, women who cannot afford child care,
women who have to line up at food banks — they
know there is a recession. They do not need to
study the latest economic indicators, they live them.
The most angering aspect of it all is that it is a
made-in-Canada recession. One brought on by the
Canada-US trade deal and by the high interest rate,
high dollar policies of this government.
Now we are looking at the GST and expanding
the trade deal to Mexico. The government has killed
our economy — now they want to bury it.
As social democrats and workers, we know that
a trade deal with Mexico would mean not only a
further threat to the jobs of Canadian workers — to
women in textiles, clothing, in the service sector —
but it would also mean continued exploitation of our
sisters and brothers in Mexico, workers who are
faced with four-dollar-a-day wages and deplorable,
devastating working and living conditions.
As social democrats and trade unionists, we
cannot and will not allow our economy to be built
on the backs of Mexican workers. We will not
allow our sisters and brothers to be exploited.
International social contracts, with guarantees of
basic environmental standards, human rights,
workers’ rights, and decent wages are something we
must fight for. And until they become a reality, a
trade deal with Mexico is out of the question.
We want an end to free trade with the United
States, no free trade agreement with Mexico, lower
interest rates, a fair and progressive tax system, a
full employment policy, and a series of measures to
boost the Canadian economy, all of which should
also improve women’s economic conditions.
By themselves, however, these policies would;
still not bring equity to women in the workplace, nor
in our society as a whole.
If women are to gain equality with men we not
only need policies of economic growth but also

we know that there remains so much to do. We
have to break the myth, for example, that women’s
experiences do not count.
We have to develop the idea that women who
are single mothers, trade union activists, social
workers, nurses, bring with them experiences that
are exactly what is needed in political life... Their
experiences are just as valid and often more relevant
to politics than those of corporate lawyers.
And at a more basic level, we have to change
the whole idea about what a leader looks like —
because our mental picture of political leaders is still
one of affluent, white men.
I do see some progress here, e.g. Tony Penikett,
the President of Iceland.
Are we ready for a woman leader? Well if the
people of Ireland of all places can elect a feminist
woman as president, surely we have got to be
ready...
Having said all this, however, the issue is more
than about having women in office.
Margaret Thatcher is a woman and we have all
seen the harm she has done. And here in Canada
we have examples of our own...
We have the Minister of Employment, Barbara
McDougall, promoting policies like privatization,
deregulation, the trade deal — policies which are
destroying women’s jobs.
We have the Minister of Justice, Kim Campbell,
who professes to be pro-choice, enthusiastically
promoting legislation that will turn women who
choose abortion into criminals.
We have the Minister responsible for the Status
of Women, Mary Collins, telling us to stop raising
a ruckus, to be nicer, to compromise, and everything
will be all right.
The issue, then, is not just about electing
women. It is about having women in office who
represent the values of women, who care about how
policies affect women, who promote the equality of
women, and who want to create a more just and
humane world.
In a nutshell, it is about having feminists in
office. Real feminists, who are more concerned
about empowering other women than with
empowering themselves.
If the price of admission to the corridors of
power is the compromise of principles, then the
price is too high. Maybe the women presently in
cabinet can afford it, but the women of Canada
cannot.
As feminists, as workers and as union women,
we are in a privileged position to make changes.

26

It is easy to be discouraged. And we have all at
times been discouraged. But as women, in whatever
we do — whether we work the assembly line, or
head a political party, or run a computer, or raise a
family — we share the knowledge that we can count
on each other and, together, we can move forward.
Even with the setbacks we have seen, I do think
we have made some progress, and I feel optimistic
about the future.
I look at the record number of women enrolled
in the Université de Montréal’s engineering
programme this year and I am moved, moved by the
memory of those women whose lives were taken
away, and moved by the strength and courage of
those students today.
I look at the Ontario Government Cabinet, with
11 marvellous women — many of them trade
unionists — who have a chance to make a real
difference... and I know they will.
I look at how women won the restoration of
funding women’s centres after it was so stupidly cut
by this government.
Our victory there underlined something
fundamental: nobody is going to give us a thing. It
is women ourselves who got funding restored —
women who joined together in one voice to say that
cuts were unacceptable.
And we did not do it by being nice and quiet and
agreeable either. The history of our gains is a
history not of women keeping quiet, but of women
speaking out.
Finally, I am optimistic because I look at the
changes taking place in this country. People are
looking for a new kind of politics.
Where
everyone’s voices — women, aboriginal Canadians,
workers, minorities — where everyone’s voices are
heard and everyone’s solutions sought.
Canadians are looking for a different kind of
leadership — where leadership is not about control
but cooperation. Where leadership is not about how
much power you can get, but how much power you
can share.
With solidarity and sisterhood, I believe we can
provide that kind of leadership. We can create a
politics that is about caring, about equality, about
empowerment — about dignity for all Canadians.
Thank you.

policies of economic justice:
mandatory,
enforceable employment equity and pay equity
legislation with targets and timetables; a quality
national child care programme that is accessible,
affordable, and non-profit.
These programmes are not frills.
These
programmes are fundamental if women are to have
equality. These programmes reflect the kind of
values we need in the system — values that say that
the work women do counts, that children count, that
choices and opportunities count.
Equality for women is not just a question of
changing attitudes, it is also a question of changing
legislation.
Very often, it is legislation that brings on a
change of attitude and values. The right to health
care was not very popular at first. It did meet with
fierce opposition. However, once the law was
passed, people realized its merits.
The whole history of social progress is filled
with examples like that:
• They said that you could not abolish slavery —
the economy would fall apart. Well it was
abolished and the economy survived.
• They said that you could not abolish child
labour. The economy would fall apart. Well it
was abolished and the economy survived.
• The same thing happened with the minimum
wage, the forty-hour week, maternity leave,
every gain we have made.
• Now we are told that, yes, we would love to pay
women more... Yes, we think there should be
more women managers... Yes, we have to have
more child care spaces... But, you know, the
economy would fall apart.
These programmes will not hurt the economy —
they will strengthen it. And the fact is, if we can
afford to pay top-level corporate executives an
average of $450,000, we can afford these
programmes. What we cannot afford is to let
another generation of women go without.
Let me close by saying a few words about the
years ahead.
Often, we as women are fighting just to protect
gains we have made in the past.
Last week, I spent a day with women textile
workers in Quebec — poor women, many of them
immigrants, just fighting to maintain their livelihood.
This year, we took a step backwards on many
occasions. We witnessed terrible tragedies. There
is still a great deal of sexism in our society: on
university campuses, at work, in our legal system
and on TV.

27

PANEL - WOMEN AND UNIONS: THE CHALLENGE AHEAD

Muriel Collins
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79

When I was asked to talk to you, I did not
hesitate to accept the invitation. Today, I will share
with you some of the ways my local union has
worked in the struggle to end racism and sexism.
Our local is Local 79 of the Canadian Union of
Public Employees. We are a municipally-based
local with 10,000 workers at Metro Toronto, the
City of Toronto and Riverdale Hospital. Our
members include 1,800 part-time workers in Metro’s
homes for the aged — the biggest bargaining unit in
Canada made up of only part-time workers.
My local’s work, in the fight for social and
economic justice, has been practical and
straightforward. Our achievements have not only
benefitted the women involved, but have also helped
our local, our national union and our community.
Three examples of our work deal with:
— organizing women;
— the fight against turning full-time jobs into parttime jobs; and
— lobbying for better access to human rights
protection through the grievance procedure.
The first story is about the fight to organize parttime workers in the homes for the aged in 1983.
Metro Toronto has eight homes for the aged in
Toronto and the surrounding area. Ninety percent
of the workers in these homes were women, mostly
Black and Asian women, working part-time or
casual hours with no security of a full-time job. To
break barriers to getting a full-time job, we ran a
quick and quiet organizing campaign. We spent two
careful months getting the names of casual workers.
Before the campaign even began, we had collected
the names and departments of every casual worker.
When the campaign finally started, fifty members of
the union took confidential letters explaining the
campaign to every casual worker. We signed up
over 700 casual workers. This was done in three
weeks. We met at McDonalds, coffee shops,
restaurants, in their homes, outside the workplace
and even at the bus stops near work.

Bargaining was hard. The employer refused to
move. One of their arguments was: "Why give
women a full-time job? The money will be spent
buying boats and cars." In the meantime these
women, many of them single mothers, were barely
able to keep a roof over their heads.
We won! It took two years and we had to go to
arbitration, but we won. It was a blow to the
discrimination in the system. What we ran up
against, when we were organizing, shows the
problems of unionizing part-time workers in Ontario.
Metro’s use of casual workers is part of a big trend
in Canada towards more and more part-time jobs,
instead of full-time, permanent jobs.
This is
especially so in health care and service jobs — the
jobs that are the most common for Black women.
This leads me to my second story: an example of
the fight against converting needed full-time jobs
into part-time hours. This example concerns nursing
attendants.
Today, 96% of Metro Toronto’s nursing
attendants are women. And over half of us are
Black or Asian women. Three quarters of those of
us who work part-time want and need full-time jobs.
Some have been waiting for seven, eight, nine years
for full-time jobs!
In 1987, we discovered that Metro Toronto was
planning to phase out 71 full-time nursing attendant
jobs as those jobs became vacant and planning to
make these jobs part-time hours. We decided to
change their plans.
This was an important
employment equity issue, and we weren’t about to
let Metro get away with their tricks.
I have to say that in the beginning, I thought that
this was a loser issue, and that we had to fight, but
we would never win. But I didn’t think that it
would be hard to get people to see that a chance for
full-time work is a woman’s issue, and especially, an
issue for Black and Asian women. I was wrong on
both counts. We won our fight, but Metro never
admitted that racism and sexism were the problem.

29

on behalf of workers. We have strong no-sexual
harassment and no-discrimination clauses, and we
tell our members to grieve. We know it’s hard to
win these. We’re pushing the Commission to try to
get the labour laws changed to make the Human
Rights Code part of every collective agreement in the
province. We’ve gotten very good community
support on this, too.
These are some of the ways my local has
advocated for women. Our organizing drive, our
fight for full-time jobs for women and our priority
on human rights issues have made a difference to the
lives of many of our members. These struggles
have also linked us to community groups fighting for
the same causes, but in a different way. Because of
this work, more of our sisters are active in our local.
Our executive board and committees include many
sisters who are representative of our members:
Black, Asian, Filipino, White.
We’ve shown that we can get community
support in the fight against management’s racist and
sexist policies, that we can mobilize and we can win.
But we need to keep up this fight. We have to
remember always that racism and sexism are so
linked that you’ll hardly ever find one without the
other. If we don’t fight both, we can’t beat either.
Thank you.

We found out what Metro was up to when parttime workers called the union to say that vacant fulltime jobs were not being filled. Several part-timers
filed grievances. During the grievance hearing,
Metro’s management let on that Metro was
deliberately not filling vacancies and that this was a
change in Metro’s staffing policy.
We were in trouble. To win the grievances, we
would have to convince an arbitrator that Metro was
getting rid of vacant full-time jobs in order to
undermine the provision of the part-timers’ collective
agreement that gave them a chance for full-time
jobs.
When the 1987 Metro budget report came up,
our worst fears were confirmed. Metro was trying
to get rid of full-time jobs, and Metro was doing this
in contradiction to its own equal opportunity report.
We leafleted at International Women’s Day,
phoned and wrote organizations in the Black,
Filipino, Chinese and Hispanic communities,
contacted women’s groups and pensioners’ groups,
and we organized petitions and letters to Metro
Council.
We got very strong support. This showed the
bureaucrats and the politicians at City Hall that we
had strong backing, that we could mobilize our
communities.
Our fight to keep full-time nursing attendant jobs
was also very much a fight for the old people in our
care. We reached out to and got support from
pensioners’ organizations and advocacy groups for
the old.
By the time the budget was passed by Metro
Council, we’d won most of the jobs back. At
arbitration, Metro offered to settle by coming up
with even more full-time jobs.
My third and last example is about our local’s
work to protect our members’ right to use the
grievance procedure and go to the Ontario Human
Rights Commission.
Over the past couple of years, we’ve been
pushing the Ontario Human Rights Commission not
to support employer-run Human Rights’ complaint
systems. In these systems, the employer sets up an
internal complaint procedure for employees who
have a discrimination or harassment complaint.
Basically, it is a system in which management
investigates itself.
We’ve written the Commission many times and
met with them. We’ve argued that allowing the
employer to investigate himself is like asking the fox
to guard the chicken house. Metro Toronto has even
used its labour law firm to "investigate", supposedly
30

PANEL - WOMEN AND UNIONS: THE CHALLENGE AHEAD

Nicole Désormeaux
Service Employees’ International Union, Local 298
Introduction

movement. At its 1983 and 1985 conventions, and
at a seminar on the subject, the QFL dealt more
specifically with employment equity and adopted
resolutions aimed at encouraging affiliates to
implement affirmative action programmes in the
workplace and equal opportunity programmes within
union structures.
In 1986, the QFL Executive Committee and
Executive Council created an Equal Opportunity
Committee and gave it the following mandate:
—- to develop and analyze a picture of women’s
involvement in all QFL’s structures;
— to identify the discriminatory aspects of union
practices and develop an equal opportunity
programme within the QFL.
The 1987 Convention delegates adopted the
committee’s interim report on equal opportunity and
gave the QFL and the committee the mandate to
pursue their work by undertaking a follow-up to
their survey of locals and unions.
My report is a summary of the follow-up work
as well as an update on the action taken.

First, let me tell you how proud I am to have the
opportunity of reporting the results of a study
conducted by the Quebec Federation of Labour on
equal opportunity, more precisely on the number of
women in leadership positions within affiliated
unions and within the QFL. Not that I can report
that women have achieved equality. Far from it:
we still have a long way to go.
In fact, the sense of pride I get from presenting
this report is mostly due to the fact that the QFL,
which in the past has always been a male-dominated
organization, has now taken an important step
forward in recognizing the importance of women’s
participation in leadership positions. By agreeing to
undertake a survey on the presence of women within
its structures and on the barriers to women’s
participation, and by agreeing to include to their
convention agendas, topics such as objectives for
equality and programmes for the promotion of
women’s participation in the future, the QFL has
shown a desire for change.
As a member of Local 298 of the Service
Employees’ Union, where 75% of the membership
are women, I am all the more happy to report on the
situation. The steps taken by the QFL gives us
hope. It makes us believe that young militant
women will not have to overcome the obstacles we
face today and that it will be easier for them to get
elected in leadership positions and to hold influential
positions.

Results of the Study
In 1988 and 1989, the QFL conducted a survey
of its affiliates, including locals, unions and labour
councils, in order to have a full picture of women’s
participation within union structures. The survey
was conducted by means of questionnaires sent to all
locals as well as interviews with union and labour
council executives. I want to point out that the
response was excellent.
On the whole, the results indicated that women
accounted for 30% of the QFL affiliates’
membership. This proportion was then compared
with the presence of women in the various structures
of the QFL.
Based on the questionnaires returned by affiliated
locals, 33.4% of the total membership are women.
However, this proportion is not the same in all
possible areas of intervention.
For example, at the executive level, women hold
36.8% of the positions, which is higher than their
proportion within the membership. However, within
committees, their proportion (28.8%) is lower.

Inception of the Study
Before reporting the results of the study, I would
like to give you a brief explanation on the inception
of the study. Of course, the QFL’s concern for
equality for women goes a lot further back than the
study "The place of women in union structures"
which was completed in 1989. Over the past 15
years, the QFL conventions have adopted policies
and resolutions dealing with the increased presence
of women in the workplace and within union
structures.
The 1981 QFL Convention adopted a policy
statement on the presence of women in the labour
31

Moreover, women are concentrated in certain
positions. For example, a greater proportion of
women are found in recording secretary and
secretary-treasurer positions, and in women’s
committees, while there is a lower number of
women in grievance committees, health and safety
committees, shop steward positions and union
representative positions.
The Equal Opportunity Committee has noted an
increased number of women in local executive
positions and in most committees except the
grievance and the health and safety committees.
There is still a serious lack of representation in fulltime paid positions and within convention
delegations.
Within affiliated unions, the survey indicated
that the proportion of women is different in each of
the 70 unions surveyed. For example, in the
building and construction trades, the presence of
women is almost non-existent, while it is very high
in the service sector, in the clothing industry and in
clerical positions.
The committee also noted that 30 unions out of
70 (42.79%) achieved proportional representation in
decision-making positions (elected positions, union
activities, convention delegations and full-time paid
positions). However, in 27 of those unions, the
proportion of women does not exceed 25%, and they
represent barely more than 10% of the QFL’s total
membership.
In fact, it seems easier to achieve proportional
representation in unions where the percentage of
women is low. This is partly due to the fact that a
low percentage of women means that proportional
representation is achieved by the presence of one
woman or a few women.
As for the presence of women in the QFL’s
structures, the results of the study are as follows:
— Within labour councils, women’s presence varies
considerably from one region to another. The
committee noted that in certain labour councils,
women are under-represented in executive
positions, in committees and especially in union
representative positions and in delegations. For
example, in a large majority of councils,
delegations are exclusively male. None of the
councils, save one, have union representatives
other than their QFL regional representative, and
all of them are men.
— The committee also noted that the presence of
women within the QFL has increased only in the
area of paid positions. At all other levels of
intervention, there is still room for
improvement, and a regression has been noted in
certain instances, such as convention delegations
and executive positions.

On the whole, the survey indicated that since the
early 80’s, there has been a certain improvement in
women’s involvement in union structures. However,
there is still a lot of work to be accomplished in
order to achieve full equality at all levels of our
structures.
For example, the increased participation has not
been felt outside the local and regional structures,
and the proportion of women in decision-making
positions is still very low, especially in unions where
25 % of the membership or more are women.
Having compiled arid analyzed statistics in order
to identify the structures and areas of intervention
where women are under-represented, the study then
attempted to determine why.

Barriers to Women’s Participation in the
QFL’s Structures
The most important aspect of the QFL’s study is
the identification of barriers to women’s participation
within the QFL structures. This was achieved by
analyzing the data that was collected by means of
interviews, meetings and questionnaires filled by 375
participants. Two main categories of obstacles
emerged from the study: 1) social and economic
barriers; and 2) barriers within the union.

Social and Economic Barriers
All people interviewed at the various levels of
the survey clearly identified parental, family and
household duties and responsibilities as the greatest
hindrance to women’s participation in union
structures. The sharing of tasks and duties is far
from being achieved, as confessed by men
themselves, and the sharing of responsibilities has
not even started, according to women. Everyone
pointed out the even greater problems encountered
by single mothers. And their numbers are only
rising.
The fact that men do not assume their equal
share of family duties and responsibilities
considerably reduces the availability of women and,
therefore, their participation in union activities, since
they must carry a double and sometimes a triple
burden, with that of work outside the home.
In the category of social and economic barriers,
the second impediment to women’s involvement was
education, tradition and prejudice based on sex, in
other words sexist stereotyping.
In many people’s minds, union involvement is a
masculine activity. This stereotyping is often the
cause of rejection of women by people close to them
and it also gives rise to problems with some
employers, according to militant union women.
Sexism also poses a credibility problem for
women. It is a serious obstacle in that it creates a
32

desire to overachieve, a sense of obligation to be
everywhere at the same time or a feeling that they
have to do more than their brothers... to be better.
This adds to an already heavy workload.
Finally, the women interviewed pointed out that
men and women probably have a different approach
to their work, which could be an impediment to the
advancement of women within the union structures.
The third problem in the category of social and
economic barriers is the concentration of women in
a few occupational groups.
This uneven
representation has serious repercussions on the
involvement of women in union structures. The
major obstacle is the fact that militant women often
have to assume the cost of their participation in
union activities.
These costs are real and have been recognized,
since many unions have expense accounts for their
officers or a reimbursement system for meals, gas
and other expenses. Women, however, because of
the parental responsibilities they assume, have extra
expenses such as babysitting costs, and this is
particularly true for single mothers.
The second obstacle that arises from the
concentration of women in a few occupational
groups is the non-application of contract clauses on
leave for union business. Several people have
pointed out that the employers’ current production
restrictions reduce the chance of employees from the
same section or classification of being granted leave
at the same time.

Barriers within the union
Two barriers have been identified within this
category: the conditions of access to union positions
and to the performance of union functions.
The formal and informal conditions required to
have access to union positions vary from one union
to another and from one level to the next. They can
even be different for elected and for paid positions.
However, most of the people interviewed mentioned
that union experience was a necessary condition of
advancement in union structures.
To acquire this experience and to have access to
union positions, women must first have a greater
opportunity to participate and to integrate the many
aspects of their lives: their work life, their union
life and their family and domestic responsibilities.
This is particularly difficult to achieve for women
who very often have to assume family

The numerous representations officers and
representatives are called upon to make, inside or
outside the union structures, involve travelling
within the province as well as outside.
Most people interviewed agreed that the
demands and obligations involved in the performance
of union duties don’t often allow for a "normal"
personal and family life, and the presence of young
children is an added difficulty.
However, the men interviewed did not consider
this a major impediment, although they all said that
it could explain why it is difficult to recruit union
activists. Women reacted differently, since, for the
most part, union work was not adapted to their
situation.
This sums up the barriers to women’s
participation in the QFL structures identified by the
study.

Measuresto Promote Women’s
Participation
The study helped the committee identify a series
of coherent measures aimed at removing the barriers
it identified. However, since time does not allow, I
will only report the main measures that will be taken
at the various levels of the union structures and in
the workplace, and I will concentrate mostly on the
former.
The most important recommendation made by
the Equal Opportunity Committee is that the
evaluation of women’s participation in the QFL and
its affiliates in setting an objective will be based on
the following criteria:
"That a fair representation of women in our
structures and in union activities be based on
their proportion within the membership of
the structure involved."
To reach that objective at all levels of union
activities, the committee suggested to affiliates and
proposed to the QFL that specific measures be taken
to remove the obstacles that were identified in the
report. These measures include:
— A review of the constitutions and by-laws and of
informal regulations in order to bring out
obstacles that could lead to systemic
discrimination against women (for example,
conditions of employment in certain trades or
sectors).
— Action to guarantee that women will not be
segregated in certain positions, but will be

representations such as public demonstrations
organized by the labour movement or by other
community groups.
Those are only some of the proposed measures.
One thing is certain: to remove the barriers and to
achieve our objectives, we will have to work on all
fronts.

Women’s Challenge Within the Labour
Movement and Society
When asked to present the results of the QFL’s
study, I was also asked to deal with the following
question: Can women’s challenge in achieving
effective participation and access to leadership
positions in the labour movement be compared to
that of women in society in general?
No one is an island. Women, as well as men,
participate in union activities (or don’t) in a wider
social context and have to deal with their particular
situation within society and at work. In fact, this
was mentioned under the subject of barriers, to
explain that many aspects of our lives have a real
impact, whether directly or indirectly, on the
participation of women in union structures.
In fact, the labour movement has most, if not
all, the elements found in society, including
prejudices with regard to women’s role, place and
fields of competence. We may like to think that
they are not as deeply rooted in a movement which
advocates human rights, justice and equality, as the
ideals on which it is founded. However, although
we cannot possibly measure how deeply entrenched
these prejudices are, one thing is certain: we find
within the labour movement the same kind of men
we find in society, with the same type of education
and the same values. The labour movement, by its
very nature, has allowed for a faster evolution but,
at the same time, I think it has simply forced some
to be more subtle in the expression of their beliefs
and values. This is part of the problem, because it
has made it even more difficult to identify the
problem adequately. The context of our battle
within the labour movement may be different, but
the challenge and the barriers to women’s
involvement in leadership positions are the same.
Women in the labour movement and in society
in general face another challenge: the redefinition of
power. The power women want is not power over
others, because that means nothing to women. What
we want, essentially, is to be in a position to

being committee members and by defending our
ideals. Having power means to be able to instil our
values, to change the world, and not to become like
men. Women’s notion of power is rarely one of
"power for the sake of power." Most of all, women
have no desire to be assimilated to the masculine
way of thinking. Our wish for power is instilled by
our desire to achieve our objectives. Otherwise, it
means nothing and it is not worth our efforts.
However, women still have a double task: to
redefine power and to exercise power. It is indeed
a challenge, because we often have to deal with the
way men exercise power.
In all areas of life, we have to work with men
who are used to one form of power and, not
surprisingly, don’t understand our conception of
power, so much so that we sometimes have the
feeling they think we don’t really assume leadership.
Finally, we have to make all possible efforts, in
all areas, to increase our numbers, because the task
is that much more difficult when we are only a few.
We must constantly prove ourselves to men, we are
closely watched by men as well as by women, and
are often labelled as feminists, with negative
connotations.
In brief, as long as we are only a handful, our
task will be a solitary one, and it could take its toll
on those few who already are in a position to
influence our society’s vision of power.

Conclusion
As a democratic organization dedicated to the
proposition that all workers must participate in the
development and improvement of their working and
living conditions, the labour movement must provide
conditions that will help all members, men and
women, become militant which, in turn, will
encourage them to fully and actively participate in
the achievement of the objectives of all groups.
The task undertaken by the QFL in the sphere of
equal opportunity will undoubtedly contribute to the
attainment of that objective and to the removal of
existing barriers. The labour movement, as well as
our society, will only be strengthened by it.

PANEL - WOMEN AND UNIONS: THE CHALLENGE AHEAD

Peggy Nash
Assistant to the President

National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada
Introduction
Thank you Sister Chair and good morning sisters
and brothers.
It is encouraging to see so many union sisters
here and so many women increasingly demanding
opportunities to meet together and strategize for the
future. The CLC Women’s Department is to be
congratulated for accommodating so many local
union women activists at this conference — nothing
better to recharge batteries than the energy and
support of so many women.
I will focus my remarks today on the question of
bargaining affirmative action and examine how the
CAW has put equality on its agenda, what we have
been able to achieve at the bargaining table, and how
we see the challenges that face us for the future.

I. Who we are
The CAW is a union of about 160,000 members
of whom about 32,000 or about 18% are women.
So while we are still a male-dominated union, the
percentage of women has been steadily growing over
the last few years.
We have national bargaining units under federal
legislation, such as the airline industry, where our
members, mostly women, work in cities from coast
to coast. We bargain in the fishing industry in
Atlantic Canada, telecommunications industry in a
few provinces, and in several male-dominated
industries such as aerospace, auto assembly and auto
parts. We bargain in just about every legislative
jurisdiction in the country.
From the outset, I want to be clear that when
speaking of gains we make in collective bargaining,
they are of course uneven. What we can bargain for
some of our members we cannot always achieve for
all. Where we have a lot of bargaining power we

pension plan. So while there is progress in some
locations, this progress can be uneven.

II.

Affirmative Action

How did the goal of affirmative action get on
our union’s agenda?
In speaking about affirmative action, wbat I
mean is the whole question of addressing barriers to
equality in the workplace; equality in hiring, in
access to training, treatment on the job, in
promotion, etc. It also means addressing barriers to
equality within our own organization.
The push for affirmative action developed over
a number of years gaining momentum in the late
seventies and into the eighties. It was due to several
factors:
• An increasingly strong and vocal women’s
movement generally in society including in the
labour movement played an important role. The
Ontario Federation of Labour women’s
committee was militant and energetic. They
held conferences and training workshops that
helped women get organized.
• A couple of committed women staff members in
our union, and there were only a couple of
women on staff then, became a strong political
voice for women. Their very presence raised
the expectations of our membership. They were
plugged into the broader women’s movement,
and kept equality issues on the agenda.
• Union women’s committees.
We had the
provision for local union women’s committees in
our constitution since the 1960s.
In the
seventies, we established our national council
women’s committee charged with keeping a
focus on women’s rights at our quarterly council
meetings which bring together about 350 local
union leaders three times a year. We hold an

Ontario, where in 1978 women waged a war
against the company and the police force, just
for the right to belong to a union, galvanized the
support of women and men for equality at work.
• Finally, we were fortunate to have progressive
male leadership that heard the demands of
women both inside and outside the union, and
were smart enough to want to lead the change
rather than oppose it.
In 1970, we established a national women’s
department to coordinate activities that promote
women’s equality. This department is now part of
the office of the president of our union. In the mid1980s, we also amended our constitution with an
affirmative action measure to require that there be at
least one woman on our council executive and our
national executive board.
Bargaining Affirmative Action with the Big Three

In 1984, we put affirmative action on the
bargaining agenda. It officially became part of the
bargaining programme adopted at our bargaining
convention that year.
The union national representative for the General
Motors chain was strongly committed to affirmative
action. In bargaining with GM later that year, he
got the company to agree with affirmative action
language.
GM at that time saw affirmative action as a
chance to look like a good corporate citizen without
fundamentally altering its hiring practices. We put
the issue of hiring quotas on the table in 1984, but
needless to say, GM was not having any.
The language required joint union/management
affirmative action committees in all GM locations.
At least one of the union committee members had to
be a woman.
Our goal with affirmative action was to identify
and then attack the barriers to full participation in
the workforce. The contract language included four
target groups: women, visible minorities, native
people and the disabled. We initially focused on
women, and then later brought in the other target
groups.
Women by their sheer numbers will be the main
beneficiaries but we could not just focus on women
and ignore injustices to others. We had to fight for
all groups.
In most GM locations, the representatives got 12
hours a week to carry out their duties.
The union put together and delivered a training

Our members on the committees put their heart
and soul into making the programme work, and they
ended up dominating it.
They decided to take a number of measures to
attack barriers to equality:
• They made presentations in the public schools
about non-traditional work.
• Where there was hiring, they tried to apply
pressure to get members of the target groups
hired.
• They conducted child care surveys to determine
the need.
• They organized apprenticeship ready courses for
people to be prepared to write the test to gain
entry to apprenticeship programmes.
• They tried outreach and recruitment measures to
network in the community with women’s
organizations, native groups and other groups to
inform them about the kinds of jobs available in
auto.
Initially, we targeted women, but soon addressed
all the key groups who faced injustice. All these
and other measures had some impact on hiring, but
it was very small.
Child Care Programme — 1987

One key area identified again and again as a real
barrier for women was the lack of high quality,
accessible child care, especially for those parents
working shifts. We had first bargained child care
fund in 1983, in an auto trim plant in Stratford,
Ontario.
In 1987, at the Chrysler Corporation, we felt
strongly that we had to make improvements in the
area of child care. The company still wanted to do
more surveys. They also offered to set up a child
care referral service for the workers. We were fed
up with surveys, and we knew that a referral service
would not solve the problem of lack of child care
spaces. We didn’t have a clear plan in mind for
future child care programmes, but we knew that we
needed funding. So we bargained funding of one
cent per worker per hour worked to go into a child
care fund. The fund at all the Big Three would
generate $1-1/2 million over the three years of the
agreement.
We then secured funding from the provincial
government to bring on board a child care expert to
help us develop our plan. We decided as a pilot
programme to set up a child care facility in the city
of Windsor. The CAW Child Care Centre opened

about to begin a pilot in-home programme where an
average of three children would be looked after by
trained staff in a private home.
In 1990, we doubled the funding for child care
that we negotiated with the Big Three. This will
create quite a large pool of funds for future child
care projects.
It is clear to us that as a union, we cannot build
child care centres in every community where our
members work. Our efforts to date just make a
small dent in the overall need for affordable high
quality child care.
What we need are social programmes and a
social commitment from our governments at all
levels to address this pressing social need.
But at the same time, we could not let the
companies off the hook. We have to keep pushing
for child care programmes and other kinds of social
programmes at the bargaining table even though we
know that the solutions are not to be found in
collective bargaining but in the political forum
through legislation.
Human Rights

Harassment and the dehumanizing nature of the
industrial workplace were highlighted by the union
as significant barriers to equality.
In 1987, we negotiated with GM a provision for
human rights training. This agreement required the
company to allow every CAW member at GM time
off the job to attend a three-hour human rights
training programme.
We have spent the last three years in locked
battle with GM over the content of that programme,
but it is now close to getting under way.
This kind of training will go a long way towards
humanizing the workplace and to changing attitudes
in the broader community.
But it was apparent to us as a union though we
could not just wait to change attitudes in order to
ensure that workers would not be subjected to
harassment at work. In 1988, as a union, we
implemented an anti-harassment programme
throughout the union, in all workplaces.
The programme is aimed at fighting all forms of
co-worker harassment, but especially sexual and
racial harassment. It is designed to put the onus on
the local union leadership to take an active part to
investigate and resolve harassment cases.
The anti-harassment programme is working

III

Hiring Quotas

In spite of all our affirmative action efforts, the
picture of the workforce was not changing very
much. There was a big boom in auto in the late
eighties, when lots of hiring took place. But there
was not much progress made in hiring the target
groups.
One thing was clear: all the good intentions in
the world were no replacement for hiring quotas.
We needed quotas as a complement to other
affirmative action measures.
This year in Big Three auto bargaining, we put
hiring quotas, with targets and timetables, squarely
on the bargaining agenda with Ford of Canada. We
argued strongly that voluntary efforts were not
enough.
Our goal is to make the workforce representative
of the community as a whole with respect to the
target groups.
We demanded access to company hiring figures
on a regular basis to ensure that the quotas were
being met.
The company saw the quota issue as a challenge
to their right to manage, a challenge to who they
could hire. They were very strongly opposed to
hiring quotas. This issue stayed on the table even
after we were out on strike at Ford, but the company
would not budge. We were not successful in getting
quotas in 1990.
The company did agree that the joint committees
would get regular updates on the numbers so that
they could review and investigate the numbers being
hired. So we were able to chip a little more away
from their exclusive right to hire. We’ll go at it
again in 1993.

Conclusion
As we look from the past to the future, we feel
that we have come a long way and should be proud.
But as we look to the future the task ahead is still
daunting.
Within our union, we have reached out to
women and visible minorities for training and
leadership promotion, but a look at our overall local
leadership representation tells us that we still have a
ways to go.
While time will change this
representation to some extent, time alone will not
solve the problem. We will have to address it as a
union.
Of course, we don’t operate a social vacuum.

dollar and high interest policies have thrown our
economy into a tailspin.
Women have been hardest hit — in all sectors,
in all regions of this country. They are losing
decently paid jobs and ending up in the unorganized
thin wage sectors of the economy.
There are some rays of hope though. In Ontario
now like the Yukon, we look to the NDP
government for some help to achieve equality.
Hopefully other provinces will follow with NDP
governments. On the federal scene, we may very
well find that our guest speaker this morning will be
the next Prime Minister.
But if we are serious about our commitment to
equality in the workplace, then we have an
obligation to meet at the bargaining table.
In the CAW we must keep pushing to make
progress in setting patterns at the Big Three and in
broadening these gains to the rest of our
membership.
It is an easy cop out for trade union leaders to
say "we can do nothing at the bargaining table for
affirmative action or child care, we have to press for
legislation."
It makes union leaders sound
progressive without ever having to prove that
commitment.
As a labour movement we can in good
conscience only say that legislation is the answer if
we have over the years kept equality on our own
agenda and been serious about achieving it.

KEYNOTE SPEAKER - WOMEN, PROTEST AND POWER

Judy Rebick
President
National Action Committee on the Status of Women
Thank you. It’s always a little intimidating to
get a standing ovation before you speak because then
you feel that you have to give a really good speech.
I do not really like to give the wrap-up speech at a
women’s conference because the same thing always
happens, and that is the collective wisdom of women
always makes the speech redundant. The discussion
you had this morning, I think better than anything I
could say, tells us what women, protest and power
really mean. Part of that is being able to express
our anger. That is something we are never given
permission as women to do. To express it in a
creative way, not in a destructive way, but in a way
that we can feel our justified anger and fight to
change the situations that made us angry and help
our brothers and others to understand why it needs
to change. To do that, we have to express our
feelings, our anger when we are moved, our tears,
our fears, and that’s something I think we, as
women, can teach the rest of the world about very
well. I hope we continue to do that.
I want to talk about the last CLC Women’s
Conference because I was not here, but I felt like I
was. I was, as Nancy points out, freezing in front
of Morgentaler’s clinic in Toronto.
We had
arranged that I would phone Nancy, or I would
phone the office here when we heard the decision.
I heard the decision like this. I should say what we
expected because it is important to remember these
things. We expected maybe the Supreme Court
would strike down the decision, the conviction of the
Court of Appeals. Maybe they would. We figured
they would do it on the basis of unequal access
across the country, if they did it, very limited
grounds. As I am standing outside, the reporter
came up to me and said: "Have you heard?" I said:

thing here, but I’m not sure." I didn’t believe it so
I kept it to myself. Then we got the call and indeed
the majority decision of the Supreme Court said
women have the right to control their own bodies.
That is why I was screaming and yelling with my
little stupid tuque on. I remember calling the CLC
Women’s Conference. I cannot remember if it was
Nancy or if it was Linda or somebody telling me
about the scene of women hugging and kissing, and
crying, and cheering. I thought at that time I felt
sisterhood is powerful and we felt our power that
day in a way we have never felt it before.
I think of another time more recently we felt
powerful. That is when women in Newfoundland
went into the Secretary of State’s office and
occupied it 24 hours a day for 7 days. Women who
had never done anything like that before, and with
them, the women from the women’s movement were
union sisters who showed them how to do it right,
because they had done something like that before
and, together, those women started a movement that
spread like wildfire across the country. Women
everywhere said: "The hell with it. We are going
to stand up for our rights and we are going to
occupy, even if they tell us it is a throwback to the
Sixties, and we are going to fight like hell to get this
money back to women’s programmes." And we did
it.
The last time I felt it was not among all women.
I went to a rally in Manitoba. It was a rally of
Aboriginal people the day before the death of the
Meech Lake Accord. What I felt there was also
power because there were the Aboriginal people of
Manitoba standing with Elijah Harper and saying:
"No. We will not let you step on us one more time.
We do not care what the consequences are. For our

power, I see four elements of power:
risk,
leadership, organization, and solidarity. I think of
the words of Solidarity Forever: "When the union’s
inspiration through the workers’ blood shall run,
there can be no greater power anywhere beneath the
sun, yet what force on Earth is weaker than the
feeble strength of one, the union makes us strong."
I would suggest to you that it is from that line in
Solidarity Forever that we have to draw our
understanding of power.
But recently I have had another experience of
power. Two weeks ago I met with Michael Wilson.
I want to tell you I did not think it was possible, but
these guys look worse close up than they do from
far away.
I saw a form of power that was
individualistic, aggressive, oppressive, arrogant, and
anti-democratic.
I mean that we refuse that kind of power. We
refuse that kind of power. We do not want that kind
of power. There is an attempt today to appeal to the
women’s movement to convince us to agree to that
kind of power, a so-called patriarchal power. I use
the word patriarchal. It’s rather theoretical. What
does it mean? It means the power of a father in a
traditional family. It’s the power to say: "Do what
I want you to do or else face the consequence."
The power to say: "Do what I want you to do
or face the consequence." The power of the boss to
fire us. The power of the violent men to beat us up.
The power of the Tory government to take away
everything we fought for — patriarchal power. We
do not want any part of it. The power of gaining
your power on the backs of others, instead of in
solidarity with others. This is a crucial point in the
women’s movement and, I believe, in the labour
movement as well. Some of us now have access to
that patriarchal power — educated, White women,
upper middle class — because the women’s
movement has been successful enough to force those
in power to understand they have to include a few
women or they will not have any credibility — they
will not be able to keep their power. I do not know
if some of you saw the Report on Business where
they had a picture of women: "How do we get
more women into the boardroom? they asked.
What they are trying to do is get women who will
replicate their power and therefore maintain their
kind of oppressive power. They are somewhat

Mary Collin’s speech — I do not know if any of
you saw it — about how we have to change our
tactics, not be confrontational, be polite. Having to
deal with the Minister, you know, that will do it.
Then the question: "What do you women want?
Haven’t you got enough already? What do you
want?" When I get that question on talk shows and
so on, the way I answer is: "We want equality. We
want to make the same amount of money as men.
We only make 65%.
We want the same
opportunities. We want 51% of women. We want
child care. We want violence against women to
end." They say: "Oh, that is quite a lot left to be
done, eh." I say "Yes." But, do you know what we
really want? We want to change the world. That is
what we want. We want to transform the notions of
power because the only way for women, minorities,
disabled people, Aboriginal people, gays and
lesbians, and I would submit, the only way for
workers to have real power in the society is not to
buy into the patriarchal notions of power, but to
transform the notions of power and fight for
collective power that empowers all of us.
The labour movement teaches us solidarity and
teaches us notions that not everybody is on our side,
that we have to know which side we are on, that we
learn from the labour movement, the class
distinctions in the society, which in the women’s
movement we do not understand very well. What
the women’s movement has to teach the labour
movement is these notions of the transformation of
power. A different kind of power. A sharing of
power. It is not easy as sisters pointed out earlier.
I want to talk about the risks because I think we
have to. One of the ways we get power is to speak
the truth about things. There is a risk in fighting for
equality and fighting for power because it means
some people have to share their power and some
people have to give up their power, in this case
White men. A lot of men do not want to do that.
They do not feel comfortable with it. They feel
comfortable the way things were. It is much more
comfortable and a lot of women do not feel
comfortable with it either. The status quo is much
more comfortable. It is what we are used to. Even
though, as Nancy said, I did not worry about my
make-up when I yelled and screamed, when I saw
myself on TV I felt like shit that I was on national

Globe and Mail saying the Tories hate most of all,
of all the groups they have to deal with, they hate
the CLC and NAC the most.
I want to read you a quote from Martin Luther
King. In 1963, he wrote to a group of clergymen
who declared their support for his goals but called
the violation of law and support of them unwise and
untimely. His reply is worth keeping in mind and I
quote: "The Negroes’ great stumbling block in the
stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’
Council or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the White
moderate who is more devoted to order than justice,
who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of
attention to a positive peace which is the presence of
justice."
We are facing very powerful ideological
weapons and often when I give a speech, I think
three quarters of what I have to do, especially not to
an audience like this but let’s say to students, is to
fight those mystifications that keep us oppressed.
But also ourselves, we have to deal with it. When
our sisters of colour get up and say: "We know you
can fight for what you want as White women. Why
are you not fighting as hard for what we want?" We
have to look at that. As White women, in the
women’s movement, we have power which is very
hard to accept. I find it hard. I hate it when they
call NAC a mainstream women’s group. But we do
have power. I can get access to the media. The
president of the National Organization of Immigrant
and Visible Minority Women of Canada cannot. We
have power, and we have to learn how to share that
power by listening to our sisters of colour.
When our native sister Lois stands up and says:
"We better settle down here because if I get angry
I’m going to tell you what I really think." We have
to say: "We are willing to listen to your anger
because we know it is righteous anger." We are
willing to hear it. That is not easy for us to do. It
is painful. But we have to commit ourselves to that
change. That is how we build collective power. By
listening to those who have less power than us and
committing ourselves to fight against racism and to
fight for their demands — the same as ours — that
is how we get unity. That is what real unity is
about.
But at the same time we face another enemy. In

get up and say: "I am for equality. We are
committed to equality." We have Mary Collins
saying, getting up at conferences and talking about
women’s equality and the fight against violence. It
is really easy to get confused because if we are all
for equality, if the people in power are for equality,
how come we do not have it? We have to deal with
that double speak and say: "No, they are not for
equality. Every policy that this Tory government
has in place is anti-women, anti-visible minority,
anti-native, anti-worker. They are doing everything
they can to get the power of the elite to keep it
strong, to keep it powerful, and to stop anybody
who is out of power from getting power to destroy
our collective power." That is what they are about.
They are our enemies.
There is something else that makes us feel
powerless, that confusion makes us feel powerless,
but something else. I think to understand power, we
have to understand powerlessness. There is nothing
that makes women feel more powerless than violence
against women. If you talk to women who have
been victims of violence — and I would suggest to
you that the majority of women in this room, if not
all women in this room have been in one way or
another victims of violence against women — it
makes us feel frightened, alone and powerless. The
only way that changes is by talking about it, and
organizing against it together; to speak its name —
whether it is in the workplace, on the campus, or in
society; to understand that it is not an individual
problem. It is not an aberration if some lunatic guy
is beating up or murdering his spouse. But it is all
of our problem. Whether it is a sexist prank at a
university, sexist posters on the wall of a plant,
whistles on the street, sexual harassment,
intimidation in a relationship, date rape, wife
battering, murder or a massacre, it all comes from
the same source. That is individual men trying to
exercise their power over individual women. Not to
say all men are bad, or all men are violent, or all
men hate women. It is not about that. It is to
recognize the way in which the unequal power
relations between men and women, impact on
women through violence, harassment and sexism,
and how we have to all take responsibility as
women, and as men, to stop it and to speak out

cannot talk about it. It is still too emotional for me.
But I never worked on the issue of violence against
women. Partly I stayed away from it because it was
too personal. But on that day, December 6, 1989,
I understood something in a profound way I never
understood before. That was the level of misogyny
in the society, the level of sexism, and the way in
which that stops us from getting power and equality,
and how it is every one of our responsibilities,
whatever our issue, whatever our location, to stand
up against violence against women, and to speak out
against it, and to call it by name. That is why
December 6th is so important to mark, and to fight
for it to be recognized officially. We have asked the
Prime Minister to make it an official day of
commemoration. A remembrance day not only for
the 14 women who were massacred, but for all
victims, women victims and children victims of male
violence. To say that this country and this society
and families suffer as much, or more, from violence
against women as we do from war dead and from
violence in wars. To recognize that as a society it
is important. If they will not recognize it on the
level of the government, we as women will
recognize it and claim December 6th as a Women’s
Remembrance Day, and we will be organizing. We
will be organizing with our sisters in the unions, our
sisters on the campuses, right across the country —
vigils, discussions, conferences, art exhibits,
performance art. It is happening. It is incredible
what is happening all across the country for women
to say "no" to violence against women and men also
to say "no" to violence against women.
I want to talk about risk. The other risk, of
course, is the backlash. You have talked about that
a lot. I do not need to go into it more but I just
want to say one thing about the backlash. One,
there has always been a backlash to feminism from
the suffragettes on. There has always been a
backlash and that is men resisting change. It has
always been there. It is nothing new. Do not let
them tell you it is anything new. Secondly, any
successful social movement — whether it is the
labour movement, the women’s movement, the ANC
in South Africa — any movement that is successful
in fighting for change produces a backlash. It is
called polarization. That is how change happens. It
would be nice if change happened another way. It

happens but it is not. As union women, anybody
that has been on a picket line knows. Anybody that
has been on a demonstration knows. Anybody who
has fought for anything in their personal life or
collectively knows that it is struggle that makes
change and struggle means polarization. That is a
fact of life, unfortunately. Someday, we hope, when
we transform power, we can change that. When we
are in power, collectively in power, we hope we will
get to the point where we can listen to an injustice
and correct it. But that is not where we are at in the
society today. The risk is polarization and it is
scary. Like the anti-choice, they are scary people.
We get intimidated by them.
We often get
intimidated. We start to believe they have more
power than they have because they are organized,
and they are loud, and they are vicious, and they
will stop at nothing. But we have to stand up to that
backlash, and again, where we get our power to
stand up to that backlash is together.
I remember the OFL Conference in 1982, where
a lot of women were afraid to stand up and fight for
legalization of free standing clinics. They were sure
there would be a backlash. They were sure their
brothers would laugh them out of the hall because at
that time there were very few women delegates. We
stood up and we fought at that convention.
We had a sister who was an older sister, who
was known as a very hard bitten trade unionist,
stand up and tell us the story of having a son who is
haemophiliac and how she did not want to have any
more children. Her son had just died. He was also
a union activist. She was in her fifties, late fifties,
and she told the convention how she had to go
through three back-street abortions in order to save
her future children from suffering what her son had
suffered. You could have heard a pin drop in that
room. There were no titters. There was nobody
walking out.
It was 4:30 in the afternoon.
Suddenly the morality of the abortion issue, the real
morality, the real meaning of a woman’s right to
choose became clear to all the brothers in the room
and the vote was massively in favour of a woman’s
right to choose because we spoke the truth, and we
organized collectively, and that gave us power.
The last thing I want to talk about is solidarity.
The power of that convention came out of a coalition
we have been building between women in the

bureaucrats inside the women’s movement. They
never wanted to go back again to those horrible
meetings where there was not any order and
everything was completely disorganized and "touchy
feely" and all this. It was awful. We persevered.
There were some of us in the women’s community
and some of us in the labour movement who
understood the importance of that alliance. We
persevered. That is how we got the Eaton’s strike,
the solidarity in the Eaton’s strike that you saw in
your books, and that solidarity of the labour
movement speaking out for choice. That is where it
came from. That is where all the coalition politics
we have now, in my view anyway, started. It was
by women in solidarity, accepting our differences,
but understanding that what we have in common is
greater than any difference, and understanding our
common goals because I believe that the alliance
between the women’s movement and the labour
movement — and we have a lot of other allies but
I’m not going to talk about that — I think it is the
most powerful force for social change we have ever
seen in history. That is my view.
We have in that alliance the potential to
transform power. We see that today in Ontario
because I want to tell you the 11 women who are in
Cabinet did not get there just because the male
leadership of the NDP believe in equality. They
believe in equality for a reason and that is because
women fought for ten years. In the Party we fought
for affirmative action. In the OFL we fought for
affirmative action. Together, women in the NDP
and the OFL fought for two years in the Party to
take a strong line on choice, and it transformed the
Party and the leadership of the Party to understand
the importance of equality for women. We have not
only II women out of 26, but we have feminists
there who are there not just to further their own
career, but to transform the power relations to bring
other women into power and they understand that.
We have never ever had that situation before, and
that is why I find what is happening in Ontario so
exciting. The other thing is there is still some of us
out here that are going to keep fighting out here and
make sure they keep remembering (because it is
overwhelming to be in the government) why they are
there.
We are facing very tough times now across this

to destroy everything we have fought for in the
sphere of social programmes, economics, women’s
programmes and Aboriginal rights. They are even
willing to resort to military force to keep their
power. It’s frightening and it’s hard. It’s even
harder for women. Last month, there was a job
reduction in Quebec and 27 jobs out of 28 were
women’s jobs. It’s awful.
We have a choice. We can retrench and fight
each of our individual struggles, and heaven knows
we have enough, or we can unite and together fight
in coalition against the regressive policies of this
government. For our collective rights, each of us
fighting for our individual struggles and us fighting
collectively for those things that we have in common
and supporting each other on our individual
struggles. That is going to be harder and harder to
do. They are going to try and divide us more and
more as things get tough. But I believe that the
experience we have had over the last ten years and
the solidarity of women within that is going to make
us strong, and keep us strong, and get us to a point
where we can transform the patriarchal notions of
power and begin to really change the society as
women, as workers, as minorities, as Aboriginal
people, together united in sisterhood, in solidarity.

CLOSING REMARKS

Nancy Riche
Executive Vice-President
Canadian Labour Congress
We have some guests I want to introduce right
at the beginning. There was a room on the 18th
floor. It had marvellous artwork all around the
walls. In each bedroom there were at least four
beds and cots and some of the people in there slept
in the afternoon. Today they are off to the Santa
Claus parade. But before they go, they thought they
would like to come and say hello. These are the
children from the daycare.
The daycare was
organized by Gayle O’Connor. Let me give you the
names of the workers. Maureen Mericle, Ann Loy,
Angelo Coin, Margaret O’Connor and Gayle
O’Connor, all members of CUPE 2204.
Come up and stand here so all the participants
can see you. There were 16 in the daycare; the
highest number we have ever had. The little ones
didn’t come down because we thought there might
be some difficulty getting them back out again. And
we would like to welcome our daycare. We wish
we were going to the Santa Claus parade but we
have to change the world, so what can I say! Thank
you for coming.
We are going to move very quickly to the
reading of the report from the workshops. This is
an overview, a little more than an overview, of the
workshops that was put together from the facilitators
meetings held on Thursday and Friday, and then
worked on by the sub-committee and by three
writers that we specifically asked to help us, and I
would like to thank them even before you hear the
report and ask them if they are here, to stand up and
be introduced. (We have a small gift for you.)
Donna Balkan from NUPGE, Pat Van Home from
Steelworkers, and Michelle Walsh from the
Communications Department of the CLC.
This is not to dampen discussion in any way,
shape, or form, but the women’s conference is not
a policy setting conference. It doesn’t mean that the
kinds of things that come out of workshops find their
ways to the decision-making bodies of all levels of
the labour movement because you will bring them to

the locals, to your provincial federations, to your
national unions, and we will bring them to the CLC
Committee and Council. But we don’t have the
authority (no committee does in the Congress) to
actually take a resolution and move it into
convention. However, it’s not unusual to see
recommendations from a CLC women’s conference
on the convention floor in the form of resolutions.
This is a different conference. This was a
conference not based on specific tangible issues: pay
equity - how do you get it, what does it take, what
is a job evaluation plan? - affirmative action,
employment equity.
It was not that kind of
conference. In fact, if it had been it would have
been exactly the same issues as the 1988
Conference. Nothing has basically changed in terms
of the issues that we are fighting.
This conference was designed to have women
look at power, empowerment and how we achieve it.
Not an easy concept. We all have some notion of
power that usually had nothing to do with us. We
have all heard it said, and it’s a cliche, but power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So
part of your head would say, what the hell would I
want anything to do with that. We are, however,
witnessing new styles of leadership. We have
watched Audrey McLaughlin changing the power
structures within the NDP caucus. For the first time
in any political party, there are teams of critics. The
team concept is a concept familiar to women, and
sometimes we should analyze why we are more
comfortable expressing power as part of a team than
we are as individuals. Women talk about getting
power, so they can share it. It’s a different kind of
thing to struggle with. Not an easy thing to struggle
with with 600 people at a conference. How do you
take a concept and work with it and stretch it and
deal with it and go back and say now I want it.
The first women’s conference I attended in the
CLC we talked about paid maternity leave, so I
could go back and say let’s talk about paid maternity
45