Madeleine Parent wrote in a letter: “there will be no rocking chair for me yet, which is all to the good”. Despite retiring from her position in the union movement in 1983, Parent remained one of the most active proponents of social justice in a wide variety of areas which she always “consciously connected.”(1) Essentially, “her vision of social justice is comprehensive and inclusive.”(2) Parent’s main strength derives largely from her tendency to transcend dogma and ideology. Her comprehensive and inclusive reach is not the result of intellectual boredom or careless eclecticism: it was developed over a lifetime of being questioned, cross-examined, and doubted by endless mainstream currents. She was not strictly a Quebecois nationalist; she was not solely a Canadian nationalist; and her internationalism was not a lofty abstraction. Parent was also not one to profess everlasting loyalty to a given political party. Her working-class sympathies existed simultaneously in a multitude of cultural and political contexts: Quebecois nationalism, Canadian economic nationalism, and various issues of transnational significance. None took precedence over the other if she could help it; her decisions were always motivated by a desire to help those in the front lines of a given struggle for social justice, rather than by a compulsion to force real events into prepackaged theories.
To highlight Parent’s “comprehensive and inclusive” vision, Sangster calls attention to a particular mixture of feminist and unionist causes practiced by Parent: “In unions, she encouraged women to take their rightful place as leaders; in the women’s movement, she urged attention to the needs of wage-earning women and working peoples.”(3) Thus, Parent consciously injected the cause of worker solidarity into the feminist cause, and vice versa. The two were inextricable. Before the late 1960s, feminism in Quebec, feminism in the rest of Canada, and feminism among various marginalized groups, especially of Aboriginals, were largely discrete movements, operating with little cooperation between them.(4) This split was an obstacle to the basic objectives of feminists. In the late 1960s and 1970s, however, the basic feminist perspective was revitalized in Canada largely due to the influence of what Luxton calls “working-class feminism.”(5) She places Parent in this nascent syncretic tradition.(6) However, it is not accurate to attribute “working-class feminism” to this era, or to place Parent within it. Parent’s commitment to this so-called new tradition was established well before the 1960s.
A longstanding “socialist-feminist analysis”:
Madeleine Parent had developed a “socialist-feminist analysis”(7) well before feminism was a potent force in Western society, and at exactly the time socialist movements were most popular in the West – the Great Depression. Her views were profoundly shaped by 1930s socialist movements, during which time she was already advocating on behalf of poor students and workers.(8) Although born to a middle-class family, Parent exhibited none of the noblesse oblige spirit that characterized many nineteenth-century social “purity” movements. Rather, genuine socialist influence is much more evident in Parent’s motivation to help underprivileged people (along with perhaps a hint of danger-seeking). As Sangster has noted, “She believed that class conflict was an ongoing reality in capitalist society.”(9) Parent recalled in an interview that “I wanted to work with working people, especially with factory, blue-collar workers. I realized that if I did not organize I would be limited to a secretarial job or a technical job … I did not want that.”(10) Her discourse after 1983 uses an abundance of early socialist language. Especially interesting is her skill in blending it with feminist concerns. For example, she wrote that “I am privileged to be involved with those who are helping to build a society where people’s needs and interests take precedence over the profit-making interests of a privileged few … [I have spent] thousands of hours at plant gates, in all kinds of weather and at all hours, [where] generations of women toiled and often fought for justice in heroic battles.”(11) Fighting for justice; heroic battles; toiling workers; “building” a new society; antipathy to “the profit-making interests of a privileged few” – these are all hallmarks of early Soviet rhetoric. Yet the actors in these class struggles are both gendered and racialized. They are personalized “women” – not the objectivized, dynamic historical force which Marx and Lenin called the “proletariat”. Parent’s discourse is thus often coloured equally by its feminist and anti-capitalist outlook. Parent also recalls of her formative years: “On Sunday mornings they [women workers] sat in church listening to sermons about ‘women’s place’; on Sunday evenings they went to strikers’ rallies; on Monday mornings at plant-gates they took on police, company goons and strike-breakers.”(12) Again we see Parent deftly using the language of proletariat solidarity, but spun with a feminist yarn. If, for Marx and most socialists, the “exploited class” refers to an un-gendered working class – those labourers who produce the goods but do not control the means of production – for Madeleine Parent particular emphasis is placed on the exploitation of women within the unfettered capitalist system – thus her frequent references to “women workers”.
There is a tactical reason for including “women workers” in unions, rather than organizing women-only unions. To do otherwise would only be “dividing the ranks of the working people.”(13) Thus, instead of organizing separate women’s unions, Parent preferred to establish Women’s Committees within existing unions, mostly to “address the issues of particular concern for their gender,”(14) including maternity leave and equal pay etc. It is a means by which the working class can demonstrate solidarity without establishing a class divide within unions based on gender and aggravated by racial or religious divides. Men must not exploit the women in their unions; democracy must prevail over male domination. This domination, and the struggle against it, is frequently framed in terms reminiscent of class struggle. “The active participation of women workers and of wives of the men in union struggles was bitterly contested by church, government and employers”, she recalls.(15) In this analysis “women workers” represent the exploited proletariat, while the combined institutions of “church, government and employers” represent essentially a single privileged class with common interests. That is, Duplessis’ “church, government and employers” did not want their subservient class of women becoming educated, getting high ideas, and agitating for rights and freedoms.
The socialist-leaning Parent had been red-baited since the Duplessis era.(16) Premier Duplessis took a personal interest in seeing her convicted of “seditious conspiracy” for her role in the 1946 Valleyfield strikes. There was even a rumor in this McCarthyist era that Parent was a Russian-born agitator smuggled into Canada aboard a secret Soviet submarine.(17) An American pamphlet dubbed her “Dame Vladimir, alias Vladimir Bjarnason,”(18) in reference to her first husband’s Scandinavian name. By 1983, of course, Parent was no longer under assault by Cold War hysteria. But it is easy to understand why she was once red-baited: we have seen how she made her an excellent target (even after 1983).
To Parent, there was little or no fundamental difference between the issues facing textile workers in 1946, and, say, public-sector workers in 1970 or 1990. Thus, she explains, “There is a continuity and an interconnection in our struggles for justice throughout the decades. Quebec working people who organized and fought in strikes in the 1940s and 1950s, in the face of Premier Duplessis’ repressive regime, were the mothers and fathers of proud children who grew up to build the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, with its vast social and educational reforms.”(19) These “social and educational” priorities were valorized far above economic incentives. Highly developed social programs represented hard-fought victories and were not to be squandered.
Social justice under attack:
In the mid to late 1980s, however, many on the left feared just this outcome. Neoliberal views were becoming institutionalized in the UK and US, with Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives not far behind in Canada. Canada, like other Western democracies, witnessed during the 1980s “the emergence and entrenchment of a neoliberal political-economic imaginary.”(20) The 1984 MacDonald Commission argued that the best means of developing the Canadian economy was to make a leap from Trudeau-era nationalism and interventionism, to a neoliberal model with free trade with the U.S. as its cornerstone.(21) Economic efficiency replaced social justice as a government priority, especially after Mulroney’s victory in the 1988 election. Turner, the Liberal contender in both 1984 and 1988, campaigned against this neoliberal shift, embodied in the Free Trade Act (FTA). He famously stated, “It’s not a trade deal – it’s the Sale of Canada Act”. Rhetoric flared: “I will not let Brian Mulroney sell out our sovereignty … I believe that Canadians are not going to vote for Brian Mulroney, a man who would be governor of a 51st state.”(22)Voters did however, and Turner lost. The Mulroney government continued to promote such neoliberal bulwarks as deregulation, privatization, reducing the deficit, and especially, the “removal of barriers to foreign economic penetration.”(23) The FTA and the NAFTA, it must be noted, are always counted among Mulroney’s most important legacies. As a Tory minister jubilantly explained: “We are open for business again.”(24) The Conservatives’ policies were a “positive signal.”(25)Business was the era’s driving force, and workers’ rights took a backseat.
Madeleine Parent did not see the “positive” in neoliberalism. As we will see, she remained a stalwart supporter of social justice throughout the Mulroney era’s deep suspicion towards non-economic, social goals. It is difficult to exaggerate the division among Canadians. As Calvert points out, “One of the most critical concerns of Canadians during the 1988 free-trade election was whether Canada’s cherished social programs would be undermined by free trade.”(26) On the one hand, proponents of free trade argued that NAFTA would strengthen the economy, and “a stronger, more prosperous economy would have a more solid tax base and be able to generate the money needed to maintain – indeed improve – our public and social services.”(27) The FTA and NAFTA had its fair share of skeptics, however. They argued that neoliberal globalization would force Canada to eliminate much of its social security net in a desperate bid to become more economically competitive with the U.S. Calvert himself argues that the FTA and the NAFTA were less about “trade in the conventional sense”, and more about the protection of “corporate interests”, specifically “the commercialization of our society”. It was a transformation in which “a wide variety of public programs and institutions” became expendable “commodities.”(28) Such critics portrayed Mulroney’s “scheme” to “harmonize” Canada’s social services with those of the US as draconian and unnecessary.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, co-founded by Parent in 1971, and largely under her influence thereafter, opposed free trade consistently from 1984. It argued that free trade would damage Canadian sovereignty generally and Canadian women particularly.(29) A monthly bulletin ran the following anti-NAFTA (ALENA in French) headline: “L’ALÉNA: UNE MENACE POUR LES FEMMES.”(30) The bulletin denounced “[l’] effort pour faire concorder notre système d’assurance chômage avec celui des états-unis” (‘the effort to harmonize our unemployment system with the U.S. model’). The bulletin projected a general decrease in healthcare and environmentalist standards, in job security, unemployment insurance; it would cause an increase in the price of medication; and it would give the U.S. free reign over the Canadian federal and provincial governments. It called, before anything, for “débat democratique” – an implied charge of authoritarianism levelled at Mulroney`s Conservatives. Conservatives were frequently accused of “ram[ming] controversial employment insurance reforms through Parliament”, in the words of a Globe and Mail article.(31) The Globe and Mail pointed out that Senate committee hearings for a proposed bill (Bill C-113) took four hours to complete; “by comparison, an investigative committee reviewing the movie The Valour and the Horror took nearly eight working days”. Parent was moved by this argument, having followed Parliamentary proceedings herself. Her letter to Senator Jacques Hébert, in Ottawa, deplored the undemocratic measures taken by the government. She points out that the hearings took place during the comparatively-deserted summer recess; that many members were “agressif” to the point of actually silencing oppositional testimony during hearings; and that these hearings were “trop courtes” (‘much too brief’).(32)
We have already seen the importance Parent ascribes to proper democratic procedure, manifested in her conviction that Women’s Committees are necessary to ensure democratic debate within male-dominated unions. This demonstrates Parent’s neo-pluralistic view of politics: everyone benefits when traditionally marginalized people form interest groups. Parent therefore advocated on behalf of many immigrant groups, as well as women and workers. Compiling a list of five major contributions made by Parent as part of “her legacy to labour history”, Sangster selects Parent’s long commitment to organizing the unorganized as the first item in her discussion.(33) If this commitment does not spell out neo-pluralism, surely nothing will.
Unemployment Insurance reforms and free trade:
Unemployment Insurance (UI) reforms constituted an important bone of contention in the emerging neoliberal era. Calvert characterizes Mulroney’s reforms as a “systematic attack on Canada’s UI system.”(34) Bills C-21 and C-113 (which replaced C-105) were designed to provide considerably less in payouts to UI recipientsby cutting their benefits and making it more difficult to qualify for handouts. Savings were projected in the billions. The NAC advocated against these bills. They maintained that because the job market was heavily gendered, these bills, like the FTA and NAFTA, would have a disproportionate effect on women, many of whom were already forced into exploitative and abusive jobs. Although the 1988 election results prove that theirs was the minority view, it was a vocal minority: Mulroney was not only opposed by feminists and syndicalists like Parent, but also by virtually anyone who feared his neoliberal, globalization policies. A pamphlet called “The Americanization of Unemployment Insurance” argued that Mulroney would ultimately reduce Canadian welfare standards to U.S. standards – making our system “1/10th as good as the one we have now.”(35) Another pamphlet advocated for a coming protest against Bill C-21, declaring, succinctly, “Combattons le chômage, pas ses victims!” (‘Let`s fight unemployment, not its victims!’).(36)
Parent herself argued that the NAFTA would lead to a drastic reduction in Canadian social security standards, because in harmonizing its economic objectives with those of the U.S., the Canadian people would ultimately be forced to abandon many of the welfare policies they spent “half a century” building, all of it “au nom de la competivité” (‘for the sake of economic competitiveness’). She pointed out the disadvantage to Canada of the trade agreement: Canada’s social system is already far superior to that of the U.S., and is moreover sustainable – but would not remain so under NAFTA. The agreement would allow American corporations to effectively colonize both Canada and Mexico economically – “deux pays de moindre poids” (‘both countries having less clout’). Proponents of the Conservatives reforms, as we have seen, stressed the need to reduce the deficit by means of reigning in spending. Parent ridiculed this argument by pointing to recent increases in the defense budget. As a peace activist, this discrepancy was far from being justified in her eyes. Her conclusion: “Il est donc urgent que le mouvement populaire et syndical revendique le rejet de l’ALÉNA et l’abrogation de l’accord de libre-échange actuel avec les ÉU, si nous voulons protéger ce que nous reste de leviers économiques.” (‘It is therefore urgent that popular movements and unions push for rejection of NAFTA and abrogate the free trade agreement with the US, if we are going to protect whatever economic leverage we still have’).(37) The conviction in worker’s rights to decent social programs was inseparable from the fate of the nation.
Parent highlights the particular plight of “les femmes victimes de harcèlement sexuel dans un milieu de travail non syndiqué” (‘non-unionized sexually harassed women’).(38) These women, it is implied, are often left with no choice but to simply quit their stressful and abusive jobs; they would then, under Mulroney’s bills, not receive fair compensation. Parent exhibits an intimate knowledge of the realities of the working-class job market, by citing real situations – thus implying that the government is out of touch with such realities. To take one example: when a poor women finally quits her job working for an abusive boss, “ce patron ne lui donnera jamais une bonne recommendation pour son prochain emploi … ceci la met dans une situation désavantageuse sur le marche du travail” (‘her ex-boss certainly would never give her a good recommendation … automatically putting her in an unfair disadvantage on the job market’).(39) This is just one example of how Mulroney’s neoliberal paradigm would adversely affect women workers.
The article continues: “Mme Parent a rappelé aux parlementaires que le déficit de la caisse d’asssurance-chômage n’était pas dû à la fraude mais à un trop grand nombre de personnes sans emploi” (‘Mrs. Parent reminded Members of Parliament that any deficit incurred by unemployment handouts was not the result of fraud but of the sheer number of unemployed’).(40) Financial conservatives often bemoan the abuse of social safety nets by fraudsters and good-for-nothings. However, the sheer number of UI claimants meant something quite different to Parent and other Mulroney critics. They tended to blame the unemployment crisis on Mulroney’s fiscal policies of deregulation and privatization etc. This “reminder” from Madeleine Parent is a request to rethink or preferably scrap bills like C-21 or C-113: the government should focus less on punishing any UI fraudsters, and more on reducing their numbers, by tackling unemployment more productively. For Parent, the potential benefits of a globalized economy were subordinated to the importance of protecting workers’ rights at home.
Parent’s keen nationalist sense of Canadian autonomy from global economic imperialism did not make her a jingoist, however. The “evils of imperialism, capitalism, and patriarchy” transcend national boundaries, and so did Parent; as Levesque has said, she “never stopped denouncing all forms of capitalist exploitation, siding with the oppressed and the marginalised.”(41) Parent, 84, gave the keynote address at the 50th anniversary and memorial concert for Paul Robeson’s famed 1952 concert under the Peace Arch in British Columbia, at the U.S. border. Robeson, like Parent, was blacklisted during the Cold War, and saw his income drop drastically as a result. His passport was also revoked by the U.S. His famed 1952 concert was the direct result of government intransigence: the authorities would not allow him to enter the U.S. to play a scheduled gig. In the end 40,000 people, spread out on both sides of the border, attended Robeson’s 1952 show. Robeson performed from the back of a flatbed truck parked one foot South of the border, as a show of defiance.
Parent’s address in 2002 is revealing of her own outlook. Robeson, she notes, “extended his solidarity to all others who suffered injustice” – the same reason Parent is a respected figure today. Her address touched on peace in the Middle East, Israeli aggression in Palestine, the war mongering of the Bush administration, themes of anti-globalization and anti-privatization, the right to clean drinking water, solidarity with native communities, and the plight of third-world countries. She denounced U.S. dominance of the Canadian military, not because it subverted Canadian sovereignty, but rather because it would “lead only to more control over all of us by the hawks.”(42) All these issues transcended cultural divides for her. She made explicit this view in a different speech. If only, she said, the real issues were better communicated outside regional areas, then Ontarians could expect that “more people from Quebec would cross the Ottawa river to join you in protest on Parliament hill.”(43)
Parent wrote: “I believe young women of all origins and circumstances will continue the struggle in their own way, building coalitions with their sisters around the world and with men who care. They will overcome.”(44) Historical developments like neoliberalism, economic globalization, violence in the Middle East – these had all broadened Parent’s outlook. In her “retirement” she came to fully appreciate a more internationalist viewpoint. She did so without sacrificing those core aspects of her Quebecois and Canadian identity that had been “disparaged and ridiculed” when she and Kent Rowley formed the Confederation of Canadian Unions.(45) She always clamoured to work with similar protest groups based in English Canada and Mexico. A letter written by Parent referred to ‘une solidarité agissante dans un combat commun contre les nouvelles vises de domination colonialist à l’échelle des amériques des grandes societés’ (‘solidarity in a common struggle against new forms of colonialist domination on a continental scale’).(46) She understood that for all its great “struggles”, society was never quite perfect. “New” challenges and difficulties will always be waiting around the corner, for women, for the marginalized – for all working people suffering “domination”. In 1991 Parent was honoured by the Canadian Labour Hall of Fame. She signed her acceptance letter, “yours in solidarity.”(47)
1. Sangster, Joan. “Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree for Madeline Parent”, in Labour/Le Travail, Vol. 45, (Spring, 2000). 352.
2. Ibid, 352.
4. Luxton, Meg. “Feminism as a Class Act: Working-Class Feminism and the Women’s Movement in Canada”, in Labour / Le Travail, Vol. 48, (Fall, 2001). 66.
5. Ibid, 66.
6. Ibid, 71.
7. Sangster, Joan. “Historical Legacies”, in Labour/Le Travail, Issue 70 (Fall 2012). 197.
8. Salutin, Rick. “Madeleine Parent, 1918-2012: Death of an icon”. Editorial Opinion, published 15/03/2012. The Toronto Star. Retrieved 02/04/2014. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/03/15/madeleine_parent_19182012_death_of_an_icon.html.
10. qtd. in “Interview with Madeleine Parent”. Studies in Political Economy, Vol.30 (1989). Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
11. Correspondence from Madeleine Parent. “Letter to Pamela Harris”. 1991. File 2009.0074.01.481. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
12. article written in 09/1992. File 2009.0074.01.481. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
13. “Interview with Madeleine Parent”. File 2009.0074.01.481. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
15. Letter. 1991.
16. Sangster, 197.
17. Salutin. 2012.
18. Qtd. in Sangster, 195.
19. “Letter to Pamela Harris”. 1991. File 2009.0074.01.481. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
20. Swarts, 102.
21. Ibid, 107.
22. Qtd. in Litt, Paul. Elusive Destiny: The Political Vocation of John Napier Turner. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2011. 372.
23. Swarts, 103.
24. Qtd. in Swarts, 105.
25. Ibid, 105.
26. Calvert, John. Pandora’s Box: Corporate Power, Free Trade and Canadian Education. Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation, 1993. 150.
27. Ibid, 151.
28. Ibid, 152-53.
29. Porter, Ann. “Contained and Redefined: Women’s Issues in the Mulroney Era”, in Blake, Raymond, ed. Transforming the Nation: Canada and Brian Mulroney. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007. 184.
30. NAC bulletin appearing 02/02/1993: vol.3, no.2. File 2009.0074.01.482. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
31. “Tories ram through UI reforms”. Originally appearing April 2 1993. File 2009.0074.493. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
32. Correspondence from Madeleine Parent. File 2009.0074.01.481. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
33. Sangster, 194.
34. Calvert, 174, footnote 14.
35. “The Americanization of Unemployment Insurance”. File 2009.0074.01.684. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
36. “Montreal protest flyer”. File 2009.0074.01.684. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
37. Correspondence from Madeleine Parent. File 2009.0074.01.481. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
38. qtd. in a LaPresse article by Manon Cornellier appearing 16/03/1993. File 2009.0074.01.684. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
41. Levesque, 191.
42. “Keynote Address of Robeson 50th anniversary concert”. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives. Also available via jStor.
43. Unlabeled speech. File 2009.0074.688. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
44. Qtd. in a book review for Faces of Feminism, retrieved from the Montreal Gazette 01/25/1998. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
45. Sangster, 197.
46. Correspondence from Madeleine Parent. 1993. File 2009.0074.01.481. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
47. Correspondence from Madeleine Parent. File 2009.0074.01.482. Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives.
Bibliography of Secondary Sources:
Armstrong, Pat, & Connelly, M. Patricia. “Feminist Political Economy: An Introduction.” Studies in Political Economy Vol.30 (Autumn 1989). 1-8.
Calvert, John. Pandora’s Box: Corporate Power, Free Trade and Canadian Education. Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation, 1993. Accessed via Google Books, 02/04/2014.
“Interview with Madeleine Parent”. Studies in Political Economy, Vol.30 (1989). 13-36.
Lewis, Timothy. In the Long Run We’re All Dead: The Canadian Turn to Fiscal Restraint. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2003. Accessed via Google Books.
Levesque, Andree, ed. Madeleine Parent: Activist. Toronto: Sumach Press, 2005. Accessed through WorldCat Database. 02/04/2014.
Articles appearing in Labour/Le Travail, Issue 70 (Fall 2012). 187-199. Accessed via Muse. URL: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/labour_le_travail/toc/llt.70.html.
Palmer, Brian D. “Madeleine Parent (1918-2012): Introduction”. 187-189.
Levesque, Andree. “A Life of Struggles”. 198-192.
Sangster, Joan. “Historical Legacies”. 192-199.
Litt, Paul. Elusive Destiny: The Political Vocation of John Napier Turner. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2011. 372.
Luxton, Meg. “Feminism as a Class Act: Working-Class Feminism and the Women’s Movement in Canada”, in Labour / Le Travail, Vol. 48, (Fall, 2001), pp. 63-88.
Porter, Ann. “Contained and Redefined: Women’s Issues in the Mulroney Era”, in Blake, Raymond, ed. Transforming the Nation: Canada and Brian Mulroney. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007.
Sangster, Joan. “Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree for Madeline Parent”, in Labour/Le Travail, Vol. 45, (Spring, 2000). 349-353. Accessed via JStor.
Salutin, Rick. “Madeleine Parent, 1918-2012: Death of an icon”. Editorial Opinion, published 15/03/2012. The Toronto Star. Retrieved 02/04/2014. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/03/15/madeleine_parent_19182012_death_of_an_icon.html.
Swarts, Jonathan. Constructing Neoliberalism: Economic Transformation in Anglo-American Democracies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. Accessed via Google Books 02/04/2014.
Bibliography of Primary Sources:
Madeleine Parent Fonds. McGill University Archives. Documents from boxes 16, 23 & 35 retrieved 03/2014. See footnotes for file numbers. Sangster, Joan. “Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree for Madeline Parent”, in Labour/Le Travail, Vol. 45, (Spring, 2000). 352.