Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a thought on violence against children, a painful reality I have often been confronted with in my profession.

Even if our instinctive reaction of outrage tends to overshadow everything else when we are confronted with such unacceptable tragedies, I have learned from experience to read in this violence the signs of a society which is out of balance, a society in which social expectations of performance at any cost, family isolation, financial difficulties and psychological deficiencies play a major role. These are sick families.

As Fairholm wrote in a book published in 1990 and entitled "Child Abuse Prevention Program for Adolescents", children of all ages are abused. In every social, economic, racial and ethnic environment, there are adults abusing children under their care. All families and all children are vulnerable to this problem. Psychological violence is at the root of all forms of abuse or negligence, but we do not know how common physical neglect actually is. Is such ignorance tolerable? I do not think so.

In conclusion, I would like to go back to the events of December 6, 1989, exactly five years ago today. A light late afternoon snow is falling on the city, when horror suddenly strikes: 14 young women are gone forever, robbed of a promising future.

This tragedy affected me personally because I knew one of the victims; her name was Anne-Marie. In memory of all her sisters, I laid 14 white lilies near her grave. I thought for a moment of adding a red rose dedicated to Marc Lépine's mother, but I decided against it because the violence done to this woman in the evening of December 6 was beyond imagination. This woman died deep in her soul.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before expressing my views on this issue, I want to say that I regret that the Official Opposition was only informed yesterday of the motion tabled this morning in the House. I do hope that this late notice does not reflect a lack of concern by our society on the issue of violence against women.

It is with sadness, dismay and pain that I participate in this debate to commemorate the tragedy which occurred on December 6, 1989.

In Quebec, as well as in Canada, that tragedy put the issue of violence against women in the limelight. This episode, more than any other, forced our society to stop and think. Experts in every possible field analyzed the whys and wherefores of such horror. However, the answers are neither simple nor clear. Our society is suffering, and the result is that women and children are often the victims of violence triggered by this unhappiness and malaise.

More often than not, violence is insidious, sneaky and imperceptible from the outside. At other times however, it can be visible, unbearable, terrifying and very concrete.

Statistical data cannot accurately measure psychological violence. It is a form of communication between the tormentor and the victim which undermines the soul and kills self-esteem. In fact, even though current data on physical violence is overwhelming, it only represents the tip of the iceberg.

Just recently, in 1993, Statistics Canada gathered the following information: One woman out of two was a victim of at least

one violent act since the age of 16; one in ten who lived with a spouse feared, at one time or another, for her life.

Other statistics released in 1991 by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women provide a clear and hard picture of the plight of those women who live in poverty.

In 1989, eight out of every ten women living on reserves in Ontario were victims of violence. In 1989, eight out of ten women inmates of federal penitentiaries had been abused before their incarceration. In 1989, four out of ten women with disabilities had been abused or raped. While weakness should spontaneously generate an attitude of protection and help, we observe paradoxical behaviour. The weakest are at the highest risk of violent treatment. How can this troubling reality be explained?

In a document on spousal violence and its effects on children, Beth Allen bore out the theory that children from violent homes are at greater risk of committing, or being the victims of acts of violence. It is as if witnessing violent behaviour causes violence to be incorporated in the behaviour pattern of the child who witnesses such violence.

While some may learn violent behaviour at home, the role played by mass media in trivializing this violence cannot be denied. Even the most horrible things end up losing any meaning when you are exposed to them every day. You become indifferent to the horror. Parliament has a major responsibility in this regard. Today, on the eve of the third millennium, do victims of violence speak more freely of the abuse they suffer?

It is currently estimated that one out of every four women who fall victim to violence will report these acts of violence to the police. Other figures are much more conservative, as they indicate that one woman in ten would report it. Perhaps these figures are more accurate. At any rate, fear and silence go hand in hand. Is this society prepared to let battered women be heard? The question has been put, but I am afraid that the answer is no.

In 1991, 270 women were murdered in Canada, a 33 per cent increase over 1988; 85 of these women were shot dead. Thirty per cent of women slain in Canada and Quebec in 1991 were slain with firearms which were generally used against them by people they knew. While the women of Quebec and Canada were confidently expecting a fair and reasonable gun control bill to be tabled, the Minister of Justice announced in a ministerial statement made on November 30, that we will have to wait until 1998 for the registration of firearms to start and until 2003 for it to be completed.

Mr. Speaker, I put the question to you: can this society afford to wait? Do these women have the time to wait? I am sorry that this government is not prepared to let women victims of violence be heard.

Let me tell you about another form of violence. I will do so in English. It should be painfully slow, as I am already a slow reader in French.

Generally, when we speak of violence against women we focus on physical and psychological damage inflicted by one individual against another. However, what of the more insidious ways in which women are subjugated? The wounds inflicted by society and borne silently can be felt as keenly as physical blows.

Allow me to illustrate my point with an example. There is a new medical industry in Canada growing and developing with a life of its own. A full year after the final report of the royal commission on new reproductive technologies, the federal government has not introduced a single measure to regulate the use or further development of these new technologies. As a result, we see women at Toronto's IVF Canada clinic selling their eggs to pay for expensive and unproven fertility treatments. We see women desperate for money renting out their wombs in surrogacy arrangements.

This is exploitation in its worst form because the federal government, I regret sincerely, turns a blind eye to it. Just as violence against women is the abuse of physical or psychological power, the exploitation of women's reproductive capabilities is the abuse of economic and political power. By not acting swiftly to regulate this industry and to put a halt to the most exploitive and ethically abhorrent new reproductive technologies, the federal government is demonstrating complacency in the form of violence against women. This lack of action can no longer be tolerated by the women of Quebec and Canada.

I will continue later.

[Leader Of The Official Opposition, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Lucien Bouchard, our leader and our friend, is right now engaged in a human drama, the intensity of which we can scarcely imagine. We are powerless before this tragic event and must rely completely on medicine and on providence.

But we want him to know that we are all with him in spirit, that our thoughts and our energies accompany him. All the members of this House, and the members of the Bloc Quebecois in particular, wish to express their support to his family, especially his mother, his wife Audrey and his two children, Alexandre and Simon. Lucien Bouchard is a man who has devoted all his energy and all his talent to the cause of the people of Quebec and today, in his personal struggle, the people of Quebec are behind him.

[Reproductive Technologies, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think that blaming the government's delay in introducing a bill on the commission's own two-year delay in tabling its report is a pretty poor excuse. Is the minister aware that by delaying the introduction of his bill, he makes it even more difficult, if not impossible, to counter abuses in research on human embryos and to prevent the sale of ova and foetal tissue on the black market?

[Reproductive Technologies, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On November 30, 1993, exactly a year ago today, the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies published its final report after studying the issue for four years and spending over $28 million. We are still waiting patiently for the federal government to respond to the commission's recommendations.

How can the Minister of Justice explain that, one year after the Baird report was tabled, he still has not introduced a bill to regulate reproductive technologies, research on human embryos as well as the sale of ova and human foetal tissue in Canada?

[Lester B. Pearson Act, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to support Bill C-276, An Act respecting Lester B. Pearson Day. This is a perfect opportunity to take a look at the life and career of an illustrious man, who was Prime Minister of Canada from 1963 to 1968, and who made a remarkable contribution to Canadian diplomacy.

After a brief military career, Mr. Pearson joined the diplomatic circuit. It is there that, from 1935 to 1946, he developed his exceptional skills in foreign policy and gained a solid reputation at the international level. After being Deputy Minister in 1946, and then Minister of External Affairs in 1948, Lester B. Pearson was well prepared to face the new challenges which awaited Canada in the post-war era.

As the architect of the new Canadian foreign policy, he helped our country gain full status at the international level. The long tradition of Canada as a passive observer on the international scene was over. After the Second World War, our country had become a middle power. Pearson understood more than anyone else that Canada had to adopt a distinct and more independent foreign policy with its traditional partners, Great Britain and the United States.

Consequently, he opened the door to multilateralism and imposed an expansionist vision of Canadian foreign policy. This resulted in Canada joining and actively participating in new international organizations such as the UN. For a peace proponent like Pearson, Canada's involvement in such an organization was crucial for his foreign policy.

However, there were limits to what the United Nations could do. Taking into consideration the Cold War and the fact that no international authority could ensure order and stability on a world-wide basis, Pearson, then deputy minister of External Affairs, believed that Canada needed to join forces with its strategic allies under a collective defence pact. Pearson thought that, by signing the North Atlantic Treaty, Canada's security needs were being met, but also that NATO would become a deterrent and a defence instrument against Soviet imperialism.

Guided by an international vision quite rare in North America at that time and having taken stock of the events in Prague in 1948, Mr. Pearson unreservedly supported the creation of this organization in 1949. However, the North Atlantic Treaty remains a regional agreement. Since 1945, international relations have been marked by new forms of violence. All of the ideological confrontations between the super-powers and the decolonization process, led to many conflicts throughout the world.

Obviously, the Charter of the United Nations cannot prevent war, since the veto of the five superpowers sitting on the Security Council limits the scope of the activities of the international community. To counter the powerlessness of the only agency of the United Nations authorized to use coercion to settle international conflicts, the General Assembly passed a resolution concerning peacekeeping in 1950.

In 1956, during the Suez Canal crisis, Mr. Pearson proposed that a peacekeeping force be set up. The UN having implemented his recommendation, Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957. In fact, he had provided the United Nations with a new response capability. As a result of his international reputation, Lester B. Pearson was twice approached to fill the prestige position of Secretary General of the United Nations. In 1952, he had been president of the UN General Assembly, playing a pivotal role in the creation of specialized agencies like the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

During his term as Prime Minister, when decolonization and the emerging non-aligned movement were important elements on the international scene, Pearson became known as an eminent artisan of the North-South dialogue. He was in favour of an open policy vis-à-vis the Third World and enjoyed a privileged relationship with leaders like Nehru.

His vision of Canada and the federal system would reflect the same open attitude. Pearson was on very good terms with Quebec and the other provinces during his first mandate.

It was the time of the Quiet Revolution, as the Quebec nation State was emerging. Political leaders in Quebec were developing the tools the new State would need to affirm its right to exist. Quebec was to recover jurisdictions recognized in the Constitution Act, 1867, but never claimed by Canada's provinces.

At the time, Pearson agreed that Quebec was justified in its insistence on some of these rights, and until 1965, he was on excellent terms with his Quebec counterparts, so that negotiations with the province were relatively harmonious.

Pearson was in favour of co-operative federalism and, to show that he meant what he said, after he won the election in 1963, he appointed the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on Official Languages. Under his government, federal-provincial negotiations led to a number of administrative agreements and also, although there were some problems, to the creation of the Quebec Pension Plan and the Caisse de dépôt et de placement.

It is hard to understand the complete reversal in Mr. Pearson's attitude to Quebec during his second term. He went so far as to deny Quebec's international personality and to see the province's attempts to create ties with other nations as those of a rebellious province intent on usurping powers that he felt were exclusive to the federal government.

It is amazing that this passionate defender of decolonization throughout the world was so unwilling to entertain Quebec's aspirations. What made him suddenly become impervious to the legitimate demands of a province that wanted to claim the jurisdictions to which it was entitled? Some attribute this to the rise of the indépendantiste movement in Quebec or to new constitutional demands being made by Quebec leaders. At the time, it was Daniel Johnson, with his "Égalité ou indépendance". Some say it was due to the increasing influence of Trudeau, Marchand and other members of his cabinet.

After Lester B. Pearson, Canada-Quebec relations were never again as harmonious as they were before. After the Victoria fiasco, the night of the long knives in 1982 was to lead to Meech and Charlottetown. Despite some shadow areas, Lester B. Pearson was a man of great stature, that is how Canadians and Quebecers remember him. However, it is unfortunate that his successors either failed or refused to continue his tradition of openness and his conciliatory approach.

We can only hope that Lester B. Pearson Day will remind men and women in Quebec and Canada that openness and respect for diversity are qualities that are essential to the individual and the national maturity.

[Air Safety, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House whether the control measures contemplated include surprise inspections by his department. Should carriers that pose a risk not be placed under the direct supervision of Transport Canada?

[Air Safety, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

On October 28, the Official Opposition called the minister's attention to excerpts of a Transport Canada's inspection report in which major irregularities were noted with respect to the maintenance control system for aircraft owned by Royal Aviation Inc.

The minister was to look into the situation and take corrective action. Now that he has had the time to look into this situation, does the minister not agree that this carrier's maintenance control program is totally inadequate? And can he tell us what steps were taken to remedy the situation?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the reorganization proposed in Bill C-53 to make the Department of Canadian Heritage a promoter of Canadian culture from coast to coast is in fact a direct attack by the federal government on Quebec's specificity, in terms of its culture, language and cultural institutions.

This is evidenced by the inclusion of the Canadian culture in Canada's new foreign policy and it demonstrates once again the growing desire of the federal government to marginalize Quebec's specificity by imposing an all encompassing Canadian multiculturalism. This desire was very clearly expressed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage in his speech on Bill C-53, when he said: "We hope to rally the mighty forces of multiculturalism behind a cultural identity that is uniquely Canadian".

The objective is clear. Since the only references made in that speech to French culture in Canada concern the official languages and TV5, we have to conclude that the government feels it must absolutely manage to bring not only Quebec culture but also native culture into the supposedly ideal context of multiculturalism, considering the ever present and ever powerful American culture.

In such a context, you can easily imagine that the Official Opposition feels it would be suicidal to support Bill C-53.

In spite of the noble statements made by the minister, a man of letters if there ever was, how can the Canadian Parliament not be concerned to see today's culture, including our authors and creative artists-what I would call heritage in the making-be considered like an industry such as steel, footwear or poultry?

For example, who will have the last word on the review of the Copyright Act? The Minister of Industry or the Minister of Canadian Heritage? Chances are that the Minister of Industry will keep the powers already vested in him, since nothing in Bill C-53 clearly states how responsibilities are to be divided between the two departments.

Here is another example that should ring an alarm bell in this House. Thanks to the information highway, communications will soon reach a speed of Mach 2. Is it reasonable to reduce the whole issue to the marketing of fibre optics?

Yet, that is the conclusion we must reach since the Minister of Industry will be the one in charge. They are thus refusing to admit that the major technological revolution generated by the information highway will no doubt transform global culture quickly and dramatically.

It is often said that war is too serious to be left to generals. Could it be that a society's culture is too precious to be left to technocrats and businessmen?

I think that Quebec culture is too precious to be left in the hands of the federal government. The state of Quebec must be the only authority responsible for Quebec culture.

Quebec's historical demands in the field of culture have always been based on the recognition of its specific identity and on the desire of the Quebec government to be the only one in charge of promoting and defending Quebec culture. Examples of this political will are not lacking. In 1966, at a meeting on Canada's tax system, Premier Johnson said that Quebec must be the master of its decisions concerning cultural development.

In 1969, Premier Bertrand said that cultural affairs were in Quebec's jurisdiction. In 1973, under Robert Bourassa, Quebec wanted to take back control of all cultural policy, including the federal funding for it. In 1976, Quebec proposed that each province alone legislate on issues concerning the arts, literature and cultural heritage.

More recently, in 1991, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission mentioned the need for Quebec to have exclusive jurisdiction and responsibility for social, economic and cultural development. The same year, the Arpin Report, commissioned by the Quebec government at that time, said this: "We can conclude that overlap between the two levels of government clearly exists in terms of structures, programs, target groups and even legislation and fiscal measures. . . Harmonizing the action of the two levels of government has always been difficult. The federal government never wanted to recognize Quebec's precedence in cultural affairs".

For more than thirty years, the federal government, on the strength of its spending power, has meddled without any scruples in culture. The purpose of these incursions was clearly to downplay the impact of Quebec culture. The result has been to

promote duplication and overlap, while making the arts community dependent on federal largesse.

The federal cultural offensive reflected in Bill C-53 is only the tip of the iceberg. Consider the report of the Special Joint Committee reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy, which confirms Ottawa's resolve to subject Quebec culture to federal standards.

The dissenting report tabled by the Official Opposition condemns this attempt by the federal government to dilute Quebec's distinct identity by stirring it into a Canadian sauce of bilingualism and multiculturalism. Clearly, the sauce makes the dish.

The Official Opposition maintains, and I quote: "Where culture is concerned, the direction of Canada's foreign policy, as prescribed in the majority report, is based on the theory of a single nation, one single culture (so-called Canadian culture), and the resulting requirement that all the provinces must have equal status".

To the Official Opposition, it is clear that "the principles of bilingualism and multiculturalism, which form the political bases for defining so-called Canadian culture, have the effect of denying the existence of Quebec culture, which is original and which developed essentially from its French origins, with contributions from the British, the aboriginal peoples and, more recently, the various immigrant communities".

Quebec will never let its culture be beholden to the federal government. The Official Opposition vigorously condemns this blatant attempt to make Quebec subject to federal dictates.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a definite promise but unfortunately I will not be able to keep it since, of course, I will not be sitting in this Parliament long enough. However, I can promise you that the day a train will link Montreal to Ottawa in 45 minutes, I will be delighted to take it with all the others who will want to come to Ottawa.

A high-speed train in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor will naturally be used by people who live along that corridor. Now, that area has a population of ten million people, industrial areas and many industries. That project will create almost 130 000 jobs. It is no small matter. People who work pay income tax instead of receiving unemployment insurance; so this is actually something fundamental and if the government waits too long to act, I agree that some interests have to be protected, namely those of air carriers.

When a country is in such financial difficulties as Canada, we obviously have to make the choices that are the most advantageous from an economic point of view. When a mode of transportation costs 50 per cent less than transport by air, I think that option deserves to be considered.