Christiane Gagnon

[Social Program Reform, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Yesterday, the minister claimed that 96 per cent of Canadians supported an in-depth reform of social programs. The minister even had the nerve to claim that these 96 per cent supported his approach. However, he should know that Canadians do not support a social program reform which will be effected at the expense of the poor.

How can the minister claim that his reform is supported by a majority of Canadians when over 80 women's groups, including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, clearly reject his UI reform because it is discriminatory and primarily targets women?

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, five years ago, the murder of 14 young women at l'École polytechnique in Montreal moved and troubled all Quebecers and Canadians. Physical, psychological and sexual violence in many homes, sexual harassment in the work place, incest and genital mutilation are only some manifestations of this violence that millions of women experience daily here and in other parts of the world.

To end this cycle of despair, we must use all the available legal and financial resources, promoting awareness campaigns and education in the broadest sense.

This sad anniversary is an invitation to all governments to step up their efforts so that the events of December 6, 1989 will never happen again.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have several things to say to this government, in response to the motion tabled in the House this morning. I have no doubts about the hon. member's sincerity, and I am sure that, as a woman, she is more than aware of the problem of violence against women.

There is no need to repeat the latest statistics ad nauseam. Everyone knows them. Statistics can shock and move us, and for a few moments we are upset. We have a spontaneous urge to say: Something has to be done. What are governments doing about this? It does not happen quite that way in real life. So many times we are filled with anger and sadness as we read in the papers that another woman was slain by her spouse or former spouse.

Most people feel helpless to do anything about this phenomenon, and most people, unfortunately, do not feel directly concerned, and I will get back to this.

The fact remains that violence against women is a social problem and that society elects governments to give leadership and ensure its collective well-being. Politicians are very much aware of their role in this respect. That is why during every election campaign, politicians reflect and analyse and make promises. Of course, no politician would dare promise to deal with violence, once and for all. However, since they are very aware of the public's expectations, they promise action and funding to renew the hopes and obtain the trust of the voters.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, politicians are usually sincere. What happens after election day? Consider the present situation as an example. Since the situation exists here and now, people cannot accuse us of distorting the truth or letting the passage of time colour our perceptions.

The present government was very well intentioned. Like everyone else, it analysed the situation and made promises. It promised to make eliminating violence one of its big priorities. It found ways to do this. It would launch a massive public awareness campaign against violence. It would promote a community-based approach. It would introduce strict gun controls. It would tighten the provisions of the Criminal Code in order to eliminate spousal violence.

All this has a very direct and very specific connection with violence against women. Some progress has been made. The government will say it did not make any direct cuts in funding for shelters for female victims of violence, while other budget items were cut by 5 per cent.

The government will also say it experimented with the use of community kits. On the whole, it will say it is aware of the problems experienced by women who are victims of violence.

However, it has overlooked a number of things. It forgot about all the recommendations of the committees wich examined this problem, and met thousands of women and hundreds of agencies that worked with victims of violence. It forgot that they all reached the same conclusion: violence will continue as long as women are not treated as men's equals. That is the real problem. Women are unanimous in this.

This government could take a step towards equality and recognize that women, who are directly concerned after all, are perfectly capable of identifying the source of their problems, the symptoms and the solutions. If this elusive equality is ever to be achieved, the government will have to start by trusting our abilities, at least in this area. Women are adults. To stop being victims, they must be recognized as equal to men and treated as such in every respect and by everyone, governments included. This sounds so simple and so obvious that I am sure many of my male colleagues are thinking: Equality is already a fact, so what are they complaining about? What else do they want?

The answer is just as simple: Women want equality, and the government must help them, which it promised to do but did not.

Equality means equal rights. It means equal social, human and economic rights. Equal social rights means that unemployed women are treated the same as their spouses and not like economic stopgaps who work just to be able to afford a few luxuries like a fur coat every five years. It means a woman has the right to work, study and participate fully in the labour market.

Equality will not happen with this government which is preparing to treat working women as second-class citizens who depend on their husbands for a living and for whom the country should not invest its precious resources.

Equality means studying without accumulating a debt for a lifetime, if and when you can get a loan, because it is not so easy for women to borrow. How does this government expect women to be equal if they have to rely on men financially and on their husbands' bank account in order to get a diploma? It seems absurd! But that is exactly what this government is suggesting

with its social reform. How on earth does the government intends to promote equality for women.

It is also hard to understand how this government can resort so much to rhetoric on equality and at the same time do so little to make it easier for mothers to have access to the workplace. Adequate day care services often are essential for women entering the labour market or taking occupational training. But what have they done in that area? They promised they would create thousands of new places in day care centres and even included this in the budget.

However, they robbed Peter to pay Paul. They made the creation of day care services conditional on the economic recovery. What a nice way to encourage job creation. What a perfect way to make sure women would stay home or rely on lower quality services for their children. This way, women can be accused of being bad mothers besides.

This government prefers to keep matters pending before the courts and pay their lawyers handsomely instead of paying their employees adequately and enabling them to improve their financial situation and become more self-sufficient.

Despite what women suggested, this government chose not to apply the Employment Equity Act to employees of Parliament, civil servants and employees of its many agencies and commissions and this same government talks about equality.

It is the same government which did not see the need to re-establish a committee which would thoroughly analyze problems experienced by women. How serious is the government about improving the living conditions of women, Madam Speaker? We have committees for everything, but not for promoting the cause of women. Fine proof of the real concerns of this government.

Equality also comes from fiscal justice, an area where the government does not really shine. How can it justify taking Mrs. Thibaudeau's case to the Supreme Court, when the decision brought some to parents, generally women, who receive support payments for their children. While the court was trying to restore some financial equity between the paying parent and the custodial parent, the Minister of Justice rushed to appeal, for fear of upsetting the Department of National Revenue. What a noble concern on the part of this government.

So women are left to fend for themselves. You will tell me that a committee is looking into the matter. Sure, and maybe in the same breath you will tell me that the committee will find solutions. The solutions are obvious to all, but the government spends its time and energy consulting. It is probably easier than taking action. Equality suffers, but who cares. The government's money is being saved and God knows that is the real priority.

Violence can take several forms.

It can be physical, and this is the most commonly recognized. It can psychological, and its consequences are just as severe, sometimes even more so. It could be financial and it could be emotional.

Whatever its form, violence is the result of inequality, whether physical or economical. It is the concrete expression of the perception that one person is worth less than the other, is not as important as the other one, in the eyes of society and the spouse.

To eliminate that perception, a tremendous amount of work must be done, first at the individual level, because that is where concrete results will be measured. However, as I said at the beginning, on the level of society as a whole, we need a government truly concerned about the problem, its consequences and root causes. All this government can do is make nice promises and hold public consultations. I urge it to take concrete action to help women achieve equality with men.

When I say equality, I mean equality across the board-social, personal, legal and financial equality. I mean a government which will take the concrete action needed to make equality between men and women possible and to impose it. Then we will see violence against women diminish some day.

I would like to tell you about an initiative taken in Quebec to mark the terrible tragedy that happened at the École Polytechnique. This initiative is co-sponsored by various communities: the business community, labour, the government, politicians, and associations.

I would like to read the message these Quebec partners signed. It is entitled "Never again".

December 6, 1989 will remain forever engraved in our collective memory. On that day, 14 young women lost their lives at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, gunned down by a murderer who hated women. Five years later, we must turn our minds to the devastated families and their pain, to the sadness and the anger that overcame all of us, men and women alike.

This tragic event shook our entire society. It revealed the truth that women are targets of violence on a daily basis, at work and in the street, in daylight hours as well as at night, in times of peace or war, regardless of the region or country in which they live.

Through the efforts of individuals, groups, and public or government organizations, various measures have been taken to identify and oppose violence against women. But we all know that it persists.

Each of us must be vigilant and condemn all forms of violence against women. We must commit ourselves collectively to building a non-violent world. December 6, 1989 must never return. NEVER AGAIN.

Today we remember- in order to change.

This message appeared in several Quebec dailies; 76 associations and agencies, including the council on the status of women got together to commemorate, in a very special way, that tragic day when 14 young women lost their lives.

I would like to list the names of all the signatories to this beautiful message: Assembly of quebec bishops; Association des collaboratrices et partenaires en affaires; association of Quebec native women; Quebec psychiatric association; Association des ressources intervenant auprès des hommes violents; Association des sexologues du Quebec; women's association for education and social action; Association québécoise Plaidoyer-victimes; Avon Canada; Quebec bar association; Quebec teaching congress; congress of democratic unions; centre for interdisciplinary research on family violence and violence against women; Chambre des notaires du Québec; college of Quebec physicians; human rights commission; confederation of national trade unions; Quebec conference of regional health and social services boards.

Madam Speaker, the list goes on: Montreal council of women; council on the status of women; Développement québécois de la sécurité des femmes; Fédération des ressources d'hébergement pour les femmes violentées et en difficulté; Quebec federation of CLSCs; Quebec federation of catholic school commissions; Quebec women's federation; federation of Quebec nurses; Quebec federation of labour; Quebec family planning federation; Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail dans la province du Quebec; Le Devoir; Le Journal de Montréal ; Le Protecteur du citoyen .

And there are others: Quebec says no to violence against women: Les cercles de fermières du Québec; Institut de recherche des centres de femmes du Québec; order of nurses of Quebec; Ordre des psychologues du Québec; Ordre professionnel des travailleurs sociaux du Québec; Regroupement des centres de santé des femmes du Québec; Regroupement des équipes régionales Espace; Regroupement des maisons de jeunes du Québec; Regroupement provincial des maisons d'hébergement et de transition pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale; Regroupement québécois des centres d'aides et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel; Relais-femmes; Réseau des répondants à la condition des femmes, ODM, diocese of Quebec; Service d'orientation et de consultation psychologique de l'Université de Montréal; Sûreté du Québec; Quebec government employees union.

And the list goes on: the union of professional employees of the Quebec government; The Gazette ; the University of Montreal; the University of Sherbrooke; the University of Quebec in Montreal; Laval University; McGill University; Jacques Parizeau, Premier of Quebec; Lucien Bouchard and all members of the Bloc Quebecois; Louise Beaudoin, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs; Paul Bégin, Minister of Justice; Jeanne Blackburn, Minister of Income Security and Minister responsible for the Status of Women; Jacques Brassard, Minister of the Environment and Wildlife; Jean Campeau, Minister of Finance and Minister of Revenue; Guy Chevrette, Minister of Municipal Affairs; Rita Dionne-Marsolais, Minister of Culture and Communications and Minister responsible for Tourism; Jean Garon, Minister of Education.

And also: François Gendron, Minister of Natural Resources; Louise Harel, Minister of Employment; Bernard Landry, Minister of International Affairs, Immigration and Cultural Communities; Marcel Landry, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Richard Le Hir, Minister responsible for Restructuring; Jacques Léonard, Minister of Transport; Pauline Marois, Minister responsible for Administration and Public Service, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Family; Serge Ménard, Minister of Public Security; Daniel Paillé, Minister of Industry, Trade, Science and Technology; and Jean Rochon, Minister of Health and Social Services.

That, Madam Speaker, is the list of all the people who endorsed the statement marking this sad anniversary.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that we are reminded today of a cold and snowy day, five years ago, when 14 female students of l'École polytechnique de Montréal were shot and killed by a young man who had a visceral hatred of women, and feminists in particular. These women, like many others, had families, friends, hopes. Such senseless acts have sounded a call, a heart-rending call, in Quebec and Canada, and even had an echo in the United States.

Violence against women must stop. The word was out before this tragic incident, but the atrocity of these murders created a new awareness of a reality experienced by a great number of women.

From then on, all forms of violence against women were to be seen under a much harsher light. For instance, a harder and more serious look was taken at one of the most revolting aspects of our society. Conjugal violence must stop and we must take all the necessary steps to stop it. Spousal violence is widespread in Quebec and Canada. The figures are alarming. Let me just quote a few here. This fall, Statistics Canada reported that 29 per cent of women who had been married or in a common law relationship were physically or sexually assaulted by their spouse at one time or another in their life together.

It is reported that 21 per cent of spousal assaults occur when women are pregnant. Physical abuse may or may not be accompanied by psychological abuse. The blows, injuries, death threats, and humiliations leave permanent psychological scars in women, as well as in the children who often witness and are themselves victims of the abuse.

Since the second half of the 1970s, homes for battered women have mushroomed. The care and services they provide unquestionably meet a fundamental need in our communities. However, the issue of funding is much thornier and the financial support they receive from the federal government is far from adequate. Funding programs for housing that used to help these shelters open up new places for battered women now have no budget. This government decided instead to offer public funds to private owners.

Last February's budget did not provide any financing for a campaign to address violence against women, despite the formal promise contained in the red book. Nevertheless, all provincial governments as well as the federal government must do even more to promote awareness and spread information in order to eliminate violence against women.

Another statistic involving women has to do with firearms. Firearms are the weapon of choice used in spousal homicides. Between 1974 and 1992, 42 per cent of women killed by their spouses were shot dead.

In this context, Bloc members, like most Quebecers and Canadians, eagerly awaited the bill on how the federal government would effectively control firearms. Unfortunately, the Minister of Justice was rather timid in announcing a policy statement on gun control. Surprisingly enough, despite the urgent need for gun control, this bill will be implemented over the next seven years until 2002.

We also fail to understand why all 4,000 AK-47 and 6,000 FN-FAL owners will be allowed to keep these weapons for the rest of their lives. All 555,000 Canadians who own .25 or .32

caliber handguns or 105-mm guns will also be able to keep them until they die.

Heidi Rathjen is to be commended for her determination and her work in the Coalition for Gun Control, which helped highlight the importance of controlling guns in Canada and Quebec. Her crusade will not be in vain.

The victims and survivors of the massacre at the École Polytechnique will live in our collective conscience for many years to come. We must not, however, forget that this violence still goes on on a different scale, often far from the spotlights and the cameras.

In 1993, 63 women were killed by their spouses, 49 by their legal or common law husbands and 14 by separated or divorced spouses. Another 63 roses could have been laid at the entrance to the House of Commons and in front of all provincial legislatures.

Every time an injured woman seeks refuge in a shelter for battered women, every time a woman decides to sue her abusing spouse, every time a woman leaves her home to start a new life, it is another step forward in the campaign to eliminate violence.

On December 6, 1989, 14 students at the École Polytechnique were silenced forever, but we cannot remain silent.

[Social Program Reform, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that this delay and the lack of information in the papers already tabled, as the Auditor General pointed out, are because the minister has gone ahead with this reform blindly, just so that he can make the cuts required by the Minister of Finance?

[Social Program Reform, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

More than two months after he tabled his working paper on social program reform and two weeks before the public consultations end, the minister has tabled only four of the nine technical papers that are to lay out the directions of his plan. This delay suggests the worst, especially as far as education and welfare are concerned.

In view of the urgency of making all the relevant information public, so that a real debate can take place on this reform which will directly affect millions of Quebecers and Canadians, how does the minister justify this delay?

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the debate in which I am taking part today is of the utmost interest for the entire Canadian artistic community. If the government were to show some open-mindedness, it could give a great deal of hope to creators working in the cultural industry.

On November 16, 1993, exactly two weeks after the federal election, the Coalition of Creators and Copyright Owners published an open letter in Le Devoir addressed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

It pointed out, and I quote:

Honourable Sir, the books, recordings, films, radio and television broadcasts, paintings, sculpture, photographs, choreography and works of entertainment produced by the 30,000 creators, artists and other eligible Quebecers belonging to the Coalition of Creators and Copyright Owners are everywhere. Both the creators and the public are happy with this situation. However, in the absence of adequate legislation, creators' fundamental rights are still not being recognized and new reproduction and distribution technologies are depriving them of the revenues that the use of their works should generate.

You undoubtedly realize, Sir, that in order to be able to create new works, creators must earn their living from what they produce. Only the Copyright Act can ensure the legal basis for fair remuneration for the work of creators.

The Minister of Heritage had promised to take prompt action. But one year later, creators are still waiting for legislation that would recognize their right over their work. Why is this? There are those who tell us that the answer to this question lies in the fact that two departments share the responsibility for the question of copyright. These departments are the Department of Industry to be established under Bill C-46 and the Department of Canadian Heritage that will eventually be established under Bill C-53.

We now come to the heart of the debate. According to Clause 5 of Bill C-46, one of the duties assigned to the Minister of Industry will be to defend consumers and large corporations. The rights of artists and workers in general are not even mentioned in this bill. As a result, this department would have a hard time recognizing the rights of creators on their works, as these rights are in direct conflict with those of consumers and large corporations.

The heritage department has a moral right to look into the matter. It is, after all, recognized as the primary stakeholder in cultural matters. About 10 people work on these issues on its behalf. However, these officials have no powers; they can only try to influence their colleagues from Industry. That can be a very frustrating experience.

We now come to the second issue, copyright, which comes under two departments defending diametrically opposed interests and is stuck in its turn-of-the-century version.

The review of the act, announced with great pomp on many occasions, is getting nowhere, simply because of differences of opinion between the departments involved. The Union des artistes, for one, wrote in its December 23, 1993 letter to the Prime Minister that dividing responsibilities between the heritage department and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, which had jurisdiction over copyright before reorganization, "stood in the way of harmonious legislative reform -This division of responsibilities has led to a dual vision, which more often than not results in conflicting objectives".

What the creative artists ask for is a strengthening of their first claim on their rights to their work and thus their right to negotiate the use made of these works. For example, the coalition of creative artists and copyright holders says that their rights should be protected as much as those of drug patent holders. In a press release from the coalition, Jean-Claude Germain said that the least a healthy society which is proud of its culture could do would be to protect its creative artists as well as it protects its drug manufacturers.

Briefly, this is what the creative artists are asking for. They want recognition of neighbouring rights, that is, the rights of performers to reproduce and present their works. They want recognition of consequential rights, namely the visual artist's right to a percentage of any profit made on his or her work. They want recognition of equal duration of protection, that is, for all types of works, copyright would be recognized for at least 50 years after the artist's death. They also want a law that is technologically neutral, that is, one that will apply regardless of technological developments.

They want fees to be paid on their private copies, that is, royalties on media which can be privately copied such as diskettes, tapes, videocassettes and cassettes. They want rental rights, that is, a royalty on all works protected by law. Finally, they want appropriate recourse and adequate penalties for those who break the law.

For ten years, the cultural communities in Canada and Quebec have been demanding these straightforward changes to the Copyright Act. They are unanimous on this, but have been unsuccessful. It is therefore urgent to act; the survival of Canadian and Quebec culture is at stake. It is urgent to give our artists the ability to earn a living from what they produce, because without culture, a country has no life, no colour and no future.

The purpose of the amendment moved today by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe is to make Canada and Quebec full-fledged players in this new global economy, which is no longer based on trade in goods but rather on quality of thinking, artistic value, imagination and open-mindedness. Our artists are ready and able to meet the challenge. Denying them the means to do so is not the way to ensure their survival.

[Child Poverty, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, five years ago, this House took the solemn undertaking to fight against and eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. Since then, the number of children living in poverty has grown from a little under one million to nearly 1.3 million.

In its most recent report, the Canadian Council on Social Development criticized the reform the Minister of Human Resources Development is conducting. The Council considers that the minister's reform plan may well make child poverty worse because of cuts in assistance programs for poor families. Single-parent families, in which 41 per cent of poor children in Canada live, would be particularly hard hit by this reform.

The council has now joined the ranks of those who, like the Bloc Quebecois, object to any reform that cuts blindly into social programs. In his inaugural speech yesterday, the new Premier of Quebec expressed concern for the difficulties facing women and youth in particular, and we hope that the actions he will undertake will be aimed directly at fighting poverty.

[Child Care, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development recently released another discussion paper, this one dealing with daycare and child development. It says that the minister intends to review every funding formula on the basis of the objectives he has set for his social program reform.

Meanwhile, the government is cutting UI and welfare benefits. It is unthinkable that this government can logically make a distinction between the welfare of families and that of children. As if the poverty affecting children in Quebec and Canada could be viewed and analyzed as separate from that of their parents.

Moreover, the government is again encroaching on a provincial jurisdiction, without a hint of hesitation. Such an attitude is simply unacceptable.

[Auditor General's Report, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister is prepared to conduct his social program reform on the basis of incomplete information, does he recognize that his sole objective, rather than to improve social programs, is in fact to make cuts in assistance programs for the disadvantaged?