Debates of Dec. 6th, 1994

Violence Against Women

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's presentation. I found it somewhat surprising that on a day when we are commemorating the murder of 14 young women that the member would be talking about reinstating capital punishment. That seems to be a contradiction in terms of the issue at hand. There are many criminal justice actions that can be taken.

Given the fact that part of the issues concerning the safety of women relate to their accessibility to information and support, does the Reform Party support core funding for women's centres? As the hon. member will know, every province and territory in this country provides that kind of support to women but we do not have core funding for women's centres. Would the Reform Party support that kind of proposal?

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would not support core funding from the federal level. I do support funding from the communities where these programs are located. I would also support funding from the private sector in the local community and from the provincial governments. The support of these centres for the delivery of these services should be closer to the location.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I must say I find the hon. member's response rather shocking.

It seems to me that what the member is actually saying is that women who are beaten and sexually and physically abused should rely on bake sales. If we are really serious about violence against women in this society the bake sale option is not good enough. Let the military have a bake sale.

Does the member support zero tolerance of violence against women? If so, how does she propose that simply by the government not taking any role to support women through women's centres and support services that this will happen?

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that as a member of the House of Commons my role is to make sure our laws take spousal abuse and abuse against women seriously. When an individual murders his spouse he should get more than five years for manslaughter or a 20-month sentence of incarceration. Until our laws seriously take into account violence against women and give a sentence appropriate for the act we will continue to need transitional houses of all kinds.

Many of my colleagues probably support these transitional houses through our 10 per cent donations to charity. I am not for a moment suggesting that bake sales are the way to raise money any more than I would suggest that bake sales are the way for anybody to raise money. However there are ways through education and promotion where the community can and does support transitional houses for battered and abused women and children.

That is where the emphasis has to be placed. It is the community's responsibility to take ownership of the problem and get involved. They must stop expecting government to do it for them.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, can I be perfectly clear in asking the member, would she then say that she does not support nor does the Reform Party support any funding for transition homes through the Canada assistance plan?

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, not knowing enough about it I cannot comment on whether or not I would support it. However, I would suggest that the Reform Party does support in many different ways, and I mentioned one through 10 per cent of our salaries being given to charitable organizations, that we do support charitable organizations such as transitional houses.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to note the contribution made by a former New Democratic member of this House, Dawn Black, who introduced the bill for the establishment of this day in memory of the 14 women from Quebec, to be observed throughout Canada every December 6 and known as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

I think that it is very important to mention the names of these 14 women who died so tragically. Those who were killed must not be forgotten. The 14 victims were: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik Widajewicz, Maryse Leclair, Annie St-Arneault, Michèle Richard, Maryse Laganière, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier and Annie Turcotte.

I would like to quote from the brief by the Canadian Labour Congress and its status of women and human rights committee: "Imagine a world in which girls and women were safe in their homes, their schools, in the streets and in the workplace". Imagine, Madam Speaker.

All of us want to imagine what it would be like for all women and children to feel safe in their homes, in the streets and in their schools.

I will address several specific issues this morning. Many statistics have been given which I do not intend to repeat today. Rather, I will address several issues which I think are extremely important in specifically addressing the issue.

The first issue is that of gun control. It was for that reason in the previous Parliament my party supported legislation leading to greater gun control. It is still a question and more legislation will be coming before the House.

However I raise several points. In part I acknowledge the work of Yukon psychologist, Paula Pasquali. She raised some of these points as a woman and a psychologist who has worked tirelessly for many years on the issue of violence against women. She raised whether we are often talking about the wrong issue or asking the wrong question and whether we should be asking more specifically questions about safety. As Ms. Pasquali has noted, there is no doubt that some forms of gun control have certainly limited the accessibility of firearms to be used against women in the home, although we know it is still a great risk for many women because women have indeed been killed in the country.

She has proposed that we should also look at prohibiting individuals with a history of violence or threatening behaviour from acquiring firearms acquisition certificates and at taking firearms away from individuals who have been convicted of violent offences. We do not need any reforms to do that; we could do that under the existing Criminal Code.

One study funded by the Department of Justice found that police rarely seize firearms in homes where they respond to domestic calls, even though they know of their power to do so and are aware of the extent to which firearms are used against women. I would guess that firearms prohibitions are rarely ordered in cases of wife assault. This can be done under the existing law.

There is nothing radical about suggesting that firearms should be restricted for those who have committed violent crimes.

One argument put forward is that taking away guns from people who rely on them for hunting or trapping would take food off their table or take away their livelihood. In those cases there is clearly an argument that they should be required to store guns outside their family homes. I am talking specifically about people who have been convicted of violent crimes.

We should broaden the debate around gun control and not specifically relate it to the narrowness of it now. We should look very clearly at what it is we want to accomplish, which deaths and which crimes we are trying to prevent, and setting priorities. Should we be looking at more specifically violence in the home in addition to proposals that may reduce it through gun control? We also have to evaluate the current gun control act and look at how moneys could best be spent to eliminate violence in the home and the use of firearms in the home.

A second aspect of the criminal justice system of great concern to all of us is that we must insist that the system work to the benefit of women who choose to lay charges. There have been a number of studies. One recently completed in Ontario found that women were invariably disappointed with the response of the criminal justice system to assaults committed by the men with whom they lived. Many women do not want their partner to be punished but expect and need a system that will take effective action to ensure safety.

This Ontario study demonstrates that only rarely does the sentencing imposed accomplish the goal. Indeed Ms. Pasquali's own studies on sexual assault in Yukon do not give much hope unless there is a system in place which is clearly focused on the victim, on the needs of the victim, and on support for the batterer in terms of groups for batterers and so on.

In 1983 the Solicitor General of Canada issued a directive to the RCMP to lay charges and to the crown to prosecute charges of wife assault irrespective of the women's wishes. A lot of us at the time felt it was a good directive. Perhaps it is time to look at whether it has been effective for women. We should look at all laws that have been put in place to accomplish these ends.

A third issue in the criminal justice system I would like to address is the issue of those who have committed a violent crime getting a lesser sentence or being found not guilty on the basis that they were intoxicated by alcohol or had used drugs. The government should undertake to change the Criminal Code in this aspect. It has been a great shock to women across the country to know that in this day and age when the issues of violence have been so much addressed that this is still possible. It is totally unacceptable. I have received petitions from individuals all over the country who are outraged about it.

Services and the accessibility of services are very important. All women in violent situations live in fear. It has only been in the last 15 to 20 years that we have had a network of services: transition homes, hot lines, women's services and rape counselling centres. We have been able to say to women that violence is not acceptable, that they have an option. Society has taken on its responsibility. We as a society are responsible for the safety of our citizens.

I refer to the proposals of the Liberal member of Parliament from Hamilton-Wentworth who is saying that funding should be cut to interest groups. He cited in his comments in a number of places women's groups. Let me put forward a few statistics about what the priorities in society should be. We hear that society cannot afford some of the work support groups or advocacy groups do on behalf of women and children.

Why is it, many women must wonder today, that in 1992 the Canadian government gave a federal grant to Pratt & Whitney of over $54 million and in the same year gave the Canadian Day Care Advocacy $183,000? Why is it that in the same year the Canadian Marconi company received almost $10 million while the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women received about $250,000? Why is it that Spar Aerospace received almost $14 million that year and the Disabled Women's Network of Canada received just over $100,000?

Today of all days is the day to put to rest the mythology that it is not the responsibility of a government to address the safety of its citizens. To do so there must be local resources available for women and the federal government has a role in that.

In terms of accessibility I want to mention specifically rural areas of Canada. As many members will know, it is very difficult in most rural areas of the country for women suffering abuse to receive support services or often to receive legal or court services because of isolation. It is particularly important today to ensure that rural areas have a special focus in the planning done at the federal, provincial and territorial levels.

I can give two local examples. The Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre in Whitehorse, Yukon, has had to move three times in the last year. It is trying to offer services to women. It is one of a few services readily accessible to women in Yukon. It is shocking that this service cannot find a permanent home. Similarly in Watson Lake, Yukon, the Help and Hope Transition Home for Families is under threat and has had to shut down part time because of a lack of funding. It is through the Canada assistance plan funding for transition homes that territories and provinces receive partial funding for these homes.

We have not eradicated violence against women. I wish there was no need for transition homes for women who have been battered. However the need is there. Every day at the doors and on the phones of women's centres and transition homes across the nation, in every province and territory, there are people who are desperate for help. We cannot turn our backs on them.

This leads me to the social security review that barely addresses the particular issue. It addresses the Canada assistance plan. If the government were truly serious in its social security review about looking at all aspects of issues affecting families, it would have made a specific commitment to seriously address the issue of violence against women and children. It is not there, which is very disconcerting to many of us.

The issues of poverty and inequality relate to violence against women. There is no doubt that things like the NAFTA and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement have adversely affected the working lives of many women. Often it is women who have felt the brunt of the negative aspects of these trade arrangements. It is women particularly who have felt the brunt of cutbacks to social services in every province and territory.

It was mentioned today by the minister in an extremely important speech that women were central to the training of children in our families and to family life. Yet we still have one in five children in the country living in poverty, which means they have poor parents.

This is a form of violence everywhere in the world but it is a form of violence we can do something about. We have been very good in the House, as we were in 1989, saying we want to eradicate poverty by the year 2000. Wanting is not good enough. We have to take action and we can do that.

There are many examples of inequalities. I gave some financial examples earlier where once again those who advocate on behalf of the interests of women received some government funding but nothing compared to the priorities in other areas.

It is absolutely essential that we commit resources and have resources available for these services. Accessibility is a problem that many immigrant women have, either accessibility to English as a second language or to support services. The responsibility we as a society have for each and every person must be taken seriously by the House.

The previous Reform speaker indicated that we could do this if we were a bit more charitable and had a few more bake sales I guess. I am not against it. In fact, almost all services for women do private fund raising. I have been involved in many of those efforts as I am sure other members have been.

The reality is that they need a certain amount of core funding to be able to continue their work. We cannot turn our backs and pretend we can go back to days of charity. There has been some progress and greater awareness since this day was brought into law.

It is absolutely essential that we recommit to specific actions to reduce violence against women, to eliminate violence against women. Zero tolerance must be the objective in everything we

do. I do not believe it is simply what governments do, what this Parliament does. It is what we do as a society.

There are many specific actions we can take if we want to, it is clearly a matter of will. I would like to end by quoting a comment that appeared recently in an editorial in the Whitehorse Star which sums up this issue very well:

A government's primary mandate is to serve its electors. It's difficult to pinpoint a more urgent role than helping to preserve these people's physical well-being from domestic criminals-if not their very lives.

I urge all members of the House to seriously address this issue in their constituencies and to support legislation which will help with the support services and ensure that we commit ourselves to zero tolerance on violence against women.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a short question. I was interested in listening to the leader of the New Democratic Party speak on violence against women. She did not seem to be too supportive or think that the federal government should be involved more in the charitable aspect of dealing with the results of violence toward women, rather than dealing with the causes of the problem.

I know she would probably support measures regarding education that would relieve some of the problems about violence toward women. She did not really talk about what her party's position is on stricter sentencing and reform of the justice system so that violent acts are adequately punished. What is her position on a victim's rights versus a criminal's rights.

I would appreciate knowing what her party's position is on those very important matters that would prevent and discourage violence not only against women but against all Canadians.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to answer those questions. I believe I addressed at some length some of the criminal justice issues, both regarding gun control and the fact that people who have committed violent crimes should not have access to guns.

Second, it is very important that the government act very swiftly to change the Criminal Code by creating the new offence of criminal intoxication.

Third, obviously part of any kind of program of violence against women must deal seriously with those who commit that offence.

As far as victims' rights, that is exactly the purpose of my talk today. Victims have a right to have support, to have counselling, not to be a victim in the first place. We should put in adequate preventive measures and adequate resources both in rural and urban areas to say to women that it is not acceptable that they live in a violent situation. We have options.

There are people who can help women as advocates. There are transition homes. There are support services. The choice will remain with women because we have to respect the choices that they make. But in doing so, we want to prevent victims of violence. We can do it to a large extent with a number of the measures that I mentioned today.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Yukon how she feels about violence.

As kids we were always taught at home when we went to get the cattle out of the pasture not to wear red because it could infuriate the bull in the pasture.

I have seen so much violence in my own community. When you look into some of these cases there is always stress which had developed by actions on both sides.

How could we diffuse this? What could we do to prevent this in a number of cases? It is a matter of prevention, not putting on the red shirt when we know there is already a problem.

That is the big answer to our problems. Somehow or other we must discolour that red shirt when there are problems in the family or problems between husband and wife.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I hope, and I will give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt, that he is not suggesting that women bring violence against themselves by their own actions.

I will take rather that the hon. member's comments are asking what we can do to assist those families who are having marital and family problems. I suggest we can do a fair number of things.

First, we can put in place economic measures that ensure that we decrease the amount of unemployment. Every study indicates that poverty and unemployment are contributors to violence in our society.

Second, it is absolutely essential that governments at all levels take responsibility for the safety of their citizens both in enforcing those measures already in place in the criminal justice system to deal with those who commit violent offences and to ensure that there is a core group of services available.

One can look for example at what some police forces have done across the country with their family violence prevention units. London, Ontario comes to mind. It has a very progressive program of going to a home where a call has been made, making sure that a social worker is present, that there is an option for ongoing counselling. It is not just a matter of one measure, it is a matter of several.

Finally, the attitude that our society has toward women is key to this. Denigration of women in any field will set the climate for the acceptance of violence. It is incumbent on each of us to ensure that the respect and dignity of both men and women is always in the forefront. In our position as members of Parliament we have a responsibility to ensure equal opportunities for women in every sphere of life.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we commemorate the sad anniversary of the massacre at l'École polytechnique in which 14 young women died. Despite the horror and revulsion which we feel about it, this act is only a pale reflection of the violence women suffer. We should denounce this violence not only today but every day of the year.

What Marc Lépine did makes us all think, but it is just the tip of the iceberg. Violence against women is rarely so spectacular, fortunately. This violence takes many forms, some more pernicious than others. Women are victims of violence 365 days a year. Violence is insidious and affects every aspect of a woman's life.

The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women defined violence against women as a complex problem which includes physical, sexual, psychological and economic violence against women and said that this violence depends on structures, values and social, economic and political measures that muzzle women in our society, promote discrimination on the basis of sex and maintain the inequality of women.

Violence is the weapon of choice for those who want to subdue and dominate. Men learned that a long time ago and use violence. Even today, we women are kept out and subjugated by an archaic macho attitude.

Our Catholic Church will not let us be priests but suggests that we do volunteer work. This is another way of telling us women that we are not educated, cultivated or even pious enough to have access to the upper echelons of a Church which is meant to be a reflection of society. From deacon to pope, the positions are all held by men who are often pretentious and full of themselves. Their authority over the faithful in general and women in particular is a good example of the masculine philosophy based on control and power. Do you really think that the Catholic Church would be in worse shape than it is now if the pope was a woman?

Unfortunately, the Church is not the only institution which treats women like that. Let us take a look in this House. In Canada, women account for 52 per cent of the population. However, if you count the number of women in the House of Commons, you will find 53 out of 295 MPs. Our great Parliament is very much a male stronghold. Over half of the Canadian population is represented here by barely one sixth of the total number of MPs.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the government takes so long to table legislation to ensure the safety and well-being of women. A Parliament made up of men proposes and passes male-oriented legislation, with the result that we are still waiting for the Minister of Justice to table concrete legislation on firearms. There is no need to rush: After all, for every man who dies during a spousal argument, six women are killed. I am convinced that if the figures were reversed, the process would have been speeded up.

Do you not agree that, if the Minister of Justice were a woman, we would have a bill to amend the Criminal Code and strictly prohibit the mutilation of female genitals? But the victims are women and the Minister of Justice does not even intend to amend the Criminal Code. Not only did the justice minister put on the back burner the idea of registering all firearms, he also refuses to table a bill to protect the innocent victims of a cruel and barbaric practice.

The Minister of Justice promised to do everything in his power to end such criminal activities. Either the minister only has the power to make promises, or else protecting young girls from mutilation is not one of his priorities.

The mutilation of female genitals is a form of violence against girls and violates their basic right to physical integrity. Will we have to wait until a similar practice is introduced that would mutilate male genitals for the government to make up its mind to act? If 52 per cent of the members of this House were women, I am sure these problems would already have been dealt with and legislation would already have been introduced, passed and implemented.

Last week, the Minister of Justice missed an excellent opportunity to show everyone he was concerned about the security of wives. It seems gun control is not the answer, because instead of tabling a bill, as he promised, he made a ministerial statement full of good intentions. Meanwhile, every six days, on average, a woman is shot and killed.

I can hear people saying that the lack of women in the House is our own fault, because we choose not to run for election. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some obtuse male chauvinists fail to understand what this means for a woman. These guardians of the male mystique cannot imagine that someone would hate the sparring at all-candidates meetings, that woman are fundamentally different in the way they live, the way they are educated and trained and in the way they act.

My answer to them is that I still hope that some day, this House will be truly representative of the population and that women will fill 52 per cent of the seats, in other words, have the representation they deserve.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we rise to speak in the House today certainly our first thoughts are for the families who five years later still live with the pain of losing their children, more specifically losing their daughters.

What stunned the whole country five years ago on December 6 was not only that 14 young people just beginning their lives lost their lives, but that women were specifically singled out to die on that day. Men were moved out of the way so that the women alone could be shot. As a mother of two daughters in that age group I can only imagine the pain those families still feel.

Today I want to talk about how we as women live in society and why it is so important that all people particularly men understand that. I want to talk about the feelings of powerlessness that are ours from the time we become conscious of ourselves as human beings. It is vital that everyone understand that women live their lives differently. That difference is vitally important to society. It is vitally important to us as women that decisions not be made only on the basis of who is strongest and most powerful.

I realize it is very difficult for many men to understand what this means to women. Most men have grown up knowing from the time they were little boys that they would be big and strong, that they would have important jobs. That is not the way little girls grow up.

Most women have grown up knowing from the time they were little girls of less than two that they would always be smaller than their male counterparts, they would always be weaker, would never be as important, would never account for quite as much in society. They would never have as much money and for many they would never have money of their own. Their job would be to clean up after everybody else. They would always be good little girls because if they were not daddy might get cross, or mommy might get cross because daddy did not like it.

This is why as we grow into women every day and every minute of our lives is regulated by the fact that we are women. We decide differently than men where it is safe to go at what time of day, whether we can go alone or whether we need to find somebody to go with us.

I doubt there is a man in this House who approaches his car in the parking lot at night with the same fear a woman does. It is important for us to understand this is why it is so important to women to have a different kind of society. That is why we need to find measures to equalize our treatment.

When I was teaching my 17-year old daughter to drive I taught her to lock the doors always when she was alone in the car, even in broad daylight, and never to get into a car at night without checking the back seat to ensure nobody was hiding there. What I was doing was teaching her fear, the same fear that I and every woman live with daily. When I taught my son to drive a year later it never even occurred to me to give him the same lessons because he did not need them.

This feeling of being powerless, of always having to be just a little bit afraid, is partly what leads to the kinds of violence we have become so much aware of. It is what leads to the exploitation of women in a number of different ways around the world. It is what leads to the exploitation and abuse of power over women as a universal phenomenon. It is why women tend not to report crimes against themselves as easily or as readily. They know that doing so immediately places them in a situation where they again are powerless. Others are in control and they can be hurt more.

The motion today is so important. It is an expression of this House that this matters to us as parliamentarians, as the leaders of our communities and our country. It reinforces our hope and determination to change it.

I recall a report a couple of years back on why women were not in engineering. I happen to be married to an engineer, I have a son who is an engineer, and I have a son-in-law who is an engineer so I know a fair bit about engineers and what great people they can be.

I also know a fair bit about engineering faculties at universities. There is a whole culture there that is ugly and offensive to the very nature of women. It is so totally a male macho culture that no woman is comfortable in it. There are things like the fortunately now gone greased pole at Queen's. Tell me what woman wants to be an engineer when part of the initiation process is to expose herself to filth and I mean that in the most vile terms, believe me.

Why are there not more women in politics? We will not have the kinds of laws that make it easier for women to get justice until we have more women writing laws. It is not that I would write better laws than any of my male colleagues in the House; it is just that I bring a different perspective to it, a perspective I think is necessary to complete our humanity when we create laws in this House and decide how to allocate our resources.

Bertha Wilson said it best when she talked about the difference between how men and women deal with laws and why the justice system is anathema to women. The whole idea of winning and losing that seems so fundamental to our justice system also seems to be fundamentally a male concept. It is a concept promoted by those who are bigger and more powerful, who always have an equal chance of winning. It is not a concept that women are comfortable with.

I am being very open and honest today about my feelings because this motion is also about feelings. It is about pointing out that women who have been violated can turn to the justice

system that is supposed to be there to protect all of us. It is about having workplaces in which women are free from harassment.

I want to shock the House a little today. I want to read from a harassment case that has recently come to my attention. This is a young woman, 21 years old, a university student employed in a summer job. I have met with this young woman and believe me, any of us would be proud to have her as our daughter. The following is what happened in her first four days of employment in an office in this city:

He sexually harassed me by hovering over me and by touching me in an inappropriate manner. He often touched my shoulders and on one occasion ran his fingers across my neck.

This is a mature married man.

He often called me "hon" and "love". On one occasion he announced to the office that his wife was out of town for the weekend and suggested I babysit him at his home. On one occasion while helping me with a file that I had been organizing on my lap he took the opportunity to rub my upper thighs. When he asked if I understood what he had just done I said "yes", to which he added: "That is too bad. I was enjoying playing with your legs".

On one occasion he said: "The problem with kids today is that mothers enter the workforce instead of staying at home to raise them properly".

He told the following joke: What is the difference between a lawyer and a woman? To win a case a lawyer puts on his robe while a woman takes hers off.

He sometimes cornered me and used his larger size to intimidate me. He came up behind me, swivelled my chair around, placed one hand on my desk, the other on my chair, so that I was trapped between his arms and asked me what was wrong.

I saw him slap a female coworker's behind. I heard him discuss male colleagues getting lucky.

This is a 21-year old woman working in a government office enduring this. She was discouraged from making an official complaint. A year later she is still suffering from the emotional repercussions. She will not be told what action was taken against that harasser because his privacy is being protected. Yet we know that for the victim to know what action was taken is a critical part of the healing process.

I want to speak a bit about a piece of legislation that is currently before the House. Bill C-41 has had a lot of discussion. In my view it has had a lot of discussion on the wrong issues. Bill C-41 talks about making crimes committed out of hate especially heinous and subject to more strict penalties.

Bill C-41 says that if you commit a crime of violence against a woman because she is a woman out of hate, you will be punished more severely than if you commit the same crime for purposes of theft, whatever. I think that is good law because we cannot say that it is okay to hate people because they are women, because they are black, because they are Sikhs, because they are gay. Bill C-41 protects children against abuse by providing tougher penalties for people in authority who sexually or physically abuse children.

I want to support a bill that does that and I will. I want to challenge anybody who refuses to support a bill that provides that kind of protection against hate and violence in our society.

There are people who would pretend that violence is a society-wide issue and it is, but it is a different issue for women. It is a different issue for women because women have become the target of violence. I challenge any woman inside or outside this House to not remember even as a little girl when some man would rub up too closely against her deliberately on a street corner or a bus, or when she has not been accosted by some vile and foul sexual suggestions on the street.

I say to the men in this House that I do not believe they understand. I ask them to try to understand the gut wrenching caring that that kind of an incident causes. I do not think they understand how I feel when one member of Parliament stands in this House and calls a woman member of Parliament a slut. I do not think they understand how in the last week our concerns about violence have been belittled in this House by comments from the other side. I do not think they understand. I ask them to please do their best to try. It is one more way of saying to me and saying to women in this country: "You don't count as much. You don't matter as much".

We also have to talk about the economic equality of women. It very much is an issue of equality. As long as we refuse to give women the same opportunities to be economically prosperous based on their own abilities, talents and application of their energies, women will not be equal politically, equal socially and they will not be equal before our justice system.

I totally reject the arguments put forward earlier this morning by the member for Beaver River who said that violence against women is no different than violence against men. It is. As long as we refuse to face that, we refuse to face that women are killed by men who are close to them, who are their husbands, their lovers, their partners, because of the power relationship. Until we accept that we are not going to understand the problem. If you do not understand the problem you cannot solve it.

It is fine to say these issues affect all members of our society, as the member for Beaver River did this morning, but that is turning a blind eye to the specific and serious problems that this motion before the House today wishes to address and that is very specifically the kind of violence that is directed against women because they are women.

Yes, we have grandparents and seniors who are verbally and physically abused. We have children who are physically abused. That is a reflection of a society value that says: "Power, might and strength are the most important values and if you have those you have the right to abuse others". Until we recognize that that power relationship is why so many women die as a result of violent incidents, we are not going to solve the problem. We are not going to have a better society.

I thank the House for its attention today. I thank all those who gave unanimous consent to the debating of this motion. I regret in a sense that the motion had to be watered down to deal more generally with violence in society as opposed to only violence against women on this particular day just to ensure that unanimous consent would be given.

This is an important issue. It is an issue on which our government is working. As the Minister of Justice said very recently: "We have not done enough but we will do more". I believe this kind of debate strengthens our courage and strengthens our resolve to do more and to leave to our children and grandchildren a world and a country in which all are equally valuable. I say that on behalf of both the granddaughters and the grandsons I hope to have some day.

I think men too benefit from a society in which power is not the ruling dictate, in which equality and respect for all human beings regardless of whether they are men or women is a hallmark of this society, perhaps as in no other in the world, and that is a record that I would like to see this nation achieve.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member who just spoke. I have three girls myself. They are still young, of course, but they will grow up. I realize that Quebec has gone much further than the federal government with respect to equality between spouses and equality for women.

In 1990, for example, Quebec passed an act to encourage economic equality between spouses, so that when they divorce, or separate or one of them dies, the property acquired by the couple is divided pretty fairly between the two former spouses, the man and the woman. Canada lags far behind Quebec and several other provinces on this issue of recognizing spouses as equals.

I remain somewhat sceptical just the same. In a justified and justifiable outburst, the previous speaker mentioned women being in danger on our streets and everywhere, women being done an injustice.

I have a problem reconciling this with the fact that the hon. member herself and her colleagues recently rose in this place and brought the house down when the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled his famous bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act. The policy statement says that from now on, entitlement to UI benefits in Canada will be based on family income. Unfortunately-and the Bloc Quebecois and I did not make this decision-women are hit hardest by such a measure. If the husband's annual income is, say, $55,000 and his wife earns $22,000, $25,000 or $28,000 per year, and becomes unemployed, she will not be entitled to UI benefits because her husband makes good money.

The hon. member opposite rose in this House to applaud this measure at the time it was introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development. Personally, I find it is all too easy to act offended, to rise and say that the right hand does not know what the left one is doing or vice versa. Logic should prevail and one should rise once in a while, not only on days when we debate the status of women, violence against women or other such issues, and tell the minister that he is off the beam with his procedure.

It seems to me that the story changes depending on the circumstances. On days when we are dealing with women's issues, violence against women or matters affecting women directly or indirectly, they come here and denounce injustices. I agree there are some, but in the normal course of day to day administration, knowing that federal legislation concerning women is 30 years behind provincial legislation, I think that more could be done, besides such statements, to remedy the situation.

This concerns men and women alike, including fathers like me. I have three young daughters who will grow up to be women living in this society and I am not so proud of the legacy we are leaving them. In Quebec, there is an ad on television that says: "I myself am not affected by violence. I do not go out at night; I stay home. I do not talk to strangers; I stay home. No, I cannot say that I am affected by violence".

That is similar to the situation faced by women in Canada. My friend, the hon. member for Frontenac, said earlier that while walking in a somewhat disreputable neighbourhood in Sherbrooke, his daughter was asked by police officers: "What are you doing walking at night in a neighbourhood where you should not be?"

This does not happen only in Sherbrooke. It happens in Halifax, Edmonton, Calgary, and many other places. What are we doing about this? What steps did the Liberals take to address the situation? They gave us a nice gun-control policy to be implemented in the year 2003. It took Marc Lépine 20 minutes

to go on a shooting spree at the École Polytechnique five years ago. How many more shooting sprees can we expect before 2003? When all you need is 20 minutes, it is anybody's guess.

I think that the government must translate words into action, show some backbone and try to do something so that women will feel after today's session that something was accomplished in the House of Commons today and that there is a political will to achieve justice for women. But no. All members of this House make big speeches but when the time comes to support or reject motions that go against women's interests, the party line comes before anything else, including nice speeches like the one that the hon. member just gave us.

I strongly disagree, because I do not want to see my three young daughters in 10, 12, 15 or 20 years treated even worse than their mother is being treated at this time.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, today I do not feel like debating who does more for women-the provinces or the federal government. I think it is clear that all parties must do much more, especially for family welfare. Clearly, throughout Canada, a family's welfare depends on the woman and the man in the couple.

As for social welfare, yes, there is lots of room for improvement. I want to say that in Quebec, for example, the family has to take responsibility before someone can get welfare. That is not the case throughout Canada.

I really think, as my minister and I admitted, that we are not doing enough to improve the status of women and especially the conditions that cause violence against women. More must be done at all levels in every country in the world. I am convinced that with more women in Parliament, on both sides of the House, it will be easier to do it more quickly.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member said, and I would like to give her the assurance that many men have thought and are thinking and learning about what is happening in society today.

Like the previous speaker, I also have children, two girls and one boy, and I want them to have the same opportunities in the years to come. That is why I think the government must send the right signals. You say you do not feel like having a debate on this today. I realize that the issue of violence against women is a universal one, but at the same time we are here to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken.

Without in any way blaming the government, we can at least consider what signals the government could perhaps send tomorrow morning. For instance, in connection with social program reform, could it suggest ways to fight poverty other than targeting poor parents and poor children, which does not provide any help for the middle class? There are all kinds of family support programs, but are they adequate?

And could the present climate of violence in our society be due to the fact that for the past 20 or 25 years, we have failed to provide equal opportunities for everyone? This is true in the case of women, the disabled and several other categories. And should the government not make this the spearhead of its action to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, for instance? If it does, it may succeed in considerably reducing violence against women.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our objective is to improve the economic situation of women and children and, more specifically, to eliminate child poverty. However, to eliminate child poverty, we have to eliminate the mother's poverty first. That is one of the things we are trying to achieve through our social program reform, by putting more emphasis on training and providing more support for women with children and families with young children.

These are some of the things I personally and many of my colleagues have said to the Minister of Human Resources Development. Women and children should be-

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

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.

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt, but the member will have the floor again around 3 p.m.

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Human Rights

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 1948 the United Nations Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then the world

has witnessed great changes in the global order and an abundance of human suffering still exists.

Canada, a country composed of many cultures, has long been respected for its commitment to human rights. We must continue to use our influence to encourage other governments around the world to heighten their human rights' standards.

I am pleased that this government is addressing the issue of human rights at home by introducing programs to improve the treatment of people who suffer discrimination because of their race, sexual orientation or because of a physical or mental disability. Indeed, the increase in both hate crimes and hate propaganda is a disturbing trend.

As we recognize this week Human Rights Day we must continue to meet the many human rights challenges that we face in both the domestic and international community.

Social Program Reform

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, beyond polls, yesterday, women's groups clearly expressed their opposition to the federal government's social program reform. Calling the human resources development minister's proposals discriminatory and regressive, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women firmly rejected the provisions to cut women's UI benefits.

Under these provisions, women's access to UI would be determined by spousal income, although women would, of course, continue to pay premiums. These measures are a direct attack on the financial independence that women have worked so hard to achieve in the last 30 years.

By completely disregarding the issue of fairness raised by his reform, the Minister of Human Resources Development is simply implementing a series of blind cuts at the expense of women, among others, dictated by his fight against the federal government's deficit.

Human Rights

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning our leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, announced that as a caucus we are opposed to the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act on legal and human rights grounds.

He also made it clear that the Reform Party was against the recognition of same sex spouses and the extension of spousal benefits to same sex relationships as per the resolution adopted at our October 1994 party assembly.

Canadians across the country are concerned over the government's intentions to include sexual orientation in both the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The present course of action taken by the Liberals is not spelled out in their red book. It is presumptuous of them to say they have the mandate to proceed.

Canadians are further exasperated when they realize that no free vote will be held on the issue so that their concerns cannot be reflected democratically.

Our party is listening to Canadians in reflecting their concerns. Why are the Liberals afraid to do the same? Perhaps it is because their mandate is not based on listening to Canadians.

Job Finding Clubs

[Gilles Bernier, Independent, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of existence, the services offered by Job Finding Clubs have been modified following a change in the rules of the game by Human Resources Development Canada. The department requires that a large percentage of training referrals be UI recipients, thus closing the door to those left out of the statistics, who were the main users of services offered by Job Finding Clubs.

The goal is, of course, commendable: returning unemployed workers to the labour force as quickly as possible. But what are we doing for young people just out of school and for people without income, who would greatly benefit from job finding sessions but whom the government is now trying to exclude on the pretext that they are not counted in the official statistics? They are human beings with an urgent need to find work, and I think that the department should relax its rules.

Violence Against Women

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today many men and women across the land are wearing white ribbons to remind us that five years ago on this day 40 young women were tragically gunned down by a man at Montreal's l'École polytechnique, simply because they were women.

Sadly today little has changed. Women around the world still live in fear of violence by the hands of men they know and of men they do not know.

Much has been done to raise awareness of violence against women by Health Canada and other government and community agencies. The justice minister has, with his recent gun control proposals, moved one small step closer to protecting Canadian women but it is not enough.

It will never be enough until we women can walk the streets and be safe in our homes without fear. Yet there is still considerable denial by men of the cause and effect of this violence. Today the YMCA rose button and white ribbon campaign make a statement of remembrance and commitment.

I ask all men who love a daughter, mother, wife, partner or friend, to wear one of these symbols in solidarity with us. We need their support. The violence will not end unless they rise now and move positively to help us stop it.