Debates of Dec. 6th, 1994

Petitions

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to deposit a petition today from residents of virtually every province from coast to coast in Canada.

The petitioners suggest that research conducted by Health Canada shows that the number of people, particularly teenagers, who smoke increases as the cost of cigarettes goes down. Tobacco products are clearly linked to forms of cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema, chronic bronchitis and many other illnesses. Given the fact that tobacco products contain over 4,000 chemicals of which at least 43 cause cancer in humans and that the use of tobacco products is directly responsible for the premature death of some 38,000 Canadians annually tobacco can rightly be termed a hazardous product.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to remove the exemption for tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise to present several petitions.

On behalf of Darcy Siggelkow I present three petitions. The first petition asks Parliament not to amend the human rights code or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition prays that Parliament extend the same protection to the unborn child as that enjoyed by born human beings.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition asks that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two additional petitions to present on these issues on behalf of Anne Pinkoski and Norma Wood. I present two petitions asking that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition regarding enacting legislation to provide specific standards for acceptable content for CBC television programming.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Shall the questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request For Emergency Debate

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring before the House an important matter requiring the urgent attention of the House of Commons.

Five years have passed since the murder of the 14 women at l'École polytechnique in Montreal yet violence does continue at alarming rates. More than half of all Canadian women will experience in their lifetime at least one incident of violence. Therefore I have put forward the request today for an emergency debate on this issue.

We have to date and this morning certainly acknowledged and given our condolences to the families of the 14 young women who were so sadly and tragically murdered five years ago. However it is incumbent upon this House to show its seriousness in this matter and have a true debate on this issue. The government should hear proposals of members of this House from all parties.

I urge that this motion for an emergency debate be accepted.

[The Speaker]

This topic indeed is a very serious one and I would make these points. This is a chronic matter for our society to deal with. As the motion stands now it is not in the strictest sense a matter for an emergency debate. However all this might be moot in view of the fact it is my understanding that in just a short while I will be reading a motion in orders of the day. All hon. members will be able to join in to make their views known on this very important topic.

I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2) because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 20 minutes.

Violence Against Women

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

moved:

That this House take note of the anniversary of the murder of 14 young women at l'École polytechnique on December 6, 1989 and the continuing urgent need for action to eliminate the threat of violence in society, including the threat of violence to women.

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased that the House has unanimously agreed to address this issue of violence against women in our society. This issue has become pervasive and has created concern for the men and women in this House and of course many organizations, associations and groups outside of this House.

The House has accepted the resolution unanimously to acknowledge the issue of the women who were murdered unconscionably five years ago. That unfortunate circumstance has given us the excellent opportunity for us to look at this issue not from a partisan political perspective but more in the interests of the well-being of the women and children and the responsibility that women have for the future of our society, for the well-being of the children, for the education and for the community work that is needed and is often the role of women.

Women have many roles in our society. Not only are they the progenitors of the future, they also educate and train our children. They do a great amount of community based work and care for the elderly. As well women are in the workforce. Women bear tremendous amounts of stress and strain. The last thing they need is a lack of respect, understanding and appreciation of the multiplicity and the importance of their role for all of us in our society.

I am pleased to rise to speak on this topic. I am pleased there was unanimous approval in this House to proceed in this way. This morning in commemoration of the national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, I talked about statistics and the magnitude of the problem in Canada. I would like to put forward a fact sheet to which women and men can refer and which organizations and institutions can look at to take proper concerted action together so we can win the fight against violence against women.

In 1993 Statistics Canada conducted a national survey on violence against women. Approximately 12,300 women were interviewed. Only behaviours considered an offence under the

Criminal Code of Canada were addressed in this survey. In fact, they were quite specific about what they were prepared to look at and include in the survey.

The survey included a wide range of behaviours such as the threat of imminent attack, attack with serious injury, unwanted sexual touching up to and including violent sexual attacks with severe injury. The findings are chilling and should advise us here in the House about our responsibility to represent, to speak for and to speak out in the interests of our constituents, half of whom are women.

In Canada 51 per cent of all women have experienced at least one incident of violence since the age of 16. Women are at greater risk from men they know than they are from strangers. Twenty-five per cent of all women have experienced violence at the hand of a current or past marital partner. In those cases weapons were used by 44 per cent of violent spouses. Twenty-one per cent of women abused by current or previous partners were assaulted during pregnancy; this is absolutely the most repugnant of the statements as far as I am concerned. One in six currently married women reported violence by their spouses and 39 per cent of those women said it happened more than once.

For sources of support that most women need and use, 51 per cent of women who ask for help turn to friends and neighbours and 42 per cent turn to family. Those figures come from the violence against women surveys in the Statistics Canada daily of November 18, 1993.

We also know how important are the homes for battered women, the transition houses and the groups that work right at the community base on these issues of violence. They enable women to leave their homes, take their children and protect themselves. They enable the women to get legal aid and some advice and counselling.

I sincerely hope that more work will be done with the batterers. If we leave them out there it will mean that some other woman is put at risk. We need to do work in that regard.

The other important aspect illustrated by this information on violence against women in Canada is that of women and firearms. On average, one woman is killed by a firearm every six days in Canada, often in a private residence and by someone she knows.

Firearms are the weapon of choice in spousal homicides. Between 1974 and 1992, 42 per cent of women murdered by their spouses were killed by bullets, 21 per cent were stabbed and another 21 per cent died from blows received.

During that same period, a married woman was nine times more likely to be killed by her spouse than by a stranger, and there were a total of 1,886 spousal homicides. Women were the victims in 76 per cent of cases. According to a study on domestic homicides conducted by the Department of Justice in 1992, only 18 per cent of firearms used by husbands who killed their wives were acquired illegally.

These are important facts to consider on a day like today and during a debate such as this one.

I would like to talk about this whole issue in terms of the human toll. The following testimonial is from a woman living in Canada today: "My husband struck me on our honeymoon. He killed our first child by kicking the four month old child in my uterus. My doctor asked me what I did and what I do to make him so mad. Our Anglican minister reminded me that I had married for better or worse. The lawyer wanted to know where I would get money to pay the fees. My mother told my husband where I was hiding".

The voice is a chilling one. It is an incisive call for change in the attitudes throughout Canadian society.

I want to point out two important realities for Canadian women. The first one is that we are more likely to be abused by an acquaintance, that is a spouse or a friend, as the hon. member from the opposition and I mentioned earlier. I feel it is very important for women to know that this is the reality and that they should take it into consideration before talking or making arrangements with anyone.

I just finished outlining some of the highlights of a Statistics Canada survey from last year. I did not outline the impact on the children who witness this violence and then become repeaters, carrying on this behaviour pattern into their own relationships with women. We find that half of the women reporting violence by men are known to them: dates, boyfriends, marital partners, friends, family and neighbours. It is very disquieting.

The second reality that I want to impress on the House is that violence and women's inequality are inextricably linked. Violence is a manifestation of women's inequality. In the words of another women: "When my husband stole a pizza he got a $100 fine. He beats me and sometimes he gets a $50 fine. I think this is awful. I am worth less than a pizza".

What messages do these words send to all women about our worth? How deeply entrenched are the old views that it is a

man's right to control his wife and his daughters, that, as in past centuries, women are possessions?

Admitting that these attitudes exist is an important step in finding solutions. As I said earlier today, I am encouraged by the level of community action taking place across Canada. As a nation we are beginning to hear what women's groups have been saying for years, that violence against women is pervasive in Canada, that it is tolerated and that violence is the most deplorable symptom of women's inequality.

On behalf of the people of Canada I would like to extend our thanks to the women and to the grassroots groups that started the shelter movement, staffed the assault crisis centres and started self-healing circles. They were determined to get the public's attention. We must ensure that their voices continue to be heard and support the work and the undertakings they have made.

The government understands that violence against women results from complex inter-related factors. That is why we favour a comprehensive approach to this issue. I was asked by one of the members of the opposition to explain the question of drunkenness and the Supreme Court of Canada ruling which cited extreme drunkenness as a defence in a case of sexual assault. This defence has since been successfully used in several other lower court cases. I find this to be totally unacceptable. The women of our caucus and I have spoken to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is equally outraged. However, the charter and the Constitution speak before the courts.

The question is how to amend the laws of this land so they will not be found wanting when we go to the courts. This kind of abysmal, unacceptable behaviour can no longer take place and be accepted and certainly that unenlightened judges do not use proper defence mechanisms from my perspective.

I would like the House to know that the Minister of Justice intends to propose amendments which he has pointed out several times. He will present an amendment to the Criminal Code to deal with self-intoxication as a defence when the House resumes in February. This Friday, on December 9, he is holding discussions with groups that have a tremendous interest in seeing the reduction of violence and enabling us to move forward in our agenda against violence against women.

Some members of this House claimed that we did not take important measures. As I said before, our responsibility lies primarily in passing appropriate legislation, and I believe that, in this respect, we truly made critical choices on a series of actions which will ultimately be complemented by other measures later on this year.

I also think that it must be recognized that we have taken important measures. Let us take a look at the firearms control program. On November 30, the Minister of Justice announced a gun control program, an important step towards eliminating violence against women. The development of a national fire arms registry, the ban on some firearms and the relaxation of prohibition orders are all measures that can be beneficial to women and used to save lives.

The National Crime Prevention Council was set up in July 1994. Among other issues, this Council will study how women are vulnerable to crime. The Council is made up of 25 members, 14 of whom are women, who come from all walks of life. As for keeping the peace, in June, the Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-42, which contains more than 100 changes to the Criminal Code, including various provisions to improve our efforts to keep the peace. For example, the police and other stakeholders will be able to ask for a peace bond in order to protect women in danger.

The national screening system to identify individuals who have sexually assaulted children is the fourth part of our approach. Announced in November, this database will enable organizations and employers to check if a job applicant has a criminal record for sexual offences before allowing the applicant to work with children. I think that this is the fifth bill on sentencing reform.

I would say to members that the sentencing reform is an important piece of legislation.

Bill C-41 gives the courts the means to make a distinction between serious violent crimes and less serious non-violent crimes. This sends a clear message to society: violence against women and children will not be tolerated. The bill stipulates that evidence that a crime, including a sexual offence, was motivated by hate or that the offender abused a position of trust or authority will be deemed by the judge to be an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing.

I must say that the opposition's complaints are unfounded because we have made progress. We also looked at the issue of equality before the law. Take the court challenges program, for example. In October 1994, the government reinstated that program in order to provide funding for cases of national interest regarding equality rights or language rights under the Canadian constitution.

In giving this list I do not think there can be complaints by the opposition as to the undertakings of the government with respect to violence against women. The facts should speak for themselves. Certainly there are other issues to which I can point. These include the question of legal equality, which is the court challenges program I just talked about, and public education.

In April Canadian heritage, in collaboration with other federal departments and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, launched a series of radio and television programs and ads in the first of a three-year campaign on violence in society. I want to thank the Canadian Association of Broadcasters for the undertaking. That is $10 million worth of publicity which we have enabled to happen. It will ensure that violence against women and children, violence in society and violence based on race, prejudice, hatred and bigotry no longer find a home in this country.

I just deposited in the House today a community kit on violence against women. It is to promote community action so that people in their own backyards, leur petit patelins, will take responsibility for auditing what is dangerous in their society and for undertaking collective community action to prevent violence and promote safety.

The community kit on violence against women was tested in 10 locations across the country. The stories tell us what took place, what was helpful, what was not helpful, and how the audit was a positive factor in small towns and regions and in larger cities.

We have published those stories and I think members would find them interesting reading. I advise members of the House to take a good look at this kit, take it back to their towns and villages and enable their constituents to take control of their own lives. We must control the violence that is inherent in our society and make sure that our women and children can walk the streets of our cities safely and can live in safe homes.

Over 2,000 projects have been funded across the country by Health Canada on child abuse, on violence against women and on senior abuse. The family violence initiative is now in its fourth year. It also funds the building of shelters for abused women and their children.

In June I met with my colleagues, the ministers of the status of women across Canada, in Regina. We discussed the whole question of violence against women. We discussed it from the provincial perspective and we discussed it from the federal perspective. We discussed what initiatives we each could take, collectively and collaboratively, to ensure that the lives of women and children were safe. We issued a Regina declaration on the rights of women subjected to violence. It calls on justice systems across this land to ensure the equal protection of women subjected to violence.

In November 1993 we received the Statistics Canada research which was very important. In April of this year Statistics Canada released data from a transition home survey. It revealed there was a 2 per cent increase in the occupancy rate from 1992 to 1993 by women fleeing from abusive situations.

Most women using shelters are aged 25 to 34. These women are in their child bearing years and are subjected to violence by aggressive men even when pregnant. They have children in their homes who are visibly upset and mentally disturbed by what they see, action taken against women as something acceptable within their society. Less than 10 per cent of shelters primarily served ethnocultural and visible minority women, although 41 per cent offered culturally sensitive services.

The Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and I have conducted public consultations. We held consultations with women's groups on violence as well as on the budget and social security reform. This is a very important and effective means of understanding what is going on in our society.

During the first year of our mandate, I think we have given top priority to legislation aimed at better protecting women and children. The protection provided by law is the very foundation of personal and public security.

As we move to support the program that has been presented by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, on firearms control, I would suggest that we have an obligation to the women of the country. Women do not like guns. That is a pretty obvious understatement. Women are fearful of guns.

I do not have to argue that the issue of firearms control is one of crucial importance to women. Nationally women have already spoken out. Numerous women's organizations from across the country and from a wide variety of social and cultural backgrounds have come forward to support tougher firearms control laws.

If people want to own firearms then let them own them with responsibility. You have to get a licence and do various other things to own a car. For goodness sake, what is so terrible about doing the same thing to own a gun? We are not taking them away from people. Those people who object to firearms control should not object to having us know that they own a gun. It does not make any sense to have it any other way. Tighter restrictions on firearms are what we want and that is what we are responding to.

I would like to answer the Reform Party which is not very pleased with this. A poll conducted recently by Angus Reid revealed that as many as 70 per cent of all Canadians interviewed favoured tighter restrictions on firearms. Firearm control is also supported by Canadian teachers. In a joint statement two weeks ago the Canadian Teachers Federation and the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec agreed that a series of measures, including the Minister of Justice's package on firearms control, was necessary to reduce violence in our society.

The Minister of Justice has consulted across the land from big cities to small cities to the towns and villages. He has met with all kinds of organizations. He has listened and he has adjusted, understanding the needs and the sport recreational aspects. He also understands what women have to say. Every one of us ought to support his measures.

We have also taken other legal measures. I think of how important the peace bond was in the amendments to the Criminal Code and the sentencing on abuse of trust. How many of us know about incestual relationships that have taken place? How many of us know of friends and children and particularly relatives whom we call on to babysit for us, who do not have a code of ethics and abuse that trust, teachers who have abused the trust, priests who have abused the trust? Abuse of trust and sexual abuse are not acceptable in Canadian society. We are moving on that bill.

We have established the national information system, the court challenges program. Other initiatives to improve the status of women, although not necessarily dealing with violence and abuse against women are equally important. There is the creation of the national breast cancer information exchange program, the establishment of the prenatal nutrition program and our work to help women achieve economic equality.

Economic equality gives women the freedom to move away from an abusive situation. If a woman is trapped with no money she fears leaving. Economic equality in our society tells women that their work is valued, that their contributions to society are honoured and respected. Therefore economic equality will help women care for themselves and their children, give them a sense of worth and a sense of independence, not merely out of the generosity of the heart of her husband, but because she contributes to his growth and development, to his success. She is deserving of a fair share of those earnings if she stays at home and raises children. Raising children in today's society is a value in and of itself.

I was very pleased to chair the task group on the treatment of child support. The government will be coming in shortly with a comprehensive package of guidelines for the courts. It will have an enforcement component and will look at tax treatment. This more comprehensive policy is long overdue.

We must find a way so that not so many children in our country are poor. Children are poor when their mothers are poor. That too is a violence against women. It is a violence against people in our society.

I would like to close my remarks by talking for a few moments about the Beijing conference which is coming up. In the international arena Canada is seen as very important and effective in addressing the concerns of women.

The machinery of government that we have set up to advise and counsel ministers on any kind of project, policy or legislation is seen as a very positive factor. The input our staff has made, because staff really equals service, and what we have been able to render in the international arena has been very important. We are not the only nation in the world seeking solutions to these issues. We can be proud of what we have done at the international level. We have played a leadership role in two key areas that I want to point out.

First was the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the declaration of the elimination of violence against women last December.

The second was the appointment of a United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women. That was an initiative of Canada as well. The rapporteur will report to the United Nations commission on human rights every year starting in March.

I had the pleasure of meeting the young woman who is filling that responsibility. We can have a sense of confidence that we are going to move forward on the international stage in this area.

In less than a year we will be meeting in Beijing for the fourth United Nations world conference on women. It has an enormous potential to act as a catalyst for change and progress on women's equality worldwide and particularly women's equality in China.

The role of the NGOs, the non-government organizations, has been very key, very different from Mexico and Nairobi. They have had a significant input into the preliminary documents we will be examining at that time. Ten key areas and key issues are of concern. It will look at women's struggles with poverty, with violence, with access to education and health, with access to power and decision making, to name but a few.

We want solutions to those problems right here for all Canadians. We do not have to wait until the UN world conference.

I encourage the women in the House to renew their commitment to women's equality today. I encourage them to speak out. The government intends to fulfil all its red book commitments with respect to the increase in funding for services for battered women. Public education campaigns will be ongoing and will enable behaviour modification with the goodwill and support of the men as partners in society. The options for removal of abusers from the home shall certainly be part and parcel of what we look at.

I am very happy to have had the opportunity here today to mention some of the things that make life more difficult for women. I look forward to working with our colleagues from the opposition and indeed with all Canadians, both men and women, who want to improve the lot of women, to prevent the increase in

violence against women and to try to educate the public in order to eliminate this problem in our society.

The roses that all the members of the House placed in the hall on behalf of the 14 women indicate that the moment has come to rethink the society in which we live.

Let us remember. I thank all members of the House for the roses which were deposited outside in the hall.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We are now into 20-minute speeches with 10 minutes for questions and comments at the end.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I enter the discussion regarding violence against members of society, particularly women, I begin by pointing out how human life seems to have been devalued in our society. When I look at the changes of attitude that have occurred in this regard, I look at such things as abortion, euthanasia and mercy killings. I see a greater and greater acceptance of these measures which suggests an insensitivity toward human life that has led to a devaluation of human life.

Today marks an anniversary I am sure most Canadians wish did not exist. However, not to remember invalidates the lives that were lost as a result of a violent and vicious attack perpetrated because one male took out his fear, hate and frustration on a group of innocent young defenceless women.

The cause of this crime is at the heart of the debate on violence against women and other members of our society. Why are men attacking women? Why are husbands beating wives? Why is violence against women occurring at such a high rate, certainly a higher rate than before.

These are the questions we must attempt to answer if we are ever to eradicate or at least reduce violence.

Until we can answer these questions and until we can determine the causes of violence, we will continue to have a problem in this country which defies logic and a problem which threatens to destroy the strongest foundation we have, the family.

From 1981 to 1990 almost one half, or 48 per cent, of the women killed were killed by spouses or ex-spouses. A further 27 per cent were killed by acquaintances. Over the past 10 years 67 per cent of the homicides involving women occurred in the victims' homes. Spousal homicides amount to one out of every six solved homicides. According to statistics, over the period 1974 to 1992 a married woman was nine times as likely to be killed by her spouse as by a stranger. The rates of spousal homicide have remained fairly constant over a 19-year period.

These statistics reveal a shocking situation. Repeatedly governments in this country have neglected to address the issue which is the cause of crime. They have failed to determine, understand and do something about the causes of domestic violence. Harsher penalties, stricter gun controls and statistics gathering have done nothing to eliminate the rate of spousal homicide in this country, nothing to decrease the growing violence on Canadian streets and nothing to eradicate violence against women.

Fifty-two per cent of the spousal homicides in 1991-92 were attributed by the police to an argument or quarrel and a further 24 per cent to jealousy. What the statistics and police failed to reveal is what the argument or quarrel was about, why it occurred in the first place. I believe that finances and financial stress are at the heart of most domestic difficulties and arguments. Canadian families are under tremendous stress these days, stresses that are directly imposed on them by the economic state of this country and indirectly imposed on them by the fiscal and monetary mismanagement of this and previous governments.

With an unemployment rate of 10.8 per cent, which I understand has dropped recently to below 10 per cent, many Canadians are without a job and for those who do have a job, the volatility and uncertainty of the current job market means that no one has job security.

Years ago men and women could count on their job always being there. Job security is a thing of the past. We have not helped Canadians adapt to that situation. We have not helped Canadians adapt to many of the economic and social situations that have been rapidly destroying their way of life.

While banks reveal record profits, many Canadians are declaring personal and business bankruptcy because their debt load has become unmanageable given the relatively high interest and tax rates in this country.

We witness every day the impact financial stress is having on Canadian families. In 1991-92 statistics show that alcohol was involved in 37 per cent of slain wives and 82 per cent of slain husbands. Among perpetrators, 55 per cent of men and 79 per cent of women were noted to have consumed alcohol and 18 per cent of men and 13 per cent of women had used drugs.

I pause here to emphasize that we do not address the cause of the problems. So often we are told not only in ads in newspapers but on television to ensure that when you are drinking that you have a designated driver so that you can get plastered if you want. The only concern those ad makers and those who are paying for them have is simply to ensure that a person is not impaired as he drives home. No care or concern is given to the family situation when that drunk is dropped off at his home where he may go in and abuse his wife or his children. There is no indication that there is any interest in reducing the consumption of alcohol in this country which police and statistics indicate clearly is a direct contributing factor to crime and violence in this country.

According to statistics, alcohol was consumed by both parties in 41 per cent of wife victim cases and in 78 per cent of husband victim cases.

Alcohol abuse is induced by stress. We do nothing to help the alcoholic or solve his problem if we do not determine the cause of that stress.

Why are Canadians assaulting and killing one another? That is the question which must be answered if we ever hope to reduce violence in our society. This is true whether we are dealing with young offenders, wife beaters, child molesters or murderers.

Governments in co-operation with community and service organizations, churches, schools and Canadian families must find the answer to these questions. It is a monumental task but it is a task we must undertake because our traditional response to the problem of violence is not working.

In response to public appeals for preventive action the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General unanimously agreed on May 6, 1992, exactly five months after the Tories' gun legislation, Bill C-17, received royal assent, to commence a national study of crime prevention. The committee concluded:

Traditional criminal justice responses while necessary are insufficient deterrents to acts that threaten public safety and security and the conventional crime control model fails to address the underlying factors associated with crime and criminality.

In other words the committee found that the gun control legislation, sentencing, additional police officers and law enforcement agencies, more prisons and an increasingly negative bureaucratic answer do not and will not solve the growing problem of crime within this country.

Presented to the committee were studies conducted in England, Canada and the United States. In relation to young offenders, these studies revealed that a minority of male offenders are responsible for the majority of all crimes committed.

The president of the Quebec Association of Police and the director of the Hull police force described to the committee research findings showing that 80 per cent of crimes are committed by approximately 20 per cent of the offenders.

Self reports and arrest records of offenders who have long criminal histories revealed to the committee that offending began when they were very young, that their offending became progressively more violent and that a significant proportion of persistent young offenders become the adult offenders of the future.

A criminology professor with the University of Ottawa told the committee that about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of incarcerated adults were persistent offenders in their youth. The committee heard that the level of crime in a society cannot be separated from the social, economic and political milieu in which it occurs. Social science research has identified many interrelated factors in the social environment of persistent offenders that contribute to crime.

Although the committee made a number of recommendations regarding crime prevention to the previous government based on its findings, the previous government did not introduce or even propose measures that demonstrated it was taking a leadership role in crime prevention.

We have a new government but the same approach to crime. We seem to be satisfied to deal with the symptoms of crime rather than to get at the cause of crime. Until the government of the day can identify the cause of crime, until it can identify the reasons for domestic violence and violence against women, we will continue to have this problem.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the secretary of state for her excellent presentation on a very important matter to all members who are going to speak on this very important subject.

I have one quick example to share with members about domestic violence. I spent about five years serving as a board member of the shelter for battered women in my riding of Mississauga South. It is called Interim Place. I am very pleased that Interim Place was able to arrange for additional funding and arrange for a second shelter to be built.

Members would be interested to know that in one month alone while I was on the board 80 women were turned away from our shelter because there were no beds left. There was no place for them to go with their children. That gives some idea of the magnitude of the problem we have in Canada. As the minister has stated, one half of all women will experience domestic violence in their lives.

I ask the member whether he would agree that because of the seriousness of the issue of domestic violence and the fact that there is presently a bill before this House, Bill C-41, which tries to identify aggravating circumstances of bias, prejudice or hate, that the matter of domestic violence or spousal abuse be included as a matter which would demonstrate bias, prejudice and hate and warrant a more serious sentence than the simple offence that was committed.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think it is important. When we deal with penalties for offences committed, I think that if the state wishes to stiffen penalties we can do that, but we all ought to stand equal before the law. The courts and judges ought to be left with the discretion based upon the circumstances to decide whether a more severe penalty should be imposed upon the culprit who through motivation of hatred or bias commits an offence against another.

I enforced the law for 14 years and I never saw an assault upon another person motivated by anything but anger, hatred or bias. I have never seen an assault conducted by a positive emotion of love or compassion. I have never experienced that. I have never taken anyone into court on that basis, and I have taken hundreds of people into courts for other types of offences during my service.

When I consider the hon. member's question and I look at Bill C-41, I ask myself why is it that we cannot leave this matter to the courts. Yes, enhance the penalties, make them stiffer. Surely when the court feels that mitigating circumstances indicate a more serious penalty ought to be levied, the court should have the discretion to do so.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to join in the debate this morning that this House take note of the anniversary of the murder of 14 women at l'École polytechnique on December 6, 1989, and the continuing urgent need for action to eliminate the threat of violence in society, including the threat of violence against women.

I find this debate particularly important because a year ago today I went to a memorial in Montreal. I spoke at the memorial for the 14 women. It is an experience that has left me with a commitment to society, a personal commitment to see that human beings show respect and dignity to one another that is deserved, a love, caring and commitment to work hard with all people in society.

We must work with men, women, families and communities, different levels of government, all the institutions in our country and with our children, toward a violence free society. It is a very

difficult thing to do in this day and age when the world is seized with wars.

We have mass media with pervasive influence that shows violence and there is desensitization about the effect of it. We have an onerous task not just to make laws but to make it a state of mind. We have a commitment to deal with it in a very human way. It is not just an issue on one day of the year; it is a state of mind. It is the way we live. It is the way we relate to each other. It is the state of mind with which we approach the work we do as lawmakers, as legislators.

Recently I was unable to attend a conference in Vancouver and one of my female colleagues from the area replaced me as there were things that needed to be said that I felt very strongly about. These are some of the things that were said: "Our voices need to be added to the urgent debate about the challenges facing Canada's families. Violence is not an issue of one person or of one gender. It is an issue of humanity and it is an issue of all peoples".

I am especially pleased to speak to the vision of Canadian families living violence free. I am proud to be a member of a team that dares to dream, one that has faith in our capacity as individuals and as a nation. Our dream for the country was clearly described in our document "Creating Opportunity". It is based on the belief that each of us can be part of the solution.

I am particularly proud of my colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. It is not easy to seize particular issues that would help free society of those who would perpetrate violent acts and those who would take the opportunity not to do good. To roll that into a legislative agenda, to roll that into something that is accessible, fair and universal in approach, is very difficult.

I look at the different attempts by the minister to change the Criminal Code and to deal with a number of very contentious issues, controversial issues, such as gun control legislation. A very difficult agenda is set for these individuals. I appreciate the work they have done.

We are committed to changing the future and recreating Canada in a way that works better for all of us. We believe we can build a better country through stronger children and stronger families. People tend to focus on one issue or one aspect. Segmentation or compartmentalization of issues makes it easier, more manageable, but is not realistic.

We cannot separate the child and say the child is unaffected. We cannot say the spouse, the family, the grandmother or the community is unaffected when there is violence in a family or in a community. It does not work that way. It is pervasive. The power of things that go wrong, the negative things, is very influential on people, many of whom are young children in their formative years.

We are committed. Our vision stems from the simple but profound philosophy that everyone has the right to safe homes, safe streets, and a life free of violence. No one deserves to be abused physically, sexually, emotionally or financially. No one has the right to control another person by threat, coercion, physical intimidation or any other abuse of power and control. Child abuse and neglect, child sexual abuse, wife assault, spousal assault, other forms of violence against women and other people, and the mistreatment of seniors and persons with disabilities are serious abuses of power within families and relationships of trust and dependency with detrimental consequences for all of us. They shame us as individuals and as a society. Those are the people who depend on us the most. They have greater need and less capacity to care for themselves. They are the disabled, children and seniors. Those people do not deserve to be mistreated. They do not deserve to be treated with anything but kindness and generosity.

The costs of violence and personal suffering, social breakdown and direct government expenditure are incalculable. The hundreds of millions of dollars in social spending do not begin to pay the price of broken spirits and damaged lives, in some cases irretrievably damaged. Sometimes it starts a cycle that continues from one generation to another. It takes an enormous amount of effort to break that cycle or the silence. To correct those wrongs costs a lot more money and takes a lot more effort than if we are proactive and able to take preventive measures. We are paid back enormously for taking those steps.

The complexity of family violence requires a long term, co-ordinated approach to address the root causes. We must eradicate the conditions that contribute to family violence and provide the proper environment for young people to escape the vicious cycle associated with abuse.

Only when each and every Canadian lives without fear can we say we live in a violence free society. An important part of the solution is to influence the conditions of socioeconomic inequality that reduce vulnerability to family violence. It is not an excuse; it is a condition. Violence is inexcusable but there are mitigating factors. There are things beyond control, beyond the emotional, financial and social capacities of individuals who fall victim to becoming perpetrators.

We need to address sexism, ageism, ableism, racism and other isms. We need to assure adequate access for all to appropriate services before we can hope to make Canada a safer place. The federal government recognizes the need to treat these issues as fundamental social problems with widespread ramifications for our families, indeed our entire society.

I am particularly worried about young people as the Secretary of State for Training and Youth. We give our children an enormous gift when we teach them to care and to nurture properly, when we teach them to respect the dignity of other persons, when we teach them to treasure having children, having grandchildren and belonging to a family. They are not to be neglected or abused. They are to be cared for and to be taught. Good values and principles that presumably guide what we do, even in the House, should be passed on.

Each year the federal government directs millions of dollars to Canadian children and their families to ensure they have access to the necessary conditions required for optimal health and personal growth and development.

We have introduced a variety of preventive measures including the child development initiative, the child sexual abuse and family violence prevention initiatives, and building healthy aboriginal communities aimed specifically at providing protection for children and creating safer communities through social development and social investment.

A central consideration in these reforms is the security of children and their families. We are asking what people need in the form of rehabilitation and family support services, education, skills upgrading and training to take control of their lives. How can we help families succeed?

If we empower people with adequate means and opportunity, we are convinced that we will enable them to access education and employment opportunities that lead to healthy, rewarding, self-sufficient lives. As a result it will allow people to provide a better quality of life for their families.

In a perfect world that would be enough but life is more complicated than that. There are things beyond the control of lawmakers. There are things beyond the control of governments at all levels. There are things beyond the control of people of goodwill. These are the things we expect. However they do not stop us from working, continuing to push and believing there is a better tomorrow. We have to try harder for our families, for our children, and essentially for our community and our country.

When children thrive our society is renewed. By nurturing healthy youth, ensuring they are physically, mentally and emotionally well, educated and employed, we run the best chance of creating healthy families.

I guess we are successful in many people's eyes. We have jobs we are proud of and have managed to earn a living. We are honoured to represent the people. In the end society will not judge us on how well we do but on how well our children and our grandchildren do and what we contribute to our communities. How well our children and grandchildren do will be the significant judgment of us in terms of what we have contributed to society.

These efforts reflect a growing movement not only in favour of prevention but in support of fundamental, social, economic and cultural change. It is a movement toward investing in people. We have a lot to do but we have each other to do it. Canadians working together, dedicated to building healthier communities, are making a dramatic difference. Not only are we proving that families matter. We are demonstrating we can make improvements in people's lives by refusing to tolerate societal violence.

Let us talk about various forms of violence. Let us take a look at a 10-year old or 14-year old child. I have raised three children. I know what children of those ages are like. We wonder where the children are and whether we have hugged them today. All that comes to mind.

Let us take one city in our country which I will not name because it would not be fair. There is a problem in that city; it has 400 juvenile prostitutes between the ages of 10 and 14. That is not prostitution, that is juvenile or child sex abuse. It is a real problem. It is a form of violence that has been perpetrated upon our most helpless, our most treasured, our young people.

We have a responsibility. It is not only in one city. There is a problem in every city one could name. I make it my business to go to the source to see young people. We cannot do everything but we are doing some things right when we help those young people.

It cannot be done alone. It is not a woman's problem or a child's problem. It is everybody's problem and everybody's responsibility. As a caring and just society we have no option but to make families our priority. We owe it to our children and to ourselves. If the challenges are great, the promise of progress has never been better.

In 1994, the International Year of the Family, families have assumed their place on international and national agendas. Throughout the International Year of the Family the Government of Canada, in partnership with all sectors of society, has worked for the betterment of Canadian families. These partnerships have contributed to sensitizing Canadians to numerous and complex issues facing today's families such as family violence.

Most important, we must reinforce the principle that strong and healthy families create strong, healthy and productive societies. By building on this momentum we will recreate Canada together in a way that mirrors our dreams and hopes for ourselves and will achieve our visions for our children and our future.

It is interesting to note that in my riding of the Northwest Territories there are four women's shelters.

This coming weekend one of my tours of going to the source as I put it will be to Sutherland House which is a shelter for women. Oddly enough it is communities that care that establish these shelters. They try to help themselves by helping the victims, by helping the families and the children. Whether or not we like to admit it most of them are women and children. They are the primary victims who take refuge. They are the ones who have to leave their homes, their living rooms, their beds to seek shelter elsewhere.

Shelters have a 24-hour crisis line and apparently that is not enough. I have visited other shelters in communities such as Hay River. All these people have their own stories to tell but the big one is that we need to continue to work. We need to continue not to isolate people nor to blame or to point fingers. We need to join hands and work together. If we cannot stop these people who perpetrate violence, we can take measures that will help the people caught in those unhealthy relationships take the steps to get out, to make the commitment for a better life for a better tomorrow.

Thirty-nine per cent of all women in violent marriages have reported that their children witnessed the violence against them. This is interesting because shelter workers in my riding believe that at least one in four NWT women have been abused by their partners. The NWT rate of reported sexual assault is the highest in the country. Girls 7 to 18 years old were the complainants in 54 per cent of sexual assault cases in the Northwest Territories for 1988 and 1989.

In Canada women are assaulted an average of 35 times before the police are called to assist. In Canada one in three women will be sexually assaulted by a man at home at some time in her life. Twenty-nine per cent of all women in Canada who have been married or who have lived in a common-law relationship have experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of their partner. In Canada 90 per cent of sexual assault crimes are not reported to the police.

According to the 1991 census there were 27,595 women in the Northwest Territories and 47.4 per cent of the population was over 15 years old. Forty per cent of all aboriginal peoples identified family violence as an important problem in their community. People on reserve and Inuit identify these forms of violence more than those who live off reserve and Métis. That is from the Canadian Institute of Child Health. It goes without saying that we definitely have a real problem but more than that we have to work on our commitment.

We have to remember that we have a commitment to our children, to societies and to ourselves. Each and every one of us whether we are men or women have a commitment to the kind of work we want to see out there. We want to see results. We have a commitment to our communities and to our country. In remembering those 14 women we can build something positive from this.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, the Secretary of State for Training and Youth, and my friend, the member for Chambly, who is sitting behind me, said that sometimes the governing party's right hand does not know what its left hand is doing.

Violence against women will never stop unless and until we have complete and total equality. The Canadian government must start by setting an example. Complete and total equality begins in the cradle, of course, at school, in day care, in college, in university and finally reaches the work place.

When the government here can say that it pays its staff the same regardless of sex, we will say thanks. It will be a step in the right direction when our children will be completely safe everywhere.

For example, in Sherbrooke, in my region, there were three rapes in six weeks. My daughter, who is studying police science in college, was walking in the vulnerable area with a female friend. They were stopped by the police, who told them not to walk there. They asked why. He said that as good-looking girls, they were in danger of being raped.

You see, because they were girls, they were not allowed to walk on the sidewalk in a part of the city. That is equality.

Another girl told me that she was also walking, alone, it is true, and was harassed by two people in a car. She had time to take down the licence number. A few seconds later, a policeman passed. She signaled him and gave him the message. He told her: "You should not be walking here. It is a bad area. You are in the red-light district. Go and walk somewhere else." That is the kind of freedom we offer our women and girls.

The Secretary of State for Training and Youth said that she had raised three children. I too have three children, including two girls. I would not be proud if my two daughters were not able to find as good a job as my son, because of unequal treatment. I would not be proud of the government of my country, be it Quebec or Canada, where my children would not have access to equality.

Earlier, when the hon. member for Chambly alluded to double talk, I was reminded of the famous but tragic Thibaudeau case. Who is appealing Ms. Thibaudeau's case to the Supreme Court? The government opposite.

The social program reform will primarily hit spouses, because from now on the family income, that is the salaries of both spouses, will be taken into account. Double talk indeed. I cannot

wait to see a government which will not resort to this double talk, a government which will act and act swiftly.

Here is the best example. Today marks the fifth anniversary of the tragedy at the École polytechnique, where 14 young women were killed in cold blood. The government started talking about firearms control. Some statement was made last week in the House, but things will drag on until 2002 or 2003 before the issue is settled. Tragedies such as the one which occurred at the École polytechnique could be repeated several times before tight and strict legislation is in place.

I was told last week that in some Montreal clubs, bars or taverns, it is easy to get very dangerous offensive weapons for a few thousand dollars. It is as easy to buy a firearm as a good used car.

I would like to hear the Secretary of State for Training and Youth, because she sounded really sincere earlier. I want to ask her if she is ready to stick her neck out by asking her government and cabinet to stop using this double talk once and for all and to do everything it can to ensure that women of all ages can truly enjoy gender equality.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for my hon. colleague across the way to make the unreasonable demand of asking me to put my seat in the House on the line. There are other ways to deal with some of the serious issues he has brought forward.

Gender equality is not one that escapes me. I have been a working woman all of my life. I know the trials and tribulations of essentially what used to be working in a man's world. In a sense we are graced with the presence of many good working women in this House at many different levels and in many capacities.

Let me deal with some of the issues my hon. colleague has addressed. He talked about putting my seat in this House on the line for the equality of women and to bridge the pay gap between men and women and that sort of thing. It should be noted that we have taken great steps to have a more inclusive employment equity legislation put forward. We are working on it at this very time. He will be happy to know that it is mostly women who do a lot of the work on this legislation. It is not just for women, but for the disabled, visible minorities as well as aboriginal peoples who are also equally challenged.

The member talks about the full security of children being able to live above the poverty line. With social security reform it is becoming very evident that child poverty is one issue we are very seized with, but we cannot just wave the wand and expect all the problems to go away. It will become evident as will all of these proposals as the responses come back that child poverty is one of the concerns we share with my hon. colleague.

The other case he cited was a typical one. There is a process in place but I will not speak to it because it has already been advanced to a higher level. The member talks about the issue of income testing. The hon. member knows there is a process in place with regard to social security reform. The proposals are with the committee which is going across the country listening to people. People have expressed very loudly and clearly similar concerns about income testing. All those things will be ultimately considered.

A man sitting across the way should not ask a women to put her seat in this House on the line if he really believes in gender equality.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak before the House on this issue, however I feel that the fifth anniversary of a tragic event is not really a time for celebration but one for reflection. It is the fifth anniversary of the massacre at l'École polytechnique in Montreal. I think all Canadians feel a sense of horror that anything such as that should ever happen in our country.

It was a tragedy when 14 young women were slain simply because they were female. I do not think there is anybody who does not feel the sense of outrage that gender should have been a factor in why anyone, male or female, would decide to end the lives of 14 young women.

In my one year as a member of Parliament I have met with dozens of parents whose children were slain. Children were slain because their murderers did not like the way they were wearing their hats. Children were slain because the murderer was intoxicated. Children were slain because they were walking down a busy street in the middle of the afternoon and just happened to run into the wrong person.

Parents are unanimous that the justice system must be changed. They want to know how it can be called a justice system when it calls for Robert Latimer to receive a life sentence with no hope of parole for at least 10 years for killing his disabled daughter in what some perceive to be an act of mercy.

Compare that with a man named Glenn Williams from my constituency who murdered his wife, the mother of four young children, the youngest six months old and still nursing. This man not only murdered his wife, but proceeded to clean up the house, clean up the murder scene, clean up the body of his wife, put her back into bed and call attention to the fact six hours later.

The murder scene gave no indication of what really took place. All that we have is the version given by the murderer, by Mr. Glenn Williams. While he was originally charged with

second degree murder, he was instead convicted of manslaughter. He received a five-year sentence.

The law says that Robert Latimer will serve a minimum of 10 years for his crime. The same law says that Glenn Williams will only have to serve 20 months. The system itself is flawed. For the last 20 years society has put the emphasis on the rights of the offender rather than the protection of society. This has to change.

The number one priority of the criminal justice system has to be the protection of society. We will never eliminate all the violent crime from our communities, from our society. Crimes of passion, fits of anger will always exist. Unfortunately a lot of crimes are committed by people who choose to abuse substances. That will always be with us unless we are willing to deal with the situation.

People are extremely upset when crimes are committed by previous offenders. How many opportunities must an individual get to continually violate, abuse and commit violent crimes against another person? How many people should an individual be allowed to hurt?

At the Reform Party's last assembly we passed a resolution that would call for criminals who have committed their second serious personal injury offence to be automatically designated as dangerous offenders. That means these people would be subjected to indefinite sentences. If the parole board believes these people are still dangerous they would continue to be incarcerated. If they are perceived to be a minimum risk or a good risk for parole, they could be paroled and let free. They would always be subject to some kind of supervision for the rest of their lives, considering what risk they pose to society.

Right away members from the Bloc will probably call such a measure draconian. The fact remains that a recent poll by Léger and Léger showed that 76 per cent of Quebecers agreed with this position. Only 16 per cent were opposed. I am confident that if a poll were taken across the country we would see similar results. Most Canadians agree that serious offences by dangerous offenders should be considered in that manner.

Canadians are sick and tired of criminals being allowed to commit serious crimes over and over again. Take the case of Wray Budreo. This man has over 35 convictions for sexual offences against children over a 30-year period. For his last conviction he received six years. Only a public outcry prevented him from receiving a statutory release and he was required to serve the entire sentence. The day his sentence expired people were outside the prison gates protesting his release, with just cause I would suggest. The law said that he had to be released even though many considered him still to be dangerous and a risk to society. When it was learned that he was residing in Peterborough many of the residents were concerned about his presence until he moved to Toronto.

Mr. Budreo was upset with the attention he was receiving. He says he is not a threat and that he just wants to get on with his life. I hope Mr. Budreo knows himself well enough to be making that kind of assurance to society. I hope that he never commits another criminal offence. I hope no other child becomes one of his victims. But the odds are not in his favour.

Paedophiles like Ray Budreo cannot be cured. At the very best they can only be controlled. But because of our justice system we cannot even see that Budreo is being controlled. The justice system says there is nothing it can do to protect society, to protect other children from becoming his victims. It infuriates Canadians to hear that their justice system cannot do anything to protect them from this kind of violent offender.

There is something that we as parliamentarians can do and that is to enact legislation that is necessary to protect society. Some legislation may infringe on the rights of criminals but incarceration in itself can be considered an infringement on the rights of criminals. We cannot abrogate our responsibilities as lawmakers just because we fear court challenges. The people of Canada have entrusted us to enact the necessary legislation to protect them. I would suggest that we have an obligation to Canadians to do just that.

This thought, this concern, was reiterated by Justice George Finlayson of the Ontario Court of Appeal this past Friday. In commenting on the appeal of Keith Léger, the justice made the following comment: "If society wants paedophiles more tightly controlled then it is up to the Government of Canada to legislate-but certainly not up to the court to stretch existing laws to the maximum". I think with Léger that is what this trial judge did. That is where we are at. It is up to us to make the laws.

When the justice minister introduced his gun control package last week he said that his package has the support of the majority of Canadians. I am pleased to see that the minister acknowledges the importance of the feelings of Canadians. I would like to take it for granted that the minister will soon be introducing a bill that would reintroduce capital punishment. After all a majority of Canadians favour the reintroduction of capital punishment into our justice system.

Unfortunately it would appear that is unlikely to occur. I would like to suggest to the Minister of Justice that he cannot have it both ways. If he wishes to invoke the spirit of public support with some legislation then he should be doing it with all legislation. If his gun control package is good legislation because he has the support of a majority of Canadians then reintroduction of capital punishment would be an equally good measure because it definitely has the support of the majority of Canadians.

This is a deciding factor in distinguishing the difference between the two parties. For the Reform Party the will of the majority of Canadians has priority whether it conforms with party policy or not. With the Liberal Party public support is only relevant to those issues where the majority of Canadians happen to agree with it.

Let us not make any mistake here. The public are demanding that tougher laws be enacted in our criminal justice system. Right now the justice committee is considering Bill C-37 which deals with amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Nothing seems to stir up citizens more than seeing young offenders being dealt with with kid gloves after they have committed serious and violent criminal offences. If we condone or minimize the violent acts of our young people against others how can we stand in the House denouncing violence against women? It is one thing to bring in the reverse onus clause for 16 and 17 year olds but Canadians believe they should be treated as adults, particularly when they commit serious violent offences against others.

In my spring householder I asked the following question: "Should the age limit in the Young Offenders Act be lowered from the current 12 to 17 year olds to cover only 10 to 15 year olds?" With almost 3,500 answers the response was 91 per cent in favour. Ninety-one per cent of my constituents thought that the age limit in the Young Offenders Act should be lowered. I am sure that if the Liberals asked the same questions in their householders they would get similar responses.

Does public opinion still matter to the government, or will it try and evoke that parochial attitude that "it knows better"? How can it use one tragic, heinous crime five years ago to justify an attack against all men as being violent against women in general? Canadians are demanding protection from all violent crimes; against men, against women and against children.

In the face of this concern experts keep telling us that violent crime is not really increasing. They point to a number of surveys to justify their claim. I do not feel like getting into a statistical war but I would like to present one statistic. According to Statistics Canada, in 1971 there were 204 crimes of violence for 100,000 persons; in 1991, just 20 years later, that rate had jumped to 1,099 crimes of violence for 100,000 persons. That is a 500 per cent increase in violent crimes in the last 20 years. That is what Canadians are concerned about.

Twenty years ago parents had no problem with young children playing with their friends outside. Today young children usually play under parental supervision. Twenty years ago high school students did not have any fears walking to school. Today young people are encouraged to walk in pairs or in groups, not just girls but also the boys.

The danger of walking alone really hit home in my community on October 4 of this year. Sixteen year old Pamela Cameron, a young girl who had just moved to our community, had just left school, had coffee and muffins with some friends of hers at a muffin shop and was walking along the busiest street in our community in the middle of the afternoon to visit her boyfriend. She did not make it.

Two blocks from my constituency office at four o'clock in the afternoon, Pamela Cameron was murdered. She was pulled off the busiest road in my community into some bushes and brutally murdered.

For the next week or so while the murderer was still at large, the community was in absolute distress. There was such fear in my community that parents would no longer let their children walk to school by themselves. They were driving their kids to school. They were driving their kids to their jobs. They were not allowing their daughters and their sons out of the house.

Ten days later when the individual gave himself up to authorities and was charged with the murder, there was a tremendous relief in our community. Finally they could finally feel a little more comfortable. Then the sense of relief over the tension of the capture of the accused turned to anger when they found out that this accused had a criminal record and was considered to be a violent and dangerous offender when he was released from prison.

To the credit of my constituents they turned that anger into something very positive. They formed community groups that would be available to search for missing youngsters immediately. They began a campaign to support my private member's bill which deals with being allowed to keep dangerous offenders in detention after the expiration of their warrant. In one day at a local shopping mall they were able to collect 1,000 letters each addressed to the Solicitor General and to the Minister of Justice. They were able to come up with a petition with 6,700 names. In Milton, Ontario, where the young girl came from her older sister collected over 10,000 names on a similar petition, a community showing its support for a private member's bill that talked about dealing with dangerous offenders in a very serious way.

Something quite miraculous happened last week. Despite the fact that all members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc who spoke in debate were against the bill, last Thursday that bill miraculously passed second reading unanimously. I am not sure what happened but I would like to think it was the indication of the public that they were extremely concerned about violence in our society and they wanted this House to pass legislation to deal with the problem and to put the protection of society above and beyond the rights of the accused.

On this fifth anniversary of the massacre at l'École polytechnique we must pay special attention to violence against women. We as a society must clearly send a signal that domestic violence against women and children will not be tolerated any more than violence against strangers. Whether the violence originates with a spouse, another relative, a friend, a coworker, a boss or even a stranger it is a concern we have to deal with. Evolution has given males a physical strength, a superiority over females but our laws are supposed to level out the playing field.

Unfortunately for many years the law has been complacent with some forms of violence against women, especially spousal abuse. Even today while society publicly condemns the act, that the victim was the offender's partner appears to be a mitigating factor in these crimes.

We cannot continue to excuse violence against women or children. We must continue to address this problem. Whether it is through education, community intervention, treatment, or criminal sanction we have to repeat the message that violence is not an acceptable means of expression. It is not acceptable to abuse our spouses, our children or for that matter any other human being.

As the mother of four boys I find it difficult sometimes to encourage young boys who are rough and aggressive by nature to realize there are limits to that aggression. As parents it is our responsibility not only with our young boys but also with our young girls to get them to express their feelings of frustration and anger in non-violent ways.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I do hope we see a decided change in violence against all persons in our society over the next 20 years.

[Jim Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her fine speech and a lot of interesting statistics. I have no problem with a good deal of what she has related. The hon. member mentioned several sources of her material, some of the research that has been done and the sources of those. That is always worthwhile.

I would like to know which study determined that the majority of Canadians are now interested in returning to capital punishment. It seemed to me that was mentioned in the hon. member's speech and I am not questioning the validity of it. Perhaps she did not mention the source of that study. I would be interested in knowing what the source is and in asking for that I am not for a minute questioning the member's integrity.

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

Madam Speaker, actually there have been a number of polls. I believe the first poll was taken in 1982-83 where about 80 per cent of Canadians supported the return of capital punishment. There was another poll done a couple of years ago where 76 per cent of Canadians wanted the return of capital punishment.

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to my colleague's remarks. I would agree with her that it is important to denounce the deplorable crimes that have been committed, but I would point out that it is also important, in the course of a debate such as the one here today, to look for the real causes of this situation. The violent behaviour we are seeing is often just the symptom of a situation created by society.

In this regard, I think that particular attention should be given to the reform of social programs and to how we intend to help all members of society live in acceptable conditions.

If our analysis went deeper, might we not conclude that people exhibiting aggressive, unacceptable criminal behaviour often turned to this behaviour because they did not have the same opportunities as others early in life? Perhaps our social programs did not provide access to adequate daycare for those who needed it, and thus did not truly attempt to eliminate child poverty.

Should we not be examining this aspect of the problem in seeking definitive solutions, rather than limiting ourselves to remedial and punitive action?

Of course we will always be faced with finding solutions to specific cases of unacceptable violence, such as the one that took place at the École polytechnique, but there are also all the other cases that arise.

Should we, as elected representatives, not be looking for long term solutions, rather than enumerating truly reprehensible situations, situations that are unacceptable? Our examination of the problem must go deeper and it must produce solutions.

I would put the following question to the hon. member: Is there, in the Reform Party program, the necessary compassion, the necessary acceptance of situations, and satisfactory proposals for improvement? Is everyone ready to implement the 1989 Parliamentary declaration against child poverty? Should the emphasis not be on prevention, so that we do not repeat the American experience, where more money is being spent on prisons that on helping people?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. Certainly the Reform Party does support crime prevention but we cannot have crime prevention only and not deal with crime itself.

We believe the social programs should be directed to those most in need. In reality poor people commit crimes but so do rich people. Crime crosses all barriers. If the hon. member honestly thinks that to solve the problems of poverty is going to

remove crime, I would suggest that he take a better look at who is committing crimes.

A lot of crimes are committed by people who come from the most privileged situations. I could go on and name a number of them we are all familiar with, from Thatcher in Saskatchewan to Huenemann in B.C. who killed his mother and grandmother because he did not want to share a $4 million estate.

Crime crosses all barriers. We have to deal with those problems we see in society that need to be addressed, poverty, illiteracy, those kinds of situations. We must direct that support to those most in need. We must not make it universal so that people who do not need the help get the help and the help that goes to those most in need is insufficient to look after the problem.