Mr. Speaker, before expressing my views on this issue, I want to say that I regret that the Official Opposition was only informed yesterday of the motion tabled this morning in the House. I do hope that this late notice does not reflect a lack of concern by our society on the issue of violence against women.
It is with sadness, dismay and pain that I participate in this debate to commemorate the tragedy which occurred on December 6, 1989.
In Quebec, as well as in Canada, that tragedy put the issue of violence against women in the limelight. This episode, more than any other, forced our society to stop and think. Experts in every possible field analyzed the whys and wherefores of such horror. However, the answers are neither simple nor clear. Our society is suffering, and the result is that women and children are often the victims of violence triggered by this unhappiness and malaise.
More often than not, violence is insidious, sneaky and imperceptible from the outside. At other times however, it can be visible, unbearable, terrifying and very concrete.
Statistical data cannot accurately measure psychological violence. It is a form of communication between the tormentor and the victim which undermines the soul and kills self-esteem. In fact, even though current data on physical violence is overwhelming, it only represents the tip of the iceberg.
Just recently, in 1993, Statistics Canada gathered the following information: One woman out of two was a victim of at least
one violent act since the age of 16; one in ten who lived with a spouse feared, at one time or another, for her life.
Other statistics released in 1991 by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women provide a clear and hard picture of the plight of those women who live in poverty.
In 1989, eight out of every ten women living on reserves in Ontario were victims of violence. In 1989, eight out of ten women inmates of federal penitentiaries had been abused before their incarceration. In 1989, four out of ten women with disabilities had been abused or raped. While weakness should spontaneously generate an attitude of protection and help, we observe paradoxical behaviour. The weakest are at the highest risk of violent treatment. How can this troubling reality be explained?
In a document on spousal violence and its effects on children, Beth Allen bore out the theory that children from violent homes are at greater risk of committing, or being the victims of acts of violence. It is as if witnessing violent behaviour causes violence to be incorporated in the behaviour pattern of the child who witnesses such violence.
While some may learn violent behaviour at home, the role played by mass media in trivializing this violence cannot be denied. Even the most horrible things end up losing any meaning when you are exposed to them every day. You become indifferent to the horror. Parliament has a major responsibility in this regard. Today, on the eve of the third millennium, do victims of violence speak more freely of the abuse they suffer?
It is currently estimated that one out of every four women who fall victim to violence will report these acts of violence to the police. Other figures are much more conservative, as they indicate that one woman in ten would report it. Perhaps these figures are more accurate. At any rate, fear and silence go hand in hand. Is this society prepared to let battered women be heard? The question has been put, but I am afraid that the answer is no.
In 1991, 270 women were murdered in Canada, a 33 per cent increase over 1988; 85 of these women were shot dead. Thirty per cent of women slain in Canada and Quebec in 1991 were slain with firearms which were generally used against them by people they knew. While the women of Quebec and Canada were confidently expecting a fair and reasonable gun control bill to be tabled, the Minister of Justice announced in a ministerial statement made on November 30, that we will have to wait until 1998 for the registration of firearms to start and until 2003 for it to be completed.
Mr. Speaker, I put the question to you: can this society afford to wait? Do these women have the time to wait? I am sorry that this government is not prepared to let women victims of violence be heard.
Let me tell you about another form of violence. I will do so in English. It should be painfully slow, as I am already a slow reader in French.
Generally, when we speak of violence against women we focus on physical and psychological damage inflicted by one individual against another. However, what of the more insidious ways in which women are subjugated? The wounds inflicted by society and borne silently can be felt as keenly as physical blows.
Allow me to illustrate my point with an example. There is a new medical industry in Canada growing and developing with a life of its own. A full year after the final report of the royal commission on new reproductive technologies, the federal government has not introduced a single measure to regulate the use or further development of these new technologies. As a result, we see women at Toronto's IVF Canada clinic selling their eggs to pay for expensive and unproven fertility treatments. We see women desperate for money renting out their wombs in surrogacy arrangements.
This is exploitation in its worst form because the federal government, I regret sincerely, turns a blind eye to it. Just as violence against women is the abuse of physical or psychological power, the exploitation of women's reproductive capabilities is the abuse of economic and political power. By not acting swiftly to regulate this industry and to put a halt to the most exploitive and ethically abhorrent new reproductive technologies, the federal government is demonstrating complacency in the form of violence against women. This lack of action can no longer be tolerated by the women of Quebec and Canada.
I will continue later.