Madam Speaker, today we commemorate the sad anniversary of the massacre at l'École polytechnique in which 14 young women died. Despite the horror and revulsion which we feel about it, this act is only a pale reflection of the violence women suffer. We should denounce this violence not only today but every day of the year.
What Marc Lépine did makes us all think, but it is just the tip of the iceberg. Violence against women is rarely so spectacular, fortunately. This violence takes many forms, some more pernicious than others. Women are victims of violence 365 days a year. Violence is insidious and affects every aspect of a woman's life.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women defined violence against women as a complex problem which includes physical, sexual, psychological and economic violence against women and said that this violence depends on structures, values and social, economic and political measures that muzzle women in our society, promote discrimination on the basis of sex and maintain the inequality of women.
Violence is the weapon of choice for those who want to subdue and dominate. Men learned that a long time ago and use violence. Even today, we women are kept out and subjugated by an archaic macho attitude.
Our Catholic Church will not let us be priests but suggests that we do volunteer work. This is another way of telling us women that we are not educated, cultivated or even pious enough to have access to the upper echelons of a Church which is meant to be a reflection of society. From deacon to pope, the positions are all held by men who are often pretentious and full of themselves. Their authority over the faithful in general and women in particular is a good example of the masculine philosophy based on control and power. Do you really think that the Catholic Church would be in worse shape than it is now if the pope was a woman?
Unfortunately, the Church is not the only institution which treats women like that. Let us take a look in this House. In Canada, women account for 52 per cent of the population. However, if you count the number of women in the House of Commons, you will find 53 out of 295 MPs. Our great Parliament is very much a male stronghold. Over half of the Canadian population is represented here by barely one sixth of the total number of MPs.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the government takes so long to table legislation to ensure the safety and well-being of women. A Parliament made up of men proposes and passes male-oriented legislation, with the result that we are still waiting for the Minister of Justice to table concrete legislation on firearms. There is no need to rush: After all, for every man who dies during a spousal argument, six women are killed. I am convinced that if the figures were reversed, the process would have been speeded up.
Do you not agree that, if the Minister of Justice were a woman, we would have a bill to amend the Criminal Code and strictly prohibit the mutilation of female genitals? But the victims are women and the Minister of Justice does not even intend to amend the Criminal Code. Not only did the justice minister put on the back burner the idea of registering all firearms, he also refuses to table a bill to protect the innocent victims of a cruel and barbaric practice.
The Minister of Justice promised to do everything in his power to end such criminal activities. Either the minister only has the power to make promises, or else protecting young girls from mutilation is not one of his priorities.
The mutilation of female genitals is a form of violence against girls and violates their basic right to physical integrity. Will we have to wait until a similar practice is introduced that would mutilate male genitals for the government to make up its mind to act? If 52 per cent of the members of this House were women, I am sure these problems would already have been dealt with and legislation would already have been introduced, passed and implemented.
Last week, the Minister of Justice missed an excellent opportunity to show everyone he was concerned about the security of wives. It seems gun control is not the answer, because instead of tabling a bill, as he promised, he made a ministerial statement full of good intentions. Meanwhile, every six days, on average, a woman is shot and killed.
I can hear people saying that the lack of women in the House is our own fault, because we choose not to run for election. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some obtuse male chauvinists fail to understand what this means for a woman. These guardians of the male mystique cannot imagine that someone would hate the sparring at all-candidates meetings, that woman are fundamentally different in the way they live, the way they are educated and trained and in the way they act.
My answer to them is that I still hope that some day, this House will be truly representative of the population and that women will fill 52 per cent of the seats, in other words, have the representation they deserve.