Debates of Dec. 6th, 1994

Violence Against Women

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made mention of the fact that there is a greater involvement of women in crime. He cited errors in the study done with respect to the incidence of violence against women. He stated that more women commit child abuse than men. I find that all of these statements are made to minimize and trivialize violent acts against women.

When we think about what happened a number of years ago on this day, we must remember today what damage violence against women in our society does and we ought not to speak in such a manner as to trivialize and minimize it and make it an excusable type of behaviour.

I want to ask the hon. member if he still feels that these types of remarks under these circumstances are justified.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member gets a little emotional when he hears the truth.

Throughout the day certain statements were made and it is appropriate to provide a balancing alternate view without taking any of my words and twisting them to somehow diminish or demean the conflict and the social trouble we have out there and the level of violence which is unacceptable in our society.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to simply start into my text when I have been faced with the address we just heard in this House. I have to say that if education is the answer to many of the ailments in our society and if the problems we have are problems of ignorance, we need to spend a great deal more money and a great deal more time educating people so that attitudes such as those that were just reflected do not become prevalent in our society.

When I stand on this side of the House and I look across at so many middle aged, middle class white male faces and hear the kind of venom that was just spewed I have to react strongly.

One woman is shot dead every six days in Canada on average. On December 6, 1989, 14 women were wiped out with bullets in just a few minutes.

Others have risen in this House from the other quarters today to recognize these women, to remember their lives, to mourn them and in their name to look toward a time of hope when violence will be a thing of the past.

One woman is shot dead with a bullet every six days in our country. A woman is nine times as likely to be killed by her spouse as by a stranger. They do not just use bullets. They beat them, stab them and suffocate them.

Some want to talk about statistics. Some want to talk about women engaging in crime. Women are violated and abused because of an attitude in our society that suppresses women and that seeks to continue to suppress women even though it is 1994, even though we are moving toward the 21st century, even though women are in the political leadership of our country, in the business leadership of our country and in the parenting leadership of our country; even though women have struggled and continue to struggle to make the same salary as their male counterparts and even though women continue today to lead single parent families from a position of poverty.

Life is very simple on the other side of the House. Those members would like to arm us all. They would like to cut $15 billion out of our social programs with no priorities. They would like to suggest that statistics in the most comprehensive study that has ever been done on violence against women in Canada are eschewed because they do not like the sound of them. Life is not that simple.

We have tremendous problems in this country. We have people who want to help. They want to help women, children and yes, they even want to help white, middle aged, middle class men to have a better life. We do it by bringing prosperity to this country, jobs to this country, by observing the precepts of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms and by following the rule of law. We do it by treating other human lives with the dignity that they deserve and by remembering respectfully, very seriously and very intently the lives of women like the 14 at l'École polytechnique that were lost because our society is less than perfect.

This Friday evening I will return to Windsor-St. Clair and I will join former colleagues, colleagues who are also great and tremendous friends of mine in Windsor. We will have a little Christmas cheer but we are going to do so as persons joined, friends and colleagues united in a cause, a cause which is very important in my community which is the support and the perpetuation of the programs and the spirit of a place called Hiatus House.

Hiatus House is an interval home in Windsor, a transition home for battered women and their children. It is a home that, in spite of what my friends opposite think, is always full, always has a waiting list and does wonders in our community. Hiatus House operates under the guidance and direction of Donna Miller, executive director. I am proud to say that she is a friend of mine and I am also happy to tell this country, through this House, that she is a visionary as are many women and men who work in this field.

This is an incredible place. This is a place that pioneered transition homes in Canada. It pioneered special programs for the children of battered women. It has also pioneered a program called "Fresh Start" which is a program designed for the treatment of spouses who batter, of men who batter their wives and children.

It is a transition home that faces the ugly realities that these people live with and that tries so hard to put these people back together in one piece again, to break the cycle of domestic violence.

I am proud to stand today as the member for Windsor-St. Clair to talk about Hiatus House. I wish I could have spent more time at it but I felt compelled to comment on other things.

December 6 can never be forgotten by Canadians. It can never be forgotten because there are still Canadians who are oppressed. There are still Canadians who are repressed and there are still Canadians who are not white, middle aged, middle class males who make $64,000 a year.

As long as those people are suppressed, as long as our greater political and societal structure is such that there are people who are less equal, then I think we have an obligation to continue. I am proud to be part of this government. I am proud to follow a leader who believes in these principles and I am proud to be on this side of the House even if talking about those principles means that one has to be hackled.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the hon. member was saying. I too helped to set up a crisis house. I donated money, time and energy to do that because I think it is important. We need to do more of that. It is too bad we have to have them.

She talked about the jobless, the economy, et cetera. We go back as far as the depression. During the time of the depression when the economy could not have been worse and jobs could not have been worse, amazingly enough on a per capita basis that was when there was the least amount of crime. That can be

checked. If one denies it to be true, it can be checked. One will find that is the case.

I remember maybe 40 years ago when there was respect that was really taught. I was about that age when my father would have a fit if I did not show a little more respect, particularly to the opposite sex in terms of helping them when they needed it. Opening doors was a common practice and things of this nature. We did not swear in front of a woman because it was not an acceptable thing to do.

This violence against women is abhorrent. It really is, believe you me. I believe that. I am trying to figure out what in the world brought us to this point? What is it that has advanced us so far along the line that causes men to do the things they do to women? Please do not point a finger at me because I have not laid a hand on a woman in my entire life.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite an opening. I am going to resist. I have no doubt that the member for Wild Rose believes everything he just said. I have no doubt that he abhors violence against women. The problem I have is this difficulty in seeing the bigger picture, this tremendous desire for the quick fix, for the simple solution that I see in his party's policies.

In the dirty thirties women were victimized in the same way, perhaps worse than they are now. The problem is that in the thirties the culture was such that they did not report it. They were afraid to. They thought it was their place to take this. They thought they had to put up with it.

Times have changed. Unfortunately some people have not changed with the times and some people refuse to accept that women have a place in society. We are not a special interest group. We do not want a privileged position. We just want to be equal.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the space of a couple of centuries women have advanced from being chattels to being real persons and now in the pantheon of the politically correct back to being mere victims.

I find this extraordinarily offensive and I think it demeans women. Women are people and should be treated as such. Violence exists throughout society. It is symptomatic of an alarming loss of civility, traditional values which have gone down the pipe.

Talk about women being victimized in the thirties. I am old enough that I can remember those times. Yes, spousal abuse went on in those days but when it did anyone who took part in that sort of activity was (a) socially ostracized or (b) stood a very good chance of getting the socks beaten off him by the abused woman's brothers, father, cousins, uncles and so on. This was commonly done.

You don't know; you were not there, madam.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. In the pantheon of the politically correct, sir, may I say that I do know. I was there, and you are wrong.

The House resumed from December 1, consideration of Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Department Of Industry Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to the order made Thursday, December 1 1994, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts.

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The first question will be on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on Motion No. 2 also applies to Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 3, 6 and 8. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 3.

The vote on Motion No. 3 also applies to Motions Nos. 6 and 8.

The next question is on Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on Motion No. 1 to Motion No. 2.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 2 lost. Consequently Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 7 are lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 3.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as the whip for the New Democratic Party caucus the New Democratic Party members present in the House vote yea for Motion No. 5.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will come to that shortly.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent that the whips or representatives from each party could rise and indicate how their colleagues who had voted on the previous vote would be applied as voting on the present vote. In terms of Liberal members, Liberal members will be voting nay along with the hon. member for Beauce on Motion No. 3.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will be voting nay on this motion.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Reform Party who are present today will vote yea unless there are those who wish to vote otherwise.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party who are present today vote no on Motion No. 3.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as the whip for the PC Party, all PC members present tonight will be voting nay.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 9.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on Motion No. 3 to report stage Motion No. 9.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?