Debates of Feb. 22nd, 1995

Atlantic Canada

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic on regional development, I rise to participate in this debate on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.

First of all, I feel that elected representatives from all parts of Canada are all concerned about economic development. This is extremely important under the current economic conditions, especially since we know that it is essential to create jobs to stop stagnating and start moving toward economic and structural development.

I am a little surprised by the motion. This motion respecting federal assistance for Atlantic Canada's economic development, which was put forward by my colleague from Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, touches on, among other things, the importance of a better future for the Maritimes. This concern is quite commendable, in my opinion.

With all due respect, this motion reflects a certain lack of knowledge about the federal government's regional development policies and about Quebec's traditional demands regarding regional development.

I wish to state in this House my position on this motion concerning equity in federal contributions to Atlantic Canada's regional development. The Bloc Quebecois must, of course, show some opposition to such a motion.

Allow me in the next few minutes to elaborate on some of the reasons why Quebec must give priority to its own regional development.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or ACOA is the federal government's main regional development agency in Atlantic Canada. The ACOA mostly deals with small business, helping to launch new ventures and modernize existing companies. On November 30, 1993, the federal government's contribution amounted to $865 million out of the total $1 billion budget forecast, or $431 per capita.

Until very recently, the federal government's main regional development agency in Quebec was the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec or FORDQ. Since the FORDQ was created in 1991, its mandate has been to emphasize long-term economic development and job creation.

However, given its limited financial resources, the FORDQ will pay more attention to small business by offering information and analysis services and promoting exports. This is a far cry from the basic principles of local development.

Under these circumstances, why would Quebec want to invest additional public funds in Atlantic Canada? On July 20, 1994, the federal government's share-close to $350 million-had still not been committed in Quebec. The total budget for the economic and regional development agreement is $1.6 billion, or, and this is the total budget, $64 per capita in Quebec.

In Western Canada, in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Western Economic Diversification Canada or WED is the main federal vehicle for regional development.

As of November 30, 1993, spending under these programs totalled $936 million. The ERDA provides for a budget of $1.l2 billion or $160 per capita. That is, very briefly, what regional development looks like in Canada, and I want the hon. member to pay attention to these figures and this breakdown of federal regional development assistance.

There is no common standard for the West, the Maritimes and Quebec. The federal contribution to these agreements is $64 per capita in Quebec, compared to $160 in the western provinces and $431 in the Atlantic provinces.

So why should Quebec support a motion that would increase federal assistance to the Atlantic provinces, when some provinces seem to be more equal than others?

The 1993 and 1994 Estimates indicate that the federal government spends less on regional development in Quebec than anywhere else. In fact, the budget for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is $314 million, the budget for the Department of Western Economic Diversification is $238 million, and the budget for the FORDQ is $232 million.

However, the total population of these other provinces is less than the total population of Quebec.

In his last budget, the finance minister announced a cut of $70 million in the subsidies and contributions for the FORDQ. Quebec's regions are the big losers as far as federal funding is concerned. Since 1983, annual federal funding for regional development increased only 50 per cent in Quebec, but 250 per cent in the Maritimes and 300 per cent in the West.

In other words, through the federal government, Quebec funds regional development programs and policies it is not in a position to implement in its own regions. The 1993-94 budget for the Quebec Regional Affairs Secretariat is for $71 million, while Quebec's part under agreements concluded with the west and the maritimes amounts to $550 million, or 25 per cent of the $2.2 billion federal budget.

Ottawa's regional development policies are clearly discriminatory toward Quebec. If the amount Quebec receives from the federal government in transfer payments and for all kinds of national programs is approximately equal to the tax it pays to the federal government, this is among other things thanks to transfer payments earmarked for income security and the unemployment insurance program. In other words, for want of a true regional development policy in Quebec, the federal government is maintaining poverty and unemployment there. This is why Quebec is calling for and has for years called for the repatriation of all regional development responsibilities. The Bloc Quebecois therefore has no choice but to oppose a motion entailing an increase in moneys for regional development in the maritimes.

Regional development is of course not a distinct area of jurisdiction in the Canadian constitution, as a result of which Quebec is forced to engage in endless negotiations to arrive at agreements. Unfailingly, these agreements ultimately authorize the federal government to interfere repeatedly and awkwardly in regional development. It is interference. The regions in Quebec suffer from duplication of efforts in regional development matters and from the lack of consistency in government policy.

Which brings us back to what the present Liberal government is doing, namely structural duplication giving rise to considerable operating costs as opposed to real investments in development, as well as multiplicity of government parties involved which frequently results in confusion among regional stakeholders. Quebec has adopted an overall regional development plan, an overall plan for each of its sixteen administrative regions. This is why, and justly so, it wants to get back from the federal government the resources it should receive for regional development. Let us first establish fairness in redistributing federal moneys for regional development before broaching the subject of the gap between what Quebec and other regions in Canada receive.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion. It was not clear to me in the original motion whether or not the suggestion was being made to put more money into Atlantic Canada. If that is the case we would oppose it.

There is much talk about what Atlantic Canada needs. The proposer of the motion suggested full employment. Whilst full employment would be good for Atlantic Canada, I suggest that it would be good across the country. However the full employment goal will not be achieved. Regardless of how much is spent in the country or how good the opportunities are, full employment is unachievable.

The presenter of the motion also said that regional development policies and programs have been managed from the top down. That is so. ACOA is a prime example. Western Economic Diversification is another example as is FORD-Q.

For labour and communities to co-ordinate how we are to improve the economy in Atlantic Canada is a good avenue, but it is also a good avenue to pursue right across the country. Co-operatives are in existence so these things can happen if the people want them to happen. That kind of activity does not need government intervention.

The mover of the motion suggested the fisheries problems in Atlantic Canada were a result of government bungling. We all know that to be so on both the east coast and west coast. That is unfortunate. The less government we have in the country the better off we will be. To try to increase government is not the way to go.

The proposer of the motion also suggested that young people should not have to leave home. While that again is nice to say, the reality is that young people leave home. Young people go where there is work. Young people leave home for various reasons. To expect young people to stay in Atlantic Canada any more than they do in the towns of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or wherever is unrealistic.

I am quite impressed with the skills of the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada. Frank McKenna in New Brunswick impressed the nation with some of his moves to get business into New Brunswick. Clyde Wells in Newfoundland is also making good innovative approaches to improve its economy. That is what really needs to happen. It is up to the people themselves. I do not think the federal government necessarily plays a big role in this activity.

One of the real potentials I see in Atlantic Canada is the cost of land and housing. For example, young people growing up in the area I come from in the lower mainland of British Columbia cannot afford to buy houses or to buy land. It is just too expensive for them. I see the day when young people will be going back to the eastern part of the country. They will look to where there are appropriate housing costs. They will look to where they can buy land, live and raise families. The potential of Atlantic Canada will be much greater in the future because of the natural evolution of the country. As a result of the younger generation moving we will see jobs being created. In areas like the lower mainland of British Columbia we will see an outflow of younger people for that reason.

Where there are successes there are failures. We only have to look at some of the activities of ACOA to see failures in the nation as far as regional development and western economic diversification are concerned. It is a presumption of government that it knows best how to spend our money.

The minister responsible for ACOA recently said that there would be no grants. A lot of that came from the pressure we put on the government. As a result we now have ACOA giving out loans that basically FBDB should be giving out. Why ACOA is not cancelled today is difficult to understand. There are institutions in the country that can look after the affairs ACOA used to look after or the new responsibilities of ACOA. We need not have that bureaucracy in existence.

I look forward to seeing what the Minister of Finance will do next Monday with the operations of ACOA, Western Economic Diversification and FORD-Q if he is truly interested in making some positive changes in the country.

Atlantic Canada needs less government, not more government.

Owners of some businesses who receive grants, and they are the minority of businesses, will not say that. When we really get down to the people who are paying the taxes for the money going to those businesses, they are saying: "Look, we would rather have the money in our pockets. Create businesses and create wealth from our perspective. Don't give it to the friends of the recipients over there".

The hon. member for Moncton talked about infrastructure. He suggested that infrastructure was an investment and not a cost. I have the greatest of difficulty with that philosophy. The infrastructure started by the Liberal government came into place as a result of its commitment to jobs, jobs, jobs.

The Liberals said that they were going to spend $2 billion at the federal level and $2 billion at the provincial level if they chipped in. Also the municipalities were to throw in $2 billion. What was not acknowledged was that there was only one taxpayer paying this money. The government took over a $40 billion deficit, $40 billion of overspending, and then said that it would spend some more. It was going to borrow another $6 billion from taxpayers to start an infrastructure program to show the whole country it could create jobs.

Yes, it did. It created short term jobs. In the long run that is unhealthy for the country. It does not help at all. Only when we have a continuous infrastructure can it be of benefit to the country. We cannot have it continuously because we are borrowing too much money. We have too high a debt load.

It was patently wrong for the hon. member for Moncton to suggest that bad Reformers over here were treating Atlantic Canadians indifferently or incorrectly because they were against infrastructure. The fact is that the infrastructure is not good for taxpayers across the country regardless of what province they live in.

I trust the motion is not asking for more money. I trust it speaks to the fact that Atlantic Canadians can help themselves just like anybody else anywhere in the country. All the more credit to them.

If we want to look at ingenuity in the country we can look at Atlantic Canada where the provinces for years have had less money than many other provinces. They seem to dig down, dig deep, work hard, innovate and come up with answers that many of us across the country should be looking at and following. We should be using some of their initiative. Hats off to Premier

Frank McKenna. He is on the right track as far as any government in the land is concerned.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing who has spent some time in his past life in my riding of Halifax.

I thank him for his motion because it is refreshing to finally hear some understanding of Atlantic Canada being expressed by members on the other side. Also, the motion serves as an important reminder to government members as well as we enter into the final days before our budget.

The motion voices the belief shared by the vast majority of Canadians and promoted by the government that there is a vibrant future for Atlantic Canada and that it has much to contribute, as it always has, to the future of the country. Government has a role to play to ensure a fairer, more equitable and just future for Atlantic Canada by encouraging policies and programs to create jobs through initiative funds for co-operatives, encouraging small business, upgrading municipal infrastructure and diversifying single industry communities.

Never before has it been so important for government to provide the encouragement and framework for economic self-reliance. Given the current fiscal situation, government is faced with doing more for Canadians with ever fewer resources. Canadians expect their government to approach economic development with a keener business sense, expecting greater returns on their investment.

This is why the motion is so important. It underscores the innovative and productive ways in which the federal government, in partnership with the provinces, the private sector, communities and most important of all the people, can kindle and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit in Atlantic Canada.

It is also timely, coming as it does in the wake of the thinly veiled attack on Atlantic Canada by members of the Reform Party with the release of that manifesto yesterday. The Atlantic culture, its way of life, the vibrant entrepreneurial spirit, must be kindled, encouraged and recognized for what it really is: strong, proud and independent. Our national policies must reflect this reality.

Unlike the Reform Party, we cannot afford to base government policies on offensive stereotypes. The Reform Party in past comments by its MPs and in its manifesto on deficit reduction released yesterday attempts to propagate the ignorant stereotype that Atlantic Canada is a wasteland filled with dependent and enslaved welfare recipients and working stiffs who are a drain on the national treasury and economy, and the italics are theirs.

As an Atlantic Canadian I find these gross generalizations very offensive, but then again why should I expect anything different? We hear policies on women, on the family and on race that are a testament to the fact that the Reform Party prefers ideologically driven false assumptions. Sure, if stereotypes held true the world's problems would be a lot simpler to deal with but reality constantly confirms that they are not true.

When a regionally based political party from the west recommends solutions based on untrue stereotypes of a group of people who live in another region of the country we have the makings for divisive, dangerous and destructive debate.

Those of us from the region know that nothing can be further from the truth. By perpetrating these offensive stereotypes the Reform Party is attacking the very foundation of Atlantic Canada. It is maligning the region's hard working men and women. We must recognize that the people of Atlantic Canada are the key to economic development, the people who have lived and laboured and not only survived but flourished in this region over the last half millennium and longer in the case of our aboriginal peoples.

As elected representatives we have a responsibility now more than ever to promote and protect their interests here in Ottawa; their real interests, not those imagined interests seen through the lens of destructive stereotypes.

For the Reform Party the solution to Atlantic Canada is simple. It wants a government sponsored and enforced migration program. Again, this is confirmed in the document released yesterday and in statements made by members of its caucus. They advocate that UI and other benefits be dependent on the willingness to relocate.

The Reform MP from Capilano-Howe Sound is quoted as saying people should be moving to jobs and the rest of Canada is not prepared to foot the bill for the alleged dependency in the Atlantic region.

These approaches would make government a destructive force in the lives of Atlantic Canadians as opposed to a catalyst for economic and social development.

For that reason I would like to speak today about Atlantic Canada, about the diversity of its economy, the aspirations of its people and the real future that we in Atlantic Canada are working toward.

Members of the Reform would do well to listen and perhaps, although unlikely, learn something about the region. The government has a role and I would like to provide some examples of areas where we have been successful.

We in the government recognize that the people of Atlantic Canada are the key. I can think of no greater example of community based grassroots development initiatives than those of the co-operative movement which was founded in Atlantic Canada. It is recognized as one of the region's major economic players despite its modest beginnings. Today co-operatives are involved in financial services, insurance, consumer products, manufacturing, processing, housing projects and in various worker owned co-ops.

Their strength can be summarized in a few words: knowledge of the people and the community. Their innovation is reflected in some recent senior housing developments and the introduction four years ago of a venture capital funding instrument by the caisse populaire movement in New Brunswick, to cite but a few.

Experience in Europe and elsewhere demonstrates the amazing potential for this type of initiative to contribute to economic development.

Approximately 750,000 people, 30 per cent of the Atlantic population, are members of or use the services of co-operatives. Five hundred thousand Atlantic Canadians are members of credit unions and caisses populaires which administer $2.4 billion in assets in the region. They employ 2,000 people. Insurance co-ops have another 477 employees; consumer co-operatives, 2,400 employees. The major co-operative employer, however, is the producer co-operative, with close to 6,000 employees.

I want to stress that a co-operative is more than a business. Its raison d'être is the economic and social betterment of its members and the community. The human aspect takes a central role with the co-operative movement and this is a real asset. Approximately 11,000 Atlantic Canadians are employed in this system; a major employer by any standard.

In the area of small business we have great success in Atlantic Canada. It is the engine of economic growth throughout Canada, most particularly in the Atlantic region. Small business and the growth of new business is alive and well. The rate of small business start-ups has continued to grow. The number of small businesses, those with fewer than 100 employees, grew to 83,000 from 53,000 in the ten-year period from 1981 to 1991. The number of large businesses with more than 500 employees decreased marginally. We are experiencing an unprecedented increase in the business start-up rate and job creation in Atlantic Canada.

The number one priority of this government has been robust in the maritimes with the inception of the Canada infrastructure works program, a program which it seems is singularly difficult for the members opposite to grasp.

As of December 31 over 575 programs have been approved in Atlantic Canada, from installing and upgrading sewer systems to rebuilding roadways. This represents investments of $450 million and will create over 7,300 jobs in the region.

The government has made its number one priority to restore the dignity of Canadians by putting them back to work. This government received an overwhelming mandate from Canadians in every region to do just that.

The minister responsible for ACOA said recently that what is good for Atlantic Canada is good for all of Canada. I know that Reform members have difficulty with this. That is because they do not have a national vision and they do not share the Canadian belief that we must continue to work together in every region of the country toward economic and social development.

I am delighted to speak in support of this motion. I am delighted to stand in this House and explode some of the myths perpetrated about Atlantic Canadians by members on the opposite side. I am delighted to speak, in particular, about co-operatives, coming from the province of Nova Scotia, the home of Monsignor Moses Coady and Father James Tompkins, the fathers of the co-operative movement worldwide.

It is a proud thing to be an Atlantic Canadian. It is a great thing to be an Atlantic Canadian standing in this House representing other Atlantic Canadians. I invite members on the other side who do not seem to understand that pride, that heritage, that culture and that future to come see us. We will show you where the real world is.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States is getting ready to encroach on an area and our farmers are not at all happy about it. In Quebec, farmers know what supply management means.

In December 1993, I participated in an information session put on by the UPA in Beauce. The meeting was held in Saint-Georges. We were told, with input by Yvon Proulx, senior economist at the UPA, that, under the GATT, we were going to

have to drop milk quotas, which would be replaced by import tariffs. These import tariffs would be so high that they would prevent, to all intents and purposes, the entry of supply management commodities, such as dairy products, eggs and poultry.

Both the farmers and I were sceptical, but the UPA kept on repeating that the freshly elected Liberal government had given guarantees.

However, Canada and the United States each have their own interpretation of the FTA and NAFTA. On the one hand, we have Canada, which claims that converting import quotas for dairy products into tariff equivalents, as the GATT agreements stipulate, takes precedence. On the other, we have our American friends, who claim that NAFTA prohibits the use of tariff equivalents.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister assured me "from one Chrétien to another" that he would bring the issue before a WTO panel if the Americans did not stop pestering Quebecers and Canadians. Today, I would like to remind the government that, under the GATT agreement, Canada's agricultural tariffs for each commodity will be reduced by 36 per cent over six years, with a minimum reduction of 15 per cent per commodity. That is what was promised to farmers in order to let the GATT be passed, in December 1993.

By July 1995, therefore in a few months, the tariffs should be as follows, to quote a few: butter, 351 per cent; cheese, 290 per cent; powdered milk, 250 per cent; chicken, 280 per cent; eggs, which have the lowest tariff, 192 per cent; milk, 283 per cent and ice cream, 326 per cent.

These high tariffs will protect producers in Quebec and Canada for several years to come, despite tariff reductions of 15 per cent to 36 per cent over the next six years.

The important thing for our farmers is not to produce but to secure markets for their products. That is why this government must stand up and show once and for all that, under section 309 of NAFTA, Canada can invoke section XI of the GATT agreement to protect its agricultural industry. I hope that this government will show more backbone than it did in the durum wheat dispute last summer.

Supply management is nothing new in Canada. In fact, dairy products have been supply managed since 1972. There were then 17 cows in the average dairy herd, compared with 48 today.

We must remember that, in 1971 and before, farmers had a little bit of everything. They used to keep three or four pigs, one or two horses, beef and dairy cows, sheep, chickens; it was almost a zoo.

Today, our farmers specialize in pork, dairy, poultry and other products. We asked our farmers to specialize in order to become competitive and they took up the challenge. To meet this challenge, they must have a decent income and know how much they can expect to receive in 1995 and 1996, and not a widely fluctuating income. Supply management offers dairy producers some income stability.

I know that my question will be answered by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on behalf of the Prime Minister, but I hope that he will take these demands under consideration. I know that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is very familiar with all agricultural sectors and that he, too, is very sensitive to farmers' concerns. I, for one, can tell you that farmers would never have agreed, in December 1993, had they known that this import tariff agreement would be so fragile.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments tonight. I can assure him that we heard what he has said. We heard what his representatives have said and we heard what the supply management industry has said.

Yesterday the hon. member asked the Prime Minister whether he plans on telling President Clinton that Canada has no intention of negotiating bilaterally any reduction in the tariff equivalents that were negotiated in the Uruguay round and then implemented by Canada.

As the Prime Minister stated very clearly in his response to the member, our application of tariff equivalents on supply managed commodities that were negotiated in the Uruguay round is fully consistent with our rights under both GATT and NAFTA.

We are satisfied that our legal position is sound and we will continue to hold firm on our position. This message will be conveyed to President Clinton by the Prime Minister during President Clinton's visit to Canada and to this House to speak tomorrow. The Prime Minister, as we know, will be meeting with President Clinton for the next two days.

During the FTA, NAFTA and multilateral trade negotiations, Canada's position was that we would not make any concessions that would undermine supply management. This position is reflected in all those agreements.

Tariffication was a central issue during the Uruguay round. It was clear that these tariff equivalents would apply to all imports, including those from the United States.

The United States has requested consultation and it should be seen as just that; a request to meet and discuss the issues. It is the first step in the dispute settlement process. If the United States so desires, it may eventually seek to resolve the issue by way of a panel under either NAFTA or the WTO or as it is otherwise

known, GATT. This, however, does not preclude Canada from requesting a panel in either NAFTA or the WTO, if we so desire.

I would like to point out again to the member that the Prime Minister met with the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, including representatives from supply management agencies, and including the president of the UPA who was present at that meeting on Monday of this week.

He indicated very clearly that Canada has a strong, legal case and that Canada would ardently defend its rights regarding the tariffication of import measures on supply managed commodities.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand on my question today to the Minister of Justice on family violence.

When I talk about family violence I am not talking only about violence against women. I am talking about violence against the elderly, violence against the handicapped, violence against children, and yes, sometimes violence against men. I am not talking only about physical abuse or physical violence. I am talking about mental abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and sometimes financial abuse in terms of dependency.

I have held two forums on family violence in my riding. They were attended by about 80 presenters from all walks of life, such as from the mental health field, family law, crown attorneys, police chiefs, counsellors, educators, and victims of violence.

One thing that came through very loud and clear from the forums is that there is definitely a lack of awareness in our society on family violence. There was consensus that as a government we have to do something to make Canadians aware of the gravity and the prevalence of violence in our society.

A lot of questions were asked. For instance, when there is a family violence situation, why do we remove the victims and the children and put them in a shelter and the abuser or offender is free?

I believe, as was the consensus during the forums, that there is a real need to conduct some national forums on family violence. The purpose of those forums would be to create awareness. In my next householder I intend to give numbers to assist people in knowing where to find help. A lot of victims do not know where to turn, especially in the rural areas of Canada.

During the course of my forums the media: radio, television and newspapers talked about them. Many victims came out of the woodwork to seek help. If we can create awareness by the forums, we will have achieved at least part of our goal.

The second goal of having such forums would be to develop, in consultation with all parties involved, a set of recommendations. What changes can we make to the Criminal Code to prevent family violence? What changes can we make to the administration of justice? What support programs can we implement, not only for the victims of family violence but also for the offenders?

I can already hear members of the Reform Party saying that this is going to cost money. These forums can be organized in a very cost effective manner. All we actually need are two co-chairs, preferably a man and a woman, a support staff from the justice department and perhaps from the minister for the status of women. We could ask members in each riding to look after the logistics of organizing the forums, to advertise and to find a venue.

We would need only a very small travelling budget for three or four persons and maybe have 20 or 25 of those forums across the country. A small amount of money like that would be well spent in protecting our children, our elderly and the lives of women in this country.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice shares the hon. member's concern and commitment to addressing the serious problem of family violence.

Recent examples of the justice minister's commitment include Bill C-42 which was proclaimed on February 15, 1995 and amended the Criminal Code peace bond provisions to help prevent acts of family violence before they occur. These amendments will allow police and others to apply on behalf of persons at risk of harm for a peace bond. They will also enable the court to specify the conditions that can be imposed as part of the peace bond including, for example, prohibiting the husband from being at or near the family home or from communicating with his wife.

These amendments also make the breach of a peace bond more serious by making it punishable on indictment and liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of two years instead of the previous summary conviction maximum of six months.

Another example is Bill C-41 introduced on June 13, 1994 which proposes sentencing reforms and would make the abuse of a position of trust or authority in the commission of an offence an aggravating factor in sentencing.

On February 14, 1995 the Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-68 which proposes significant reforms to control firearms. We know for instance from the Statistics Canada spousal homicide survey that between 1974 and 1992 a married woman was nine times as likely to be killed by her spouse as by a stranger and that 42 per cent of women killed by their spouses during this period

were killed with guns. These firearms' proposals will provide a clear and effective response to prevent such use of firearms.

The Minister of Justice also acknowledges the importance and value of consulting with Canadians. Public consultations provide the government with invaluable insight into various issues.

A recent example of the value of such consultations is the June 1994 national consultation with women's organizations on violence against women issues which included family violence. This national consultation was co-hosted by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

These existing efforts to address family violence by the federal government will help to protect women, children and seniors who are the primary victims of family violence. The individual efforts of members such as the hon. member's public forums will clearly contribute to the national capacity to better understand and respond to family violence.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, pursuant to order made Thursday, February 16, this House stands adjourned until Friday, February 24 at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 7.11 p.m.)