Debates of Dec. 5th, 1997

Privilege

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the Speaker in the chair yesterday when this was dealt with said the matter is closed. I remember that distinctly.

Furthermore the member from the Reform Party who was involved is not here, nor is the person in the Conservative Party who was involved. I really think it is ludicrous to carry on with this and I submit that.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House yesterday when the Speaker spoke and I want to disagree entirely with the remarks by the member for Elk Island.

What I heard the Speaker say yesterday was that the matter was closed for today but that he intended to review the tape and the blues of the remarks passed between the two combatants, as it were, in this case and that he was going to come back with a ruling.

This case is far from closed and should not be closed. But we will await the ruling of the Speaker on this.

I want to associate myself with the remarks from the Liberal colleague opposite.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to inform the House that I was present at the time of the disgraceful incident yesterday afternoon. I also understand that our Speaker has not made a definitive ruling on it. He has said that he would read the blues, view the videotapes, and then make his ruling.

It will also be far easier to make other appropriate comments when the members for Sherbrooke and Okanagan—Shuswap are present. I would, however, like to see you rule that the matter is not fully closed.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on this question of privilege. I do regard it as a serious matter. I understand the Speaker is considering this matter. In his consideration I hope it will not be simply regarded as a matter of order in the House.

What appears to have occurred yesterday was a series of acts and words that I believe amounted to intimidation of a member while the member spoke. From my point of view and respectfully on the Richter scale that is quite a bit higher than a matter of simple order. It affects the right of free speech for all of us in this House. What occurred yesterday may have crossed the threshold into the impairing of free speech. If the member who had the floor at the time perceived intimidation—I had an opportunity to review his words and he did use the word intimidation—and if there was intimidation, then it was perceived as such. Setting aside completely any reference to the Criminal Code definitions, we have in this House a standard of conduct which we must uphold ourselves.

I refer the Speaker to an incident that occurred in the 34th Parliament in which a member impaired the movement of the Sergeant at Arms who was carrying the Mace. The member was asked to account for that at the Bar. Depending on how the Chair deals with this case, I would like the Chair to consider that as an option to deal with this issue once and for all so we do not have any repeated incidents of this kind.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to give further clarification, I will read from Hansard . The Speaker said: “From what I have heard now I am not sure whether we have a point of privilege. What I will undertake to do is I will look at the blues and I will look at what was on the tape. If it is necessary, I will come back to the House”. That was the ruling. At the end of that he said: “This point is closed”.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think you have no choice but to shut this down and we will await the return of the Speaker after he has done what he said he will do.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is concerned that we are getting into a bit of a debate here. I have heard some points of view on the issue. I would like a few moments to consult and then I will say something to the House.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a trivial issue. This is a very serious issue, especially for those of us who sit here. The member in question put in writing: “I do consider violence appropriate sometimes”. He put that in writing to a women's organization and he even recommended that perhaps we should consider—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The issue raised by the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo dealt with the safety of members of this House in the course of their participation in the proceedings of the House. There was some suggestion on his part that members should not feel threatened by other persons in the course of their work in debate in this Chamber.

There is no question that the hon. member has raised a point that involves a matter of concern to the House and to all members and certainly to the Chair. In that sense it is a very serious issue. However, the Chair is mindful of the fact that in the course of the work of the Chamber there is a security arrangement in place for this House. The Sergeant at Arms is sitting right here in the House and is able to assist if there is serious disorder in this House and is indeed here for that purpose, among others.

I know hon. members have considerable confidence in the Sergeant at Arms and in his ability to exercise the necessary restraint on those who might at some point get carried away. He has legions of people able to assist him who could come here at a moment's notice should that be necessary.

From the point of view of the protection of members of this House, the Chair is very well aware of the need for that and has made arrangements. There is an organization to assist the House should that necessity arise.

I think the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo in raising his point of order has raised a concern. I want to assure him of the seriousness with which the Chair regards the issue of the safety of hon. members. This issue is certainly one that is constantly in the mind of the Chair and will continue to remain there and in the mind of the Sergeant-at-Arms who is doing his duty here in this House.

I do not think there is a question of privilege that has been raised today by the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo that cannot be answered by the security arrangements in place in this Chamber.

With respect to the incident yesterday, his Honour, the Speaker, has taken the matter under advisement, as the hon. member for Elk Island has so ably pointed out to us. The Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, who was here at the time, indicated that as far as he was concerned the matter was not closed for certain purposes and that he also would review the matter with the Speaker.

I have no doubt that the Speaker, in considering the blues and the tapes that he will be looking at in this case, will consider the remarks made by hon. members today in the House. I will certainly draw those to his attention. However, I do not think it is necessary to go on with this any further. I believe that the safety of all hon. members is protected by the Chair and will continue to be protected by the Chair. I trust we can close the matter for today.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, without wishing to express my opinion directly on the matter, since you have just made a ruling, I would nevertheless like to raise a point in this House and to state that I greatly appreciate the fact that the Chair had the delicacy to hear the points of view of colleagues here, because yesterday the hon. members did not have that opportunity.

The Chair did, of course, indicate to this House its intention to review the blues and look at the videotapes, but the problem is that it will probably not be possible, using the blues or the tapes, to see or hear what was going on in the House at that point. That is why it is important to be able to hear from colleagues who were present at that particular time, and perhaps to appeal to all colleagues to exercise restraint and common sense and to respect the dignity of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that I am concerned by the fact that we have twice, in the space of as many days, seen colleagues involved in deplorable incidents which, in my opinion, injure the dignity of this House and constitute contempt of the institution.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has heard the words of the hon. whip of the Bloc Quebecois and I heard all the members who spoke today.

I know that the tapes do not always disclose everything, but I think the hon. member must be aware that there is a presiding officer in the House at all times and that the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House was here and saw the incidents as they occurred. I am sure that there were other hon. members who were here and saw what happened.

All members have the opportunity to speak with the Chair to explain what they saw and what they heard. I am sure that, if the Chair requires information from other members in preparing the ruling, it can be contacted.

For the time being, I think the subject is closed. I have indicated that there will no question of privilege today on members here being in danger. We have a system in place to ensure members are protected and it will remain in place.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If it is on this point, I do not want to continue the debate. We have spent nearly 20 minutes on the subject.

The whip of the Bloc Quebecois has the floor, if it is on another matter.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make sure I am understood.

What I have to say does not concern the matter of safety raised by our colleague. I wanted simply to express my concern regarding respect for the House of Commons and call on the goodwill of all my colleagues here in respecting the dignity of this institution.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the words of the hon. member in that regard. I think all members want to protect the reputation of this House, and we will continue to work to that end. I thank the hon. member.

Government Response To Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.

National Day Of Remembrance And Action On Violence Against Women

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, on December 6 Canadians across this country will join in marking our National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

It is a day of mourning for the 14 young women who tragically lost their lives in 1989, specifically because they were women. It is a day to reflect on the many women who continue to live and die in the shadow of violence.

More than one-third of Canadian women are the victims of sexual assault. One out of two have experienced physical or sexual violence as defined by the Criminal Code.

Systemic violence against women is a fundamental abuse of power. It is a violation of human rights. It is a cause and consequence of women's inequality.

For years women's organizations have worked to bring this issue into the public domain. Violence against women was high on the agenda of the recent federal, provincial and territorial ministers of status of women.

But the tragic turn of events in Montreal's École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989 galvanized a nation into action.

In the eight years since, we have collectively pursued a multifaceted strategy to end violence. A strategy that is founded on acknowledgement, support and prevention.

We have made some progress. Gun control legislation was a major initiative. One woman is killed with a firearm every six days in a private residence by a family member of close friend. Anti-stalking legislation, peace bonds, DNA evidence, denial of parole to known sex offenders and an additional $7 million last year to the substantial sums spent by different federal departments are examples of the initiatives taken. As well, Status of Women Canada fund several holistic and community based violence prevention initiatives.

The violence against women continues and it is systemic. I applaud the YWCA distribution of the rose button on December 6 to promote anti-violence work in our community.

I am encouraged by the growing support from the private sector on this issue. I am inspired by the many commemorations across this country such as this year' unveiling of the Marker of Change Monument in B.C.

On this national day of remembrance I challenge Canadians to use our collective will to make Canada a safer place for our mothers, our sisters and our daughters.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I would like to say that Saturday, December 6, Canadians across our land will join in the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. This day came into being after the senseless murder of 14 young women in Montreal's École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989.

Since that fateful day, efforts have been pursued to deal with violence against women but they have been less than successful. The violence continues.

It take many forms, not only physical but also sexual and psychological. What is more, violence affects women but it also affects men and it affects children. In my experience working in the emergency department patching up these battered people, I cannot help but think how tragic it is that we have not done more to prevent the situation from continuing to occur.

If we are to do this, we have to rethink our position on violence. We need to recognize that violence affects both genders. It affects men and women, the young and the old, the rich and the poor. In other words, violence is a problem of society and affects us all, regardless of our gender. We need only remember the tragic situation at Maple Leaf Gardens this past year.

We also need to implement judicial initiatives to strengthen anti-stalking laws, a strong DNA data bank, strengthen penalties against violent offenders and keep those who are a danger to others in society behind bars.

We also need to prevent these tragedies from occurring. This means early intervention and dealing with children in the first eight years of life to prevent situations so these people do not develop the fractured psyches which lead them to abuse other people in heinous ways. It is essential that this occur if we are to do justice to the memory of the 14 innocent women who died so senselessly in 1989.

We have to come together to implement initiatives which work. Let us make a commitment today to honour the death of those women and the deaths, maiming and tragedies of people who are victims of violence across this land. We must act and we must do it today.

We will not forget. We must not forget. We must act.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must tell you how profoundly affected I am by these tragic events. Let me remind the House that the women we are taking about today are from my generation.

I thank the hon. secretary of state for her poignant statement. It is reassuring to see that the government feels concerned. In fact, I would like to see the hon. secretary of state rise in this House more often to represent the interests of women.

I would like the parents and friends of the victims at the École Polytechnique and all the other victims of violence to know that, on this National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, our warmest thoughts are with them.

This day is more than a day to remember the victims, it is a day of action. I urge each and every one of you to talk about violence against women, denounce it and help ensure that society will no longer tolerate it. There must be zero tolerance for violence against women.

My colleague mentioned earlier the progress made in the fight against violence. While I agree there has been some progress, much remains to be done. Until all women can live in total safety, the fight must go on.

My hon. colleague talked about progress and about the measures taken by her government. Yet I do not remember hearing anything about concrete measures. She mentioned an additional $7 million to fund family violence prevention initiatives, but she failed to mention that this amount is divided among seven departments. If we make the calculation, we see that this is not nearly enough. She mentioned anti-stalking legislation but failed to mention that enforcement is lacking and that the judicial system does not even have the resources required to deal with these cases with sensitivity and efficiency.

All this to say that there is still a long way to go. Actions to oppose violence against women must be taken on a daily basis. More importantly, the tragedy of violence transcends not only generations but gender. It is no longer incumbent on women and women's groups alone to act; all of us, women and men of all generations, must join forces to eradicate the scourge of violence against women.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak about this measure today. I remember where I was when the Montreal massacre occurred and I remember the devastation I felt. It was the same devastation I felt at the murders of Susan Klassen, Miranda Peters and, indeed, week after week, not only women but children who were murdered at the hands of those they trusted and loved.

This speaks to the depth of the problem.

The violence we are facing is structural. It is so deeply rooted that, in fact, in our justice system the defence of provocation is often used to excuse spousal violence, saying that an alleged insult is enough to provoke and excuse an angry murder of a wife by her husband.

When our government spends $50 million on APEC, inviting representatives from countries with gross human rights abuses, and only $200,000 to support women's groups or indigenous people's groups which fight for human rights and the safety of women in their communities, we have a contradiction in what we say and what we do.

The problem is so deeply rooted that in the last week there have been three incidents of violence and threats within this very House. A member of the Liberal Party challenged a female member of the New Democrats to step outside the Chamber.

If we really want to change the situation, we have to set an example here. We have to set it in our policies.

In our society women face poverty, less pay, physical abuse, sexual abuse and even murder, and they face it on a daily basis. To change this we must recognize women's massive role in unpaid labour and provide solid public pensions for those who stay at home to raise their children. We must recognize that that prevents violence.

We need pay equity. We need to make sure that wealth is fairly distributed.

We need to base our decisions on the well-being of families, on women, on our sisters and on our children rather than on the immoral whims of an open market.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Yukon has just stated, many Canadians will never forget what they were doing on December 6, 1989. It was a time marked with such sorrow and amazement that such a tragic event could happen, much less here in Canada.

As members all know, violence against women is all too common, but it unfortunately took such a tragedy to open our eyes to its extent. As other members have said in this House, it is truly the event that galvanized this country and the government into action.

On behalf of my party, I would like to extend our thoughts and our prayers to the families and the victims of the Montreal École Polytechnique as well as to all those who are affected by violence against women.

I agree that we have made progress in the eradication of violence against women but so much more needs to be done. As I said in a statement earlier, I do not agree that the current gun control legislation will do anything to prevent such a terrible crime from happening again.

Eliminating violence is an issue of great concern to us all, since each woman is someone's daughter, sister or mother. It is somewhat appropriate that the three most important women in my life, namely my wife and two daughters, are sitting in the gallery today. On their behalf, and on behalf of my party, I pledge to work with the government to make Canada a safer place for all Canadian women and men.

Committees Of The House

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the orders of reference which were adopted by the House of Commons on October 28, 1997 and by the other place on November 5, 1997, the special joint committee has considered the subject matter related to the proposed resolution respecting a proposed amendment to term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada concerning the Newfoundland school system.

It adopted its report on December 3, 1997 in which the committee recommends that both Houses of Parliament adopt the resolution to amend term 17. I have the honour to table this report in both official languages.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the tabling of the report on the term 17 amendment.

On behalf of the official opposition party, I want to say we have attached to this report a dissenting report outlining our concerns. It must be emphasized that the Reform Party of Canada in no way wishes to impede the reform and improvement of any institution in a federal or provincial sphere. Rather, we encourage and support such efforts.

However, it has been made abundantly clear through the course of the joint other place and House special committee meetings that at least one of the minority groups, the Pentecostals, is not in favour of having their 1987 constitutionally entrenched minority rights extinguished by the majority.

It is this matter that we find troubling. We express our concerns that it may be precedent setting. Canada's beginnings and its future is due to its wonderful multicultural nature, citizens who came to Canada from all over the globe.

Minority rights have been entrenched in our constitution to reflect Canada's diversity. Members must carefully consider whether this request to extinguish minority rights is the beginning of the slippery slope and the beginning of the end of minority rights protection.

I urge all members to please vote with their conscience. We parliamentarians are charged with an awesome responsibility to be the defenders—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. member is entitled to make a brief summary of his statement of the minority report but I think, perhaps, it is getting a little beyond that.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Industry.

In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, November 25, 1997, your committee has considered Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act, and agreed on Thursday, December 4, 1997, to report it with amendments.