Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[Firearms Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I never disallowed the fact that members opposite or my hon. colleague here have legitimate concerns on behalf of their rural constituents or those people who hunt for sustenance and are non-aboriginal. I never disallowed that fact.

When I speak, the perspective I am speaking from is one I am very familiar and intimate with. It is one that I know inside out. I know the living situation, the personal experiences and human struggles of these people. I want to speak from that experience. I cannot speak as well for other groups. I can go out there to represent them if they ask me.

These are very specific issues, specific to a number of northern constituents. It could be northern provinces. It could be aboriginal people across the country. I can speak most expertly about what I know. That is the perspective I am speaking from, not to the prejudice of other groups.

[Firearms Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the same offer to the members of the Reform Party. Instead of just beating their breasts about their own rights and how hard done by they are, perhaps they would take up the issue of aboriginal rights and for a change support aboriginal people on the question of their rights which they know are legitimate and legally and constitutionally binding.

I make this offer because since I have been in this House I have never on any occasion, not on land claims, on services for aboriginal people, on programs for aboriginal people and never on self-government have I heard an expression of support for aboriginal people by that group. I am making them the offer to come and support the aboriginal people as well.

[Firearms Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the unique legal and constitutional rights of aboriginal people have nothing to do with race. They have to do with a legally and constitutionally binding arrangement between the Government of Canada and those said peoples.

As for the Yukon legislation, I am not a lawyer nor am I a self-government specialist. I have raised a number of issues today regarding rights and I do not think they have anything to do with any kind of racial overtones. They have to do very specifically with the traditional way of life which has been exercised and practised for hundreds of years. Perhaps the instruments to exercise those rights have changed. In contemporary terms we are talking about firearms.

I resent what the hon. member across the way is alleging. He is insinuating that aboriginal people have something which is exempt, unique and special and which nobody else can have. That is not the case. It is unique to aboriginal populations.

I am aware of the position the Council of Yukon Indians has taken and it can speak best for itself. I cannot speak for the aboriginal people of the Yukon, except that I know they have a grave concern. They will have the opportunity to speak to Michell Adkins and also present their concerns to the standing committee. They can adequately speak to that. I would probably under-represent their views.

[Firearms Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to debate Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. The debate before us is a complicated and highly emotional one for all those involved and implicated in the bill.

Aboriginal people, for instance, are worried about the potential infringement on their treaty rights. Shooters are concerned with the restrictions placed on their sport and outfitters are worried about the impact the legislation will have on their business. These are all serious concerns which if not addressed could pose some serious hardships in the north and of course in other parts of Canada.

The potential infringement the legislation could have on treaty rights and its impact on traditional aboriginal way of life are threats that aboriginal people have sought to prevent since the signing of their treaties. Treaties were signed to ensure the protection of aboriginal rights that were then entrenched in the Constitution under section 35 of the charter.

As treaty rights go or as rights go in aboriginal country, rights are considered and treated as absolute but in the reality of the political world and in the name of concessions, compromise and goodwill we are looking at some half-measures.

According to the Sparrow decision of 1990 hunting and fishing rights have been recognized by the Canadian government. It would appear to be damaging to the fragile relationship being forged between the aboriginal people and the Government of Canada if the bill infringed on these rights.

This is the concern being expressed. However I have assurances that the legislation will not infringe on these rights. Special considerations have been given to sustenance hunters and in particular aboriginal hunters who make up a large portion of all sustenance hunters.

Let me, for instance, express the concern brought forward by Mr. Sam Gargan, member of the Legislative Assembly for the Northwest Territories for Deh Cho, who said:

I have an uncle who cannot read or write. He cannot tell you what muzzle velocity means. He cannot tell you how calibres are determined. He can however tell you that you need a .303 to shoot a moose, that it is best to use a shotgun to shoot ducks, that a .22 is the best for rabbits and upland birds. He can tell you not to carry a loaded gun with a live round in the chamber. He can tell you how to safely transport a gun in a truck or a boat.

The same would apply to a skidoo. He continued:

Gun ownership is not rocket science. It is a matter of common sense. In the NWT the vast majority of gun owners have been taught gun safety at a very young age and I sincerely believe that any program on gun safety to be offered in the NWT has to be changed to fit the realities of the situation both fiscally and morally.

Mr. Gargan went on to say:

I also believe that the legislation, as it now stands, violates treaty rights as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and may well be in contradiction of the Sparrow decision-To this end I can virtually assure you that should this legislation proceed as written, there would be a court challenge from Canada's aboriginal community.

These are the words of a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, the majority of whose constituents are aboriginal.

In the north the aboriginal people hunt to eat, not to harm other people. Many northern people living in isolated or remote communities cannot afford the inflated northern prices of meat. We cannot just go out and order half a side of beef at southern prices. The cost of living is 40 per cent higher.

Today in southern stores such as Loeb a kilogram of ground beef costs $3.95.

The same kilogram of beef in Deline in a community is $6.80. This makes hunting and owning a rifle not only a right but an economic reality. Hunting in an aboriginal community is also a community event. Food that is caught or that is hunted is shared with everyone. Hunters donate food to those who are unable to hunt for themselves such as elders and widowers and people who are disabled. Without firearms many in the north could not afford to eat.

My experience with firearms has been since I was a child, since as long as I can remember. In my family we learned gun safety. It was absolutely paramount. The camp where my parents go on an annual basis is in grizzly bear country. In grizzly bear country you do not just have a .22 rifle. You must have a high powered rifle. I must say if you are going to have a key mechanism to use, please do not do it when you are in grizzly bear country if you want to live to see another day.

The realities are very different around this country and I understand the intent of this bill. I understand the complexity. I understand the difficulty the minister has had to deal with this bill across the country.

I cannot imagine having the fortitude to go out there to meet the masses on such a complicated and emotional bill. I would like to say that I admire this man for having done that. However, the debate rolls on and the bill has gone to committee. The bill is being debated today. There are a number of special things that will happen.

My hon. colleague across the way from the Bloc Quebecois indicated that most times the use of firearms is intended to hurt or kill another person. That has not been my experience. It has allowed us to live. It has allowed us to overcome difficulties.

During the war, during the depression and during recessions in Canada our people were able to survive because we have instruments that allow us to exercise the right to be able to fend for and feed our people. Those instruments in most cases in modern terms are not bow and arrows. They are firearms. That is one of the instruments we use to exercise that right.

The Minister of Justice in his commitment not to impact treaty rights has struck a team of officials who will travel and meet with aboriginal groups across Canada to discuss how this bill can be implemented without negatively impacting treaty rights and the traditional way of life.

These consultations have been directly mandated in this legislation. Section 110 allows for the governor in council to make regulations on aboriginal people and to adapt the regulations for the purposes of that application.

Michell Adkins, a Haida lawyer, was recently hired by the Department of Justice to consult with aboriginal people. Along with other departmental officials, she will be travelling to communities to explain the legislation, to listen to their concerns and make recommendations to the minister on how to amend this legislation with respect to treaties and traditional life.

There are many issues that need to be addressed in the consultations. The Minister of Justice has suggested the necessity of finding a better definition of sustenance hunter to reflect the aboriginal way of life.

He is also committed from what I am being informed by departmental officials to decentralize the role of the firearms officer and provide community control of the implementation of this new firearm strategy, ensuring aboriginal participation.

I would like to encourage all of the First Nations, Metis and Inuit people to take full advantage of these consultations to ensure that the registration of firearms can be done in full consideration of their treaty rights, especially with respect to Sparrow and section 35 of the charter.

Some of the issues which have already been brought to the minister's attention will be addressed and among the consultations is the cost of registration. Currently under Bill C-68 there will not be a charge for sustenance hunters to obtain a firearms licence. However, there are no clear guidelines on how fees will be applied in registering firearms and the transferring of ownership of guns.

Through consultations with First Nations, Metis and Inuit, it is my hope that an amendment can be made to eliminate the cost of transferring and registration of firearms by sustenance hunters, as these costs would be an economic hardship on people who cannot afford to buy their food and use their firearms as a tool to feed themselves and their communities.

It is felt that it would be an additional economic hardship in a community that already has quite a large group of unemployed people who rely on other sources to continue living and surviving.

Borrowing and lending firearms is another very important issue for the northern and aboriginal communities across this country. Under Bill C-68 there is the provision for lending a firearm as long as the person involved lends the borrower the registration certificate for the firearm. Through consultations it is hoped that alternatives to this option can be sought. In many communities firearms are seen as a collective instrument for hunting passed on to those who need them.

Hunting rifles are commonly loaned to relatives and friends in aboriginal communities on a regular basis. Through consultation I hope that the registration program will be flexible enough to allow this practice to continue without undue and unnecessary hardship.

We understand that in the context of harvesting and hunting it is very difficult in isolated and remote communities to acquire registration and firearms acquisition certificates. When you are in a boat and you see a caribou it is very difficult to resist the opportunity to get the kill for the community or for the family, relatives or the elders. There is a general lending of firearms. It is a very big issue in the communities in terms of their traditional harvesting and hunting rights.

The transfer of ownership is another area which is of much concern. The gift of a firearm is very common in the north. Under Bill C-68 a gift of firearms can only be given once all the necessary papers are filled out and both the recipient and the donor have licences and neither one is a safety risk. Again, through detailed consultations provisions should be made to reflect the culture of First Nations, Metis and Inuit where the gift of a firearm is considered a great honour, especially when given to a youth for his or her first hunt. It is an honour and it is something that is protected, keeping in mind all the issues about safety that go along with the responsibility of owning that gun. It also entails using it safely and bearing in mind the safety of others.

On penal sanctions for people who accidentally find themselves on the other side of the law, through consultation I hope that alternatives can also be found to some of the penal sanctions for offenders who have committed an offence out of ignorance. Summary convictions are available in Bill C-68 to first time offenders which would not require that a person develop a criminal record on a first time offence.

I am also encouraged by the partial prohibition provision in this legislation. A sustenance hunter who has been charged with an offence involving a firearm may apply to a competent authority to allow for the hunter to use his or her firearms for sustenance as long as the hunter returned it to the authority, which could be the chief on returning from hunting. A great deal of trust and a great deal of respect would have to be in place and a great sense of responsibility under those conditions.

Another aspect is the purchase of ammunition. I am amazed that I have not run out of time yet because this a very emotional, very complicated and a very important matter. I do not think I can undersell the importance of this legislation to people across this country, not just in my own riding but in other parts of the provinces and territories.

In many communities those who cannot hunt will provide ammunition to hunters as a gift in hope of meat and other kinds of game when the hunters return. That is a common occurrence. I hope through consultation with aboriginal groups an amendment can be entertained allowing aboriginal people to purchase ammunition when they do not have a licence to give as a gift.

It is not uncommon for a senior citizen on pension who cannot go hunting, who does not have a skidoo, who does not have the physical stamina to go on the hunt anymore, to give to a younger person the gift of ammunition for the sake of a hunt. It is very reasonable and it is good economics for the people in the community.

These are only some of the concerns about how Bill C-68 would impact the aboriginal way of life. I am encouraged by the

minister that these and other concerns will be dealt with through consultations with aboriginal people.

Northerners have also brought several questions to my attention which have either been addressed in Bill C-68 or the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has been mandated to review. I would also like to outline their concerns here.

First of all, there is always the question about why the government is attacking law-abiding gun owners. Many legal owners feel that the government is attacking law-abiding gun owners with this new legislation. However, Bill C-68 creates a new act for firearms. This new statute, the Firearms Act, removes legal gun owners from the Criminal Code. This consideration to gun owners demonstrates the government's intention not to treat legal gun owners as criminals. This new act will create a licensing system for the ownership and use of firearms and a national registration system for all firearms. As I mentioned before, special provisions have been made for first time offenders who have not used a non-registered firearm in a criminal offence.

The next concern is equipment outlawed from the Canadian Olympic shooting team. Others have asked why equipment used by the Canadian Olympic shooting team has been prohibited. The minister has acknowledged that amendments or exceptions should be made for certain handguns in the prohibited class which are used and recognized in target shooting competitions. The minister has specifically requested that the standing committee on justice deliberate on possible solutions to this current problem.

Restriction to non-residents is another major one. There are many hunting, outfitting and tourist businesses in the north and other parts of Canada that depend on hunters from other countries for their business. They have voiced several concerns that Bill C-68 will impose further restrictions on the entry of those foreign hunters and are concerned that they will choose to go to another country to hunt where the laws are not so restricting.

I have reviewed the requirements of the entry of any foreign hunter into Canada and I do not see a problem as such. A person coming from another country must declare their firearm at customs. They will be required to complete a temporary firearms licence and a registration certificate to bring the firearm into Canada.

A customs firearm declaration will act as a 60-day licence and certificate and will be validated at the border. The Minister of Justice and his departmental officials assure me that these forms will be as simple as possible. These declarations will be readily available to visitors through Canadian tourism offices abroad, outfitters, shooting clubs and hunting organizations. There will be opportunities for non-residents to apply in advance to speed up the process at the border.

In the case of sporting clubs, as has always been the case the requirements can be met before crossing the border through Canadian clubs and associations. An authorization to transport will be issued at the same time. Should a hunter lose his ammunition he will be able to present his customs firearms declaration which will act as a temporary license, enabling the hunter to purchase ammunition.

I suppose I could go on but I must be close to being out of time. Within two minutes I will attempt to deal with this really important issue.

I am going to deal with people's concern about prohibited antique gun collection. A common question is how to pass on or sell an antique gun collection. Individuals who now have a grandfathered firearm which falls into a specific prohibited category will be able to buy from and sell to individuals with firearms in the same category.

Also, the minister has asked the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to deliberate on the special significance possession of firearms as relics or heirlooms may have on a family and what opportunities there will be for owners to leave such firearms to their children as part of their estate.

In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the numerous members of shooting clubs, such as Barry Taylor from my riding, who have devoted thousands of hours to teaching firearms safety. Their work in the north ensures the safe handling of many guns.

I would also like to thank all of those people who have brought their concerns on gun control to my attention. We have the minister's assurance that there will be special efforts to look at these concerns. I encourage all aboriginal people and northern people to participate in the consultations to ensure the protection of their rights. It is my hope that through these consultations a mutual respect and understanding can be forged between the consultation team and aboriginal people.

I also encourage all northerners to participate in the deliberation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and to write to the chair of the committee, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, or myself with their opinions on how to improve the current piece of legislation.

I would like to thank the House and you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak to the very special, emotional and complicated matter of Bill C-68.

[Employment Equity Act, December 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk to the House today about the need for and the many benefits of the proposed amendments to the Employment Equity Act. Once read, once well understood, if people are familiar with the history of how this has all come about, there is no need for the fearmongering and the falsification of information going on here today.

It should be stated clearly that what the employment equity legislation does is reinforce the merit principle. It states that very clearly. That may be a bit problematic to some because I guess some would feel a bit more comfortable knowing that there are flaws and gaps. Really what we have done is given prominence to the merit principle. Not only that, we also looked for a balanced approach of trying to integrate the four target groups in a very enforceable way into the whole labour market and also to express equity as it should be.

I do not think there is any fear with all these people fearmongering about their jobs, including the hon. members across the way scaring people by saying that what is going to happen if we do hire disabled people, women, aboriginals and visible minorities is that these people will not be hired meritoriously.

This is erroneous and this is clearly discriminatory. It is an assumption, a false assumption. Because those four target groups are going to be aided by this legislation, it is perfectly acceptable that this happens considering the gross under-representation of those groups. It is a wrong that has not been corrected.

There have been many barriers. There have been many obstacles and this is a step forward. It is needless for people to put fear in the hearts of those people who have jobs out there, particularly those people who are highly placed.

Members need not worry because these four target groups are so under-represented as of yet. It will take such a long time. It will still be such a big struggle. This will make it easy but it is not going to be just the legislation that is going to make it happen.

Unfortunately some of the greatest obstacles we will have are attitudes of people. We can put legislation there to help but unfortunately we cannot change the minds of all those people who are otherwise inclined.

The equity is not simply the subject of ideological debate for me and many other members of this House. For those of us who are women, members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities or aboriginal people, employment equity is fundamentally about democracy. It is the freedom to exercise our rights to participate fully in the political process, to make contributions to the economic and cultural fabric of our nation.

Employment equity means ensuring that all Canadians have a fair chance in the workplace. It ensures that no person is denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability. It involves identifying and eliminating barriers, taking special measures and making reasonable accommodations.

As was stated by the hon. member, there are no quotas. For instance, if 25 per cent of the population is aboriginal in a said province and there is a thousand-person company and there is not one aboriginal person, is it not reasonable to assume that company or other companies like it would want to achieve that kind of representation of that population? That is not unreasonable. That is not discriminatory. That is perfectly logical, perfectly acceptable and it is the way things should evolve if we are to show the dignity and the respect of one another as human beings.

It also talks about equality, the opportunity of equality. That seems to fail some people. In short, employment equity means ensuring that employment opportunities are open to those who have historically been arbitrarily excluded. We need not go into the figures. We all know what they are. It is a fact that is well known to many of us, including hon. members opposite.

This bill is a fulfilment of this government's vision of our country, one in which each of us has equal access to employment opportunities and a chance to fully share in Canada's prosperity. Why should some people be on the periphery of prosperity? Why should they not be sharing in the wealth of this country in terms of jobs, promotions and training? Why not adopt this legislation fully? All members of the House should see the historical isolation and marginalization of target groups in our population and that those who need a helping hand and logical reasoning, those who need that acceptance, should be accepted.

By strengthening the employment equity act we are reconfirming the core values Canadians hold dear: fairness, decency, and equality for every citizen in this nation. Canada is known around the world for that. We are citizens of the world. We are recognized for that. Why would we not enhance that within our own country?

Equality does not come easily in Canada. It is a source of national shame that as recently as the 1950s the first peoples of this country were subject to laws which prevented them from leaving reserves without a bureaucrat's permission. It is a known fact that our people were going to war and fighting for this country as First Nations people and they did not have the right to vote. Women were not even considered persons in the eyes of the law until October 1929 when women won the famous Persons case and gained the right to become members of the Senate.

According to the 1993 annual report on employment equity we still have not come close to attaining our goals. According to the most recent census aboriginal peoples continue to be under-represented in the workforce at just 1.04 per cent compared to 3 per cent in the Canadian workforce.

Aboriginal people continue to occupy the lowest paying jobs. The wage gap between aboriginal men and women working full time and other Canadians has actually increased since 1987. Mind you it should be noted by all members of this House that aboriginal people on average still make an annual income of $10,000.

Aboriginal participation in the workforce has risen by less than .5 per cent since employment equity came into effect. This is even though the number of employable aboriginal people rose by almost 50 per cent during the years 1986 to 1991.

The plight of persons with disabilities is not much better. The representation of this group in the workforce has changed very slowly. They are equally under-represented in the labour market especially given that the number of Canadians with disabilities increased from 5.4 to 6.5 per cent of the population over the same five year period.

It is simply unacceptable that today in Canada a woman still earns only 70 per cent of her male counterpart's wages, or that a person of colour is denied a promotion on the basis of his or her skin colour.

The litmus test of Canadians' commitment to true equality is access to employment. Jobs are the key to social and economic integration into the community. They are a source of fulfilment and independence for all Canadians. As the Prime Minister would say, a job gives you self-respect and dignity. Jobs are part of this government's agenda.

Employment equity ensures that those jobs will be available to everyone without any barriers. By the turn of the century two-thirds of the entrants to the workforce will be women, aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities. This country needs the wealth of their talents.

With this bill we want to achieve a better balance that works to the advantage of all Canadians. This legislation does not set out to redress the difficulties being faced by disadvantaged groups by creating new problems for other Canadians. The amendments are designed to clarify and strengthen existing laws, not to increase the regulatory or financial burdens to employers.

Madam Speaker, I know I am out of time so I will skip a great deal of what I had to say which I think was also important. I will conclude by saying that by assuring equal access to employment and fair treatment of all, we can and will build a better nation for our children, for our families and for all Canadians.

Remember that 60 per cent of the Canadian population is constituted by these four target groups but they are not adequately represented. It should be noted that we are talking about fair representation, not under-representation. We are talking about equality of opportunity.

[Employment Equity Act, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 9 of the Employment Equity Act, I have the great pleasure to table on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development, in

both official languages, the seventh annual report to Parliament on the Employment Equity Act.

It is also my pleasure to announce that the Minister of Human Resources Development will introduce shortly legislation to amend the Employment Equity Act.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for my hon. colleague across the way to make the unreasonable demand of asking me to put my seat in the House on the line. There are other ways to deal with some of the serious issues he has brought forward.

Gender equality is not one that escapes me. I have been a working woman all of my life. I know the trials and tribulations of essentially what used to be working in a man's world. In a sense we are graced with the presence of many good working women in this House at many different levels and in many capacities.

Let me deal with some of the issues my hon. colleague has addressed. He talked about putting my seat in this House on the line for the equality of women and to bridge the pay gap between men and women and that sort of thing. It should be noted that we have taken great steps to have a more inclusive employment equity legislation put forward. We are working on it at this very time. He will be happy to know that it is mostly women who do a lot of the work on this legislation. It is not just for women, but for the disabled, visible minorities as well as aboriginal peoples who are also equally challenged.

The member talks about the full security of children being able to live above the poverty line. With social security reform it is becoming very evident that child poverty is one issue we are very seized with, but we cannot just wave the wand and expect all the problems to go away. It will become evident as will all of these proposals as the responses come back that child poverty is one of the concerns we share with my hon. colleague.

The other case he cited was a typical one. There is a process in place but I will not speak to it because it has already been advanced to a higher level. The member talks about the issue of income testing. The hon. member knows there is a process in place with regard to social security reform. The proposals are with the committee which is going across the country listening to people. People have expressed very loudly and clearly similar concerns about income testing. All those things will be ultimately considered.

A man sitting across the way should not ask a women to put her seat in this House on the line if he really believes in gender equality.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to join in the debate this morning that this House take note of the anniversary of the murder of 14 women at l'École polytechnique on December 6, 1989, and the continuing urgent need for action to eliminate the threat of violence in society, including the threat of violence against women.

I find this debate particularly important because a year ago today I went to a memorial in Montreal. I spoke at the memorial for the 14 women. It is an experience that has left me with a commitment to society, a personal commitment to see that human beings show respect and dignity to one another that is deserved, a love, caring and commitment to work hard with all people in society.

We must work with men, women, families and communities, different levels of government, all the institutions in our country and with our children, toward a violence free society. It is a very

difficult thing to do in this day and age when the world is seized with wars.

We have mass media with pervasive influence that shows violence and there is desensitization about the effect of it. We have an onerous task not just to make laws but to make it a state of mind. We have a commitment to deal with it in a very human way. It is not just an issue on one day of the year; it is a state of mind. It is the way we live. It is the way we relate to each other. It is the state of mind with which we approach the work we do as lawmakers, as legislators.

Recently I was unable to attend a conference in Vancouver and one of my female colleagues from the area replaced me as there were things that needed to be said that I felt very strongly about. These are some of the things that were said: "Our voices need to be added to the urgent debate about the challenges facing Canada's families. Violence is not an issue of one person or of one gender. It is an issue of humanity and it is an issue of all peoples".

I am especially pleased to speak to the vision of Canadian families living violence free. I am proud to be a member of a team that dares to dream, one that has faith in our capacity as individuals and as a nation. Our dream for the country was clearly described in our document "Creating Opportunity". It is based on the belief that each of us can be part of the solution.

I am particularly proud of my colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. It is not easy to seize particular issues that would help free society of those who would perpetrate violent acts and those who would take the opportunity not to do good. To roll that into a legislative agenda, to roll that into something that is accessible, fair and universal in approach, is very difficult.

I look at the different attempts by the minister to change the Criminal Code and to deal with a number of very contentious issues, controversial issues, such as gun control legislation. A very difficult agenda is set for these individuals. I appreciate the work they have done.

We are committed to changing the future and recreating Canada in a way that works better for all of us. We believe we can build a better country through stronger children and stronger families. People tend to focus on one issue or one aspect. Segmentation or compartmentalization of issues makes it easier, more manageable, but is not realistic.

We cannot separate the child and say the child is unaffected. We cannot say the spouse, the family, the grandmother or the community is unaffected when there is violence in a family or in a community. It does not work that way. It is pervasive. The power of things that go wrong, the negative things, is very influential on people, many of whom are young children in their formative years.

We are committed. Our vision stems from the simple but profound philosophy that everyone has the right to safe homes, safe streets, and a life free of violence. No one deserves to be abused physically, sexually, emotionally or financially. No one has the right to control another person by threat, coercion, physical intimidation or any other abuse of power and control. Child abuse and neglect, child sexual abuse, wife assault, spousal assault, other forms of violence against women and other people, and the mistreatment of seniors and persons with disabilities are serious abuses of power within families and relationships of trust and dependency with detrimental consequences for all of us. They shame us as individuals and as a society. Those are the people who depend on us the most. They have greater need and less capacity to care for themselves. They are the disabled, children and seniors. Those people do not deserve to be mistreated. They do not deserve to be treated with anything but kindness and generosity.

The costs of violence and personal suffering, social breakdown and direct government expenditure are incalculable. The hundreds of millions of dollars in social spending do not begin to pay the price of broken spirits and damaged lives, in some cases irretrievably damaged. Sometimes it starts a cycle that continues from one generation to another. It takes an enormous amount of effort to break that cycle or the silence. To correct those wrongs costs a lot more money and takes a lot more effort than if we are proactive and able to take preventive measures. We are paid back enormously for taking those steps.

The complexity of family violence requires a long term, co-ordinated approach to address the root causes. We must eradicate the conditions that contribute to family violence and provide the proper environment for young people to escape the vicious cycle associated with abuse.

Only when each and every Canadian lives without fear can we say we live in a violence free society. An important part of the solution is to influence the conditions of socioeconomic inequality that reduce vulnerability to family violence. It is not an excuse; it is a condition. Violence is inexcusable but there are mitigating factors. There are things beyond control, beyond the emotional, financial and social capacities of individuals who fall victim to becoming perpetrators.

We need to address sexism, ageism, ableism, racism and other isms. We need to assure adequate access for all to appropriate services before we can hope to make Canada a safer place. The federal government recognizes the need to treat these issues as fundamental social problems with widespread ramifications for our families, indeed our entire society.

I am particularly worried about young people as the Secretary of State for Training and Youth. We give our children an enormous gift when we teach them to care and to nurture properly, when we teach them to respect the dignity of other persons, when we teach them to treasure having children, having grandchildren and belonging to a family. They are not to be neglected or abused. They are to be cared for and to be taught. Good values and principles that presumably guide what we do, even in the House, should be passed on.

Each year the federal government directs millions of dollars to Canadian children and their families to ensure they have access to the necessary conditions required for optimal health and personal growth and development.

We have introduced a variety of preventive measures including the child development initiative, the child sexual abuse and family violence prevention initiatives, and building healthy aboriginal communities aimed specifically at providing protection for children and creating safer communities through social development and social investment.

A central consideration in these reforms is the security of children and their families. We are asking what people need in the form of rehabilitation and family support services, education, skills upgrading and training to take control of their lives. How can we help families succeed?

If we empower people with adequate means and opportunity, we are convinced that we will enable them to access education and employment opportunities that lead to healthy, rewarding, self-sufficient lives. As a result it will allow people to provide a better quality of life for their families.

In a perfect world that would be enough but life is more complicated than that. There are things beyond the control of lawmakers. There are things beyond the control of governments at all levels. There are things beyond the control of people of goodwill. These are the things we expect. However they do not stop us from working, continuing to push and believing there is a better tomorrow. We have to try harder for our families, for our children, and essentially for our community and our country.

When children thrive our society is renewed. By nurturing healthy youth, ensuring they are physically, mentally and emotionally well, educated and employed, we run the best chance of creating healthy families.

I guess we are successful in many people's eyes. We have jobs we are proud of and have managed to earn a living. We are honoured to represent the people. In the end society will not judge us on how well we do but on how well our children and our grandchildren do and what we contribute to our communities. How well our children and grandchildren do will be the significant judgment of us in terms of what we have contributed to society.

These efforts reflect a growing movement not only in favour of prevention but in support of fundamental, social, economic and cultural change. It is a movement toward investing in people. We have a lot to do but we have each other to do it. Canadians working together, dedicated to building healthier communities, are making a dramatic difference. Not only are we proving that families matter. We are demonstrating we can make improvements in people's lives by refusing to tolerate societal violence.

Let us talk about various forms of violence. Let us take a look at a 10-year old or 14-year old child. I have raised three children. I know what children of those ages are like. We wonder where the children are and whether we have hugged them today. All that comes to mind.

Let us take one city in our country which I will not name because it would not be fair. There is a problem in that city; it has 400 juvenile prostitutes between the ages of 10 and 14. That is not prostitution, that is juvenile or child sex abuse. It is a real problem. It is a form of violence that has been perpetrated upon our most helpless, our most treasured, our young people.

We have a responsibility. It is not only in one city. There is a problem in every city one could name. I make it my business to go to the source to see young people. We cannot do everything but we are doing some things right when we help those young people.

It cannot be done alone. It is not a woman's problem or a child's problem. It is everybody's problem and everybody's responsibility. As a caring and just society we have no option but to make families our priority. We owe it to our children and to ourselves. If the challenges are great, the promise of progress has never been better.

In 1994, the International Year of the Family, families have assumed their place on international and national agendas. Throughout the International Year of the Family the Government of Canada, in partnership with all sectors of society, has worked for the betterment of Canadian families. These partnerships have contributed to sensitizing Canadians to numerous and complex issues facing today's families such as family violence.

Most important, we must reinforce the principle that strong and healthy families create strong, healthy and productive societies. By building on this momentum we will recreate Canada together in a way that mirrors our dreams and hopes for ourselves and will achieve our visions for our children and our future.

It is interesting to note that in my riding of the Northwest Territories there are four women's shelters.

This coming weekend one of my tours of going to the source as I put it will be to Sutherland House which is a shelter for women. Oddly enough it is communities that care that establish these shelters. They try to help themselves by helping the victims, by helping the families and the children. Whether or not we like to admit it most of them are women and children. They are the primary victims who take refuge. They are the ones who have to leave their homes, their living rooms, their beds to seek shelter elsewhere.

Shelters have a 24-hour crisis line and apparently that is not enough. I have visited other shelters in communities such as Hay River. All these people have their own stories to tell but the big one is that we need to continue to work. We need to continue not to isolate people nor to blame or to point fingers. We need to join hands and work together. If we cannot stop these people who perpetrate violence, we can take measures that will help the people caught in those unhealthy relationships take the steps to get out, to make the commitment for a better life for a better tomorrow.

Thirty-nine per cent of all women in violent marriages have reported that their children witnessed the violence against them. This is interesting because shelter workers in my riding believe that at least one in four NWT women have been abused by their partners. The NWT rate of reported sexual assault is the highest in the country. Girls 7 to 18 years old were the complainants in 54 per cent of sexual assault cases in the Northwest Territories for 1988 and 1989.

In Canada women are assaulted an average of 35 times before the police are called to assist. In Canada one in three women will be sexually assaulted by a man at home at some time in her life. Twenty-nine per cent of all women in Canada who have been married or who have lived in a common-law relationship have experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of their partner. In Canada 90 per cent of sexual assault crimes are not reported to the police.

According to the 1991 census there were 27,595 women in the Northwest Territories and 47.4 per cent of the population was over 15 years old. Forty per cent of all aboriginal peoples identified family violence as an important problem in their community. People on reserve and Inuit identify these forms of violence more than those who live off reserve and Métis. That is from the Canadian Institute of Child Health. It goes without saying that we definitely have a real problem but more than that we have to work on our commitment.

We have to remember that we have a commitment to our children, to societies and to ourselves. Each and every one of us whether we are men or women have a commitment to the kind of work we want to see out there. We want to see results. We have a commitment to our communities and to our country. In remembering those 14 women we can build something positive from this.

[Social Program Reform, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the committee has been travelling across the country as that is happening and undertaking the social security reform exercise.

There have been a number of technical papers put forward. Those papers have provided information that is very important to the way in which the social security reform is undertaken.

In relation to that also we have been listening to Canadians across the country through the committee. They have let us know what the effects have been on their lives and their communities. We are very sensitive to that and that will be integrated into the direction the government takes on the overall reform.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the elected member for Western Arctic my constituents will know, as should my colleague, that I have not had the opportunity to go across my constituency to consult with them.

I will be having a town hall meeting next week and will be able to come back to the member and tell him, I am sure, there are divergent views on what has been proposed. There will be peculiarities to different people that have certain opinions about the proposals that we have put forward.

My view is that we are looking for opportunities for all Canadians. Not all women and men have spouses. For those who have that question will be dealt with when we have concluded the consultations.

I am not going to get drawn in on a broad, massive move that the government has taken on one issue. I am going to allow the debate to proceed and keep my opinions to myself until I have democratically consulted with my constituents.