Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a slight problem. She said that-Not having heard the end, I cannot answer. Since you wanted to give me the time to respond, please allow her to complete her sentence.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I just want to direct a comment to the hon. secretary of state. She talks about very high administration costs, saying that some women were paid outrageous salaries. When will highly paid men see their positions cut, too?

We are talking about education and communications. Since the hon. secretary of state maintains that the council's credibility was recognized, I wonder if the members of the Council on the Status of Women were consulted on the best way to review the overall handling of women's issues.

Women are being short-changed, in terms of equality. In the 1994 budget, there was the whole infrastructure program. I would like to know how many women got jobs in connection with the infrastructure program? And, if some of them did, it would still have been part time jobs.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, allotted days on a motion of the official opposition provide special moments in this House, because, by making it possible to ask government about the real issues, they force parliamentarians to consider certain unavoidable realities.

The reality we are currently considering concerns more than half the population, since, today, we are assessing the government's action, or, rather, its inaction with respect to women.

On March 8, 1994, International Women's Day, the Bloc Quebecois tabled the following motion in the House on an opposition day:

That this House urge the government to recognize the principle of economic equality between women and men and to implement measures, in areas of federal jurisdiction, to guarantee women equity in employment, wages and living conditions.

What has become of this a year later? Women in Canada and Quebec agree: for this government, it is a long way from the cup to the lips. There was not a hint of the grand principle of equity in the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. And yet women here need real action.

It therefore makes sense for the opposition critic on the status of women to table a motion denouncing the federal government for its inaction in its areas of jurisdiction through its failure to adopt concrete measures to promote the equality of women.

The Bloc Quebecois notes that the Liberal government has failed to keep the commitments it made with regard to promoting equality for women. One has only to look at the situation in various areas of social concern, including child care services, public housing and the struggle to prevent violence against women.

The Liberal government's latest decision to abolish the Advisory Council on the Status of Women is a clear indication of the cabinet's concern about women.

It appears that the government is no longer interested in hearing a voice independent of political power express the rightful claims of women. The council's credibility with various

women's organizations was commonly recognized. It is not easy to answer to one's conscience when the will to act is lacking.

It would seem that the activities of this organization will be transferred to Status of Women Canada. What activities are we talking about, however, since $1 million in funding will be cut?

The equal opportunities for women program will also be transferred to Status of Women Canada, but with a budget reduced by five per cent. They say that, for the moment, this cut will not affect grants to volunteer organizations working on the status of women issue. What we really want to know is how long will this moment last.

Of all of the issues regarding the status of women, violence against women is probably the most devastating, as much physically as it is psychologically and it also saps morale. Despite the efforts of groups working to stop violence against women, the incidence of violence has increased at an alarming rate. Can we fight so rampant a social ill with only sentiment and good intentions as weapons? No, Madam Speaker.

The violence that often stems from economic inequality could be eliminated if the government would only assume a strong leadership role in society, put equality high on the list of priorities and channel the appropriate resources to the cause. Governments do not have the right to expose the pursuit of economic equality for women to the whims of the tax system and budgets. Such behaviour is tantamount to subsidizing economic inequality.

More than ever, fighting violence against women must be a priority. Is it acceptable in 1995 that women and families still have to face violence day after day? In January 1994, Statistics Canada publicized the results of a vast survey in which 12,300 women participated. It brought to bear some disquieting facts.

It revealed that 51 per cent of all women have been victims of at least one act of physical or sexual violence. One in five were hurt and one in four were hurt so badly that they required medical attention. In 25 per cent of all cases, the husband or common-law spouse was the perpetrator. What is even more serious is that children witnessed the violence 4 times out of 10.

These figures jive, by the way, with the statistical data contained in a 1991 report called "The War Against Women". The report found that between 63 and 83 per cent of the victims of physical abuse knew the men who abused them. One woman in ten is assaulted by her spouse and, on the average, victims are abused 30 times before they call the police.

The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women published its own figures, which have quite a story to tell about the treatment women receive. It found that one in four Canadian women were sexually exploited at one point of their lives. In half of the cases, these women were not even 17.

Considering these disturbing facts, how can the government justify its decision to reduce subsidies to organizations against violence towards women when the need is more pressing?

Women will not feel secure before there is true equality between men and women. How much injustice, inequity, inequality, and violence will the women of Canada and Quebec have to endure before the government commits itself to act in a concrete way and proceed with the necessary social and economic changes to achieve equality?

The Liberal government with its current budgetary measures in the area of unemployment insurance, with its determination to cut transfer payments to the provinces in the areas of health, education and social services is working towards a pull-out of the central government in these matters.

The so-called reform of social programs, postponed until 1997, announced a dark future for young people, the unemployed, senior citizens and, of course, women.

Indeed, there is no doubt that women will be the first victims of the changes to eligibility criteria for unemployment insurance, in a large part because it will be based on family income. We can assume that women could be denied access to the plan because of the high salaries of their husbands. What about other payments, in particular old age security?

The same logic seems to apply, since the budget of the Minister of Finance is starting to open a breach into old age security. "If your family income exceeds a certain threshold, Madam, you will no longer get your monthly cheque." For many women, this cheque is tangible proof of a certain financial autonomy, very often the first they ever had. We cannot deny that some aspects of women's reality have been overlooked by decision-makers. But an oversight can be corrected, if only the will to be fair is strong enough for us to admit that we were wrong.

The economic security and equality of women can only be achieved if women are economically independent. In turn, economic independence is tied to the creation of lasting full time and adequately paid jobs. However, in 1993, women accounted for 69 per cent of part time workers in Canada. This ratio is unacceptable. Job insecurity is replacing economic security and equality for women. This is second rate equity.

Instead of jeopardizing the scant efforts made over the past decades to try to provide women in Canada and Quebec with economic equality, the government should recognize that only a

sharp directional change in employment strategies will guarantee the women of this country the economic security necessary for individuals to find their balance, for families to be healthy, and for people to enjoy respect. This government has its work cut out, but it remains to be seen if it will have the courage to get down to business.

[Artists For Sovereignty, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a number of Quebec artists spoke out in support of Quebec's march to sovereignty.

These artists wanted to express publicly their determination to see Quebec become a country. Singer Paul Piché delivered a clear message to Quebecers: "We know you. We imitate you.

We heal your pain in love. We give words to your fears, your desires and your hopes. We have faith in you. You can have faith in us; you are entitled".

The Bloc Quebecois is delighted by the artists' action, inspired not by political affiliation, but by a desire to express their profound convictions and to share, with their fellow Quebecers, aspirations that go well beyond the political.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating on second reading Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. The current Liberal government is making it a key piece of its legislation.

The famous red book to which our colleagues across the floor so often refer promised tough legislation in the area of gun control. The Bloc Quebecois, like most Quebecers, has always been in favour of tighter gun control.

A number of recent tragic events have made all of Quebec aware of the inescapable reality that firearms are dangerous and kill readily.

Murderous rampages are a fact in our society: 1984, Assemblée nationale, three killed; 1989, Ecole Polytechnique, thirteen women killed; 1992, Concordia University, three professors killed. These events are etched in our collective memory.

Bill C-68 is therefore a step in the right direction. It proposes measures to ensure better control over the purchase, possession and storage of firearms.

It provides for more severe punishment for the possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon. It also introduces new offences and denunciatory sentences for the illegal importing and the trafficking of arms. It will now be prohibited to import or sell .25 or .32 calibre handguns and handguns with a barrel length of 105 millimetres or less.

Finally, the bill establishes a national registration system for all firearms, to be administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in co-operation with provincial and municipal forces.

This system will help police forces to combat the criminal use of guns: first, orders of prohibition for certain weapons will be enforced; second, the fight against smuggling will be stepped up by controlling the kind and the quantity of firearms entering the country; third, compliance with the rules for the safe storage of firearms will be ensured; fourth, it will be easier for police forces to track stolen weapons or those used to commit crimes.

Setting up the gun registry is a positive move. We nevertheless deplore that this system will not pay for itself, as was initially promised by the government and demanded by the official opposition. In fact, the Liberal government estimates that, over a period of seven years, it will cost $85 million to implement the system.

The Bloc Quebecois has no problem recognizing that this system will help fight against the illegal sale, possession or use of firearms. However, the official opposition believes that the period for registering firearms must be shortened. In spreading the deadline over an eight-year period, the government has chosen to compromise the attainment of the goals of police forces.

The Bloc Quebecois has no doubt that the Minister of Justice and his government caved in to the repeated attacks of several pro-gun lobby groups. Does the power of money compare to the power of AK-47s?

How else could we explain that over 13,000 military type automatic weapons, including over 4,000 AK-47 machine guns, will remain uncontrolled?

What kind of moral of logical justification could there be for owning such a firearm? Partridge hunting? We could lose a lot of feathers if that were the case. Personal protection then? In that case, we have powerful enemies. The desire to own collector's weapons? Is an AK-47 a work of art? Unless, of course, we want to turn it into a symbol of our civilization.

The government did not have the courage to do its homework. It evaded its responsibilities by asking the Standing Committee on Justice to find solutions to problems the government itself created.

For example, the government has asked this committee to find an acceptable solution in the case of firearms that have special significance for some people as family heirlooms, so that owners can bequeath their firearms to their children as part of their inheritance. That may be a legacy of love.

Given the situation, the Bloc Quebecois can only support wholeheartedly the recommendations made by coroner Anne-Marie David. The Liberal government should do the same.

Coroner David suggests that the Minister of Justice should amend the wording of the regulations on the safe storage, display and transportation of firearms to make it more consistent and easier to understand for the whole population. She feels that the current regulations are confusing and that not distinguishing between unrestricted and restricted weapons contributes to the confusion.

What Boileau said in the 17th century is more valid than ever: "A well-formed thought can be conveyed clearly, and the words to express it come easily".

Coroner David also notes that the current regulations allow weapons to be displayed. Is it unreasonable to believe that such a display can be an incentive to steal weapons or arouse the curiosity of some people who may be tempted to handle them?

The regulations contain another flaw: How can we approve regulations that authorize the transportation of unloaded unrestricted weapons on the back seat of a vehicle, as long as they are under the supervision of an adult?

According to Anne-Marie David, such leniency is an incentive to steal and contravenes in some cases the provisions of the Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife.

The government must therefore launch an extensive information campaign to clearly explain the amendments to the regulations. It is aimed at the public at large, but should target certain groups in particular, such as hunters, collectors and sharpshooters.

According to coroner David, it is imperative that this publicity campaign be conducted under the aegis of a provincial committee and, sadly, that the federal government contribute the financial resources necessary to the success of such endeavour.

As we can see, this bill has no teeth, but its flaws have to be remedied, if the federal government really wants this legislation to have not just teeth, but good sharp ones.

The official opposition remains committed to producing legislation that will ensure tighter gun control. Support expressed by individuals, organizations and community social action groups fighting against violence, is extensive.

A large coalition originating from Quebec has taken a stand for closer monitoring of the sale, possession and use of firearms. Both public and parapublic organizations have come forward; the vast majority of police forces and police associations are in favour of increased gun control.

As the member for Laval Centre, I am particularly proud of the level of awareness displayed by the residents of my riding and my city, as evidenced by the resolution passed by the Laval town council on November 9, 1994, in support-unequivocal support-of stricter gun control measures.

[Old Age Security, February 28th, 1995]

Yesterday, the Liberal government announced in its budget that it intends to cut old age pensions as early as 1997. The budget tabled yesterday is proof positive that the biggest threat to old age pensions and social programs comes from the federal government, not the Quebec government.

Judging by the government's actions, this direct attack on the elderly, the unemployed and welfare recipients is only just beginning. The chairman of the no side, Michel Bélanger, who has been trying to scare people by saying that the nasty separatists want to cut old age pensions, must truly be disheartened.

We are anxious to hear his perceptive analysis of the federal budget.

[Old Age Security, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Chrétien government announced in its budget that it intends to cut pensions-

[Young Offenders Act, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in June 1994, the Minister of Justice proposed the second reading of Bill C-37 and its referral to a committee for review.

The standing committee on justice recently made 28 amendments which do not significantly change the original piece of legislation. Indeed, the repressive nature of the bill remains intact and the current version once again overlooks the issue of social reintegration and rehabilitation of young offenders.

Today, Bill C-37 still only meets one objective: to silence Liberal hard-liners and to try to please those of the Reform Party.

The bill is very simple; yet, its scope will greatly change the government's view of the issue of juvenile delinquency and the way to deal with it.

Indeed, this legislation significantly changes the statement of principle governing the current law by stating the following, and I quote: "the protection of society, which is a primary objective of the criminal law applicable to youth, is best served by rehabilitation, wherever possible, of young persons".

Bill C-37 also provides harsher sentences for young offenders, as well as an automatic appearance before an adult court for 16 and 17 year olds who commit serious crimes.

Finally, Bill C-37 proposes a major change to the current legislation by specifying that the professionals involved will be allowed to exchange information on young offenders, and that the records of these young offenders will be retained by police authorities for a period of ten years in the case of serious crimes and three years for other offences.

In 1984, the Juvenile Delinquents Act was replaced by the Young Offenders Act, which then applied exclusively to young people aged 12 to 17.

Its purpose was to make young offenders accountable for their criminal behaviour, even though their degree of responsibility may differ largely from that of adults. A responsibility was also put on society in the sense that, while the population has the right to be protected from acts which threaten its safety, crime prevention does remain an important social responsibility.

As a result, young offenders had the right to equitable treatment, since their youth and degree of maturity required particular assistance of a sort not available from the justice system for adults.

In this spirit, the 1984 act prohibited the media from divulging the identity of an accused young person or that of witnesses called to appear. The ban did not last long. In 1986 the act was amended to allow the disclosure of the identity of a young person sought in connection with, charged with or found guilty of an offence and considered to be a threat to public security.

In 1992 the Conservative government again amended the Young Offenders Act, increasing the sentence for murder from 3 to 5 years. Also introduced at this time was the principle that a young offender could be tried before an adult court if measures to ensure public safety were inadequate.

There is no doubt that this bill will mean harsher sentences for young persons and an important shift in the act's declaration of principle.

In actual fact, the harshness of sentences for serious crimes or offences will be reflected in an increase in the number of years of detention. Thus, in the case of first degree murder, the sentence will be increased from 5 to 10 years, and in the case of second degree murder, it will be increased from 5 to 7 years, during which time these young persons will not be eligible for parole.

A number of specialists and other parties interested in the field of juvenile delinquency have observed that the severity of sentences for serious crimes plays a very small role in deterring young offenders.

A number of studies, need I remind you, have shown clearly that individuals who commit serious crime are unable to contemplate the consequences of what they have done or of what they are about to do. Generally speaking, there are three categories of young delinquents involved in serious crime. The first category comprises those whose psychological state or mental health is fragile. With the help of appropriate rehabilitation programs, the young people in this category have every chance of recovering and finding their place in society.

The second category comprises young delinquents who commit misdemeanours, and, under unforseen circumstances, do the irreparable and commit murder or some other serious crime.

Finally, the third category comprises 16 and 17 year olds guilty of serious crime, because their delinquent past has led them to where they are. This is juvenile delinquency at its most serious. These young people are referred to adult court, because prevention and rehabilitation have failed.

It must be said that the majority of young offenders are in the first two categories.

A number of studies would tend to indicate that the rate of homicide among young people has hardly increased in recent years. A document published by the Department of Justice in May 1994 reveals that, in recent years, the number of people under the age of 18 suspected of homicide has been considerably lower than in the 1970s. Between 1974 and 1979, police had an average of 60 homicide suspects under 18 years of age annually, whereas, between 1986 and 1992, the average was only 46.

The public appears more sensitive to violence among young people, however. It really seems that people overestimate the incidence of acts of serious violence. Consider for example a survey carried out in 1992 indicating that "Canadians believed that violent crimes accounted for 30 per cent of all crimes committed".

In reality, only 10 per cent of crimes are violent. Reality is often distorted by the media which for obvious reasons often stress sensational crimes, thus leading the public to believe that the rate of violent crime has risen sharply.

In the opinion of the official opposition, the repressive measures contained in the present bill are far from being justifiable in all cases of juvenile delinquency. All the more so since the present legislation already includes measures to punish offenders guilty of serious offfences.

The statement of principle proposed by the justice minister in Bill C-37 leaves the door wide open for repressing crime rather than preventing it. How else does one explain that this bill does not contain a single new provision in respect of prevention, rehabilitation or reintegration.

In Quebec and certain provinces in Canada, such as Ontario, the approach to young offenders focuses on prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration. Several studies including the Boscoville study have demonstrated the advantages of this approach.

It is true that several provinces in Canada do not have sufficient structures and resources at their disposal to proceed this way. So one might think that repression is the easiest option to choose.

Over the last few months, everyone in the judicial sector has criticized this bill because it ignores the issue of rehabilitation and reintegration. Juvenile delinquency cannot be looked at in isolation from a strictly judicial point of view; other much deeper factors that cause delinquent behaviour in young people must be taken into consideration.

Juvenile delinquency as we now see it is like a mirror held up to society. Without facing this reality, we cannot stem delinquency at its root.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you the following question: Does Canadian society have the right to choose the simplistic solution of punishment, and to pass this off as the fulfilment of its responsibilities in this matter?

The official opposition thinks not, and I am certain that this is not what Canada wants.

[French-Language School Boards, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Le Droit reports this morning that the Ontario education minister is about to announce the establishment of 15 new French-language school boards.

While this is certainly good news, one would hope that Franco-Ontarians will soon have not only all the school boards they need, but also adequate funding in order to end current discriminatory practices.

The group for the development of French Ontario pointed out rightly that the degree of illiteracy among Franco-Ontarians is shamefully high; at 31 per cent, it is comparable to that of third world countries. That is the practical result of a century of linguistic and educational oppression.

It is time for a change. This is a right, not a privilege.

[Reproductive Technologies, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a decision handed down by the Ontario Court highlights the need to adopt legislation to establish the legal and ethical framework for new reproductive technologies. After separating from his wife, a man was declared the legal father of a female child, although the child was conceived by artificial insemination from an unnamed donor.

In the absence of legislation on new reproductive technologies, the judge gave priority to the child's interests, but there is nothing to say that this will always be the case.

This situation points to the important impact of new reproductive technologies on the people who use them. The government has not yet stated that it will soon introduce a bill to prevent potential abuses in this area. Is it waiting for a mockery to be made of children and parents' rights before taking action?