Sheila Finestone

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

I did not say that.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was addressing the challenges that were before us as a society to erase racism, to ensure social cohesion and to also assure that there would be shared responsibility between different levels of government, between citizens and industry and the private sector to enable Canadians to live in peace and harmony with respect and understanding.

The questions I had been addressing, as members have heard, include those about how to address the special problems faced by disadvantaged minorities, by immigrant women, by women of colour, by youth caught between two cultures, by dislocated seniors, by those who look different from the majority, by those seeking medical assistance who face language and cultural barriers and how to ensure fairness and equity of access and equivalent accreditation of skills and educational undertakings learned in other places but brought to bear, to enrich and to enable our country to grow and develop.

Last, how do we marginalize those groups which would actively promote hatred against others. In that regard, I would like to warn members of the House and the public of the activities of the Nationalist Party in the promotion of European Heritage Week. This group is clearly racist in its intent, white

supremist, and we must not support the activities that they are undertaking.

Do not be fooled by fancy posters. Look at the group behind. They have become very sophisticated in their approach. I particularly want to thank Mayor Rowlands of Toronto for bringing this matter to my attention.

These are the important questions that together we want to answer at all levels of government and institutions. I believe those institutions that we have put in place are there to protect our democracy, which I pointed out earlier is very fragile. With the non-governmental organizations and our community-based volunteer groups, we can make a difference.

After nearly a year on this job, I have to report that it works. I have travelled to hear and to listen. The framework that brings together the wide-ranging concepts of our society associated with heritage are in place, for example, our cultural policy, our official languages policy, the policy on multiculturalism, the physical properties of national parks, the importance of human rights, charter challenges, volunteerism, sports and a number of others.

Despite the fact that Canadians have diverse backgrounds and origins, they are united by a shared sense of values and an attachment to Canada which we have built together, in English and in French, as well as with respect for the heritage, language and customs of our Canadian citizens.

It is also apparent that Canada's increasingly diverse population provides a unique resource, a resource base actually for successful development and expansion of our economy on domestic and international levels. We all know that business is international today, that business is multicultural today.

We have found in Canada people from all languages, cultures and religions who understand the culture of business around the world. They could help us develop and expand our economy at the domestic and international level.

What this implies is that we will fully use those cultural languages and skills and the knowledge that people have, and the fullest potential of everyone who comes to this country, recognize the personal contacts and the means that people have to open doors to business, to new markets, to new products and new services.

If we have the collective will to use the potential of all our citizens, and in a sense of fairness and equity for the individual and in an undertaking in the best interests of all Canadians, I believe we will move forward with a great sense of prosperity and understanding.

To close off, I want to talk for one moment about this. Canada, in its very multicultural mosiac, has a set of laws that are unique in this world. They have been coalesced under the proper kind of umbrella for their added protection. We wish to all share in the development of the experience that we have had here, in the way we have the machinery of government in place and that is to be shared with the rest of the world.

We have been asked to do that. Australia has just copied us. We have been asked to go elsewhere where things are even more sensitive. Here at home I want people to recognize that we have built a constructive model with enormous potential to ensure the future success of our society but we should always keep in mind the aphorism "if you're in the business of shining shoes, your shoes had better shine". Our programs need constant upkeep, tender loving care and appreciation by the people in the House and the people in the country.

We must not undervalue the civilizing influence of our multicultural policies. They may be more lasting than many of our great monuments. These policies are about the quality of life, about the power of humanizing nations, about people living together with hope and a sense of understanding, respect and appreciation for the future with a sense of belonging.

Canadians must be ever more vigilant. While those who promote hatred and bigotry use even more sophisticated technology and high tech, we must redouble our efforts in promoting a truly just, inclusive and representative society. We cannot afford to do less. Giving us this right in the Department of Canadian Heritage under Bill C-53 is a status that I believe is important. Canadians will learn to treasure the great resource we have in all our cultural diversity and give it respect and understanding.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join this discussion in the House today and to speak to Bill C-53, the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. The bill is designed to give legal status to the amalgamation of five predecessor organizations, the Secretary of State, the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport, the parks departments of Canada, a component of Environment Canada, and the cultural broadcasting and heritage components of the Department of Communications.

This profound reorganization reflects the government's commitment toward more efficient and effective government. Under the new arrangement one department is responsible for delivering a critical mandate. The Department of Canadian Heritage brings together many elements that define us as Canadians, as who we really are, a multifaceted, dynamic and diverse nation with a very rich cultural and natural heritage. Our geography and our culture are as diversified as one could possibly find. We should not be asking the question of who is a real Canadian. That is answered as a matter of citizenship. We must ask ourselves what are our Canadian values and how do we appreciate and communicate their importance to all Canadians.

I would say that those I have just been listening to have been communicating a tremendous degree of misinformation. I hope my remarks will put proper information in the hands of all Canadians.

The fact is that we have always been a multicultural, multilingual nation, from the many native communities and native peoples that existed here before the founding of our two nations, that is the British and the French who came here and later joined the aboriginal people and the Inuit. We were later joined by people from around the world to build a bilingual and multicultural Canada and that is our reality. This new department is responsible, and I will quote from the legislation, for "the promotion of a greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms, and related values as well as multiculturalism".

Canada's multicultural nature is something we have already entrenched in section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is one of which all Canadians can be proud. No one has been asked to remove their roots. Everyone has been told they are welcome here in Canada and please bring their culture with them, not their ancient angry patterns.

We have codified our commitment to respect the diversity of this nation by unanimously passing the world's first multiculturalism act. By placing this policy, this program, this name, whatever we wish to call it, by placing multiculturalism within the context of the Department of Canadian Heritage we are ensuring that this is a policy that addresses the needs of all Canadians.

Everyone in the House, regardless of colour, race, language, creed or religion is a Canadian by right of birth or by right of choice if they hold a Canadian citizenship passport.

My vision of today's multiculturalism relates as a word to its policy, to its program, how it describes our reality. It is one that encompasses the full diversity of our people. It includes those whose families arrived from Europe many centuries ago as well as those who recently arrived from the four corners of the globe. Canada reflects the world for the world is here in the nature of our people and the citizenship that they hold.

The mandated program is to provide and promote a greater sense of intercultural and interracial understanding and that is not laissez-faireism. That is active understanding of who we are, how we came to be, and an appreciation of the uniqueness of this Canadian mosaic. That is what I would have liked to have heard from across the floor. It is most unfortunate that was not the language of the discourse.

We must all recognize that in order to achieve this goal of social cohesion, social understanding and acceptance, the government is only spending $1 per year per Canadian. It is barely enough I believe to ensure social cohesion, social harmony and the great country that we are.

It is a broad but essential mandate, if we want to consolidate the elements needed to foster a sense of Canadian identity. The place of multiculturalism in this context shows the paramount importance of this policy in strengthening our national identity.

A great deal has been said about the situations that caused deep disagreements within our society. The so-called break-up of the family, the greater visibility of our multicultural population, the prolonged recession from which we are only now emerging have all led us to ponder who we are and what we represent, even though the United Nations still rates our country as the best in the world.

The Department of Canadian Heritage was created to promote understanding of our diversity, active involvement in Canadian society and knowledge of our cultural and natural wealth. It carries out this mandate by implementing policies and programs designed to help resolve disagreements, clear up misunderstandings and make us proud of our personal and national identity.

The increasing diversity of our population is only one of the dramatic changes that we are facing. Efforts to deal with these demographic changes are occurring in the face of a number of destabilizing and worrisome dilemmas: world recession, structural changes in the economy, poverty, job losses and other global moves, youth alienation and the difficulty of achieving political consensus on major issues.

Our response to these challenges demands adjustment by and for our people, both as individuals and in their national institutions. Achieving progress can be a daunting task but a worthy challenge.

For example, since taking on the responsibility of Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and travelling across this land and speaking with the people, I have become aware as never before that nation building in a culturally diverse society is a formidable but necessary challenge. The importance of this task must not be underestimated because it involves reconciling cultural diversity with national goals, with national identity. It involves ensuring respect, understanding and appreciation for differences. It involves ensuring that the tapestry which we have woven together with its multicultural colours and its uneven surface is one to be appreciated and one to be admired, with the overwhelming need to ensure that national unity is understood as a common value of which we can be very proud, talking about a national unity, talking about a sense of pride.

I listened earlier to some of the remarks and I do not feel there is a sense of betrayal. I certainly do not feel like a fractionated or hyphenated or disembowelled individual who has to cut off my roots and sense of belonging in order to have a sense of pride and belonging in order to be seen as a Canadian with all the attributes I bring in that personality and in that persona.

I am just not a hyphenated Canadian. I am a Canadian who is proud of her cultural heritage. In Quebec I am a Montrealer. In Canada I am a Quebecer and around the world I am a Canadian. If anyone asks me it is with pride that I say I am a Canadian almost anywhere in this world including in my own city or province.

Let me make it quite clear that none of those identities is incompatible with the strong sense of national identity and pride. It is very much what I am. It is very much that which I am first and foremost, a proud daughter with Jewish roots. I am a mother. I am a grandmother. I share my care, my love and concern and can spread it equally, evenly and as need be. For me that is no conflict. For Canadians, I have spoken to all origins. Whether Italian, Greek, Hungarian, Romanian, from Sri Lanka, Indo-Canadians, whether they are Chinese or Chilean, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Jewish, this is not the issue.

The issue is that there is a social contract in Canada that says we share together, learn together, appreciate what we have here and protect it. It is like a very tender young flower. It is a democracy that is messy sometimes but it is the finest thing in the world. We have every reason to be proud of our families, our roots, our heritage. It is through the family and through volunteerism and with participation with the state and the institutions and structures of the state that we can accomplish the kind of country we have all inherited, are inspired by and have a responsibility to protect.

That is why we work closely and in partnership with other levels of government and with key stakeholders in the community. By bringing together various institutions we work to assist them in becoming more responsive to the access needs of our people, to the sense of belonging, to the need for employment and housing, and respect in our health institutions and all aspects of our daily living tasks. By working as mainstream Canadians with newly emerging Canadians as well as others we help to build a Canada that is inclusive of all people.

Our partnership with organizations such as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, the Conference Board of Canada, Multicultural Canada, the Canadian Advertising Foundation, the Asia-Pacific Foundation, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and as well with the mayors of major cities we work and give our funds to these organiza-

tions in shared partnership as leverage so that we can promote a better understanding and destroy myths and stereotypes such as have been promoted from across this floor this morning.

We work with these partners to break down prejudice, misinformation, disinformation and to ensure fairness and equality for all people, to build understanding and create that sense of belonging.

Fortunately, Canada's experience in the last 20 years generally offers a positive viewpoint on multiculturalism issues, on bringing cultural communities together. What is needed to bridge the gap between new arrivals and the Canadian community receiving them is to build a society based on a consensus about what constitutes the common good for people with diverse interests, backgrounds, origins and beliefs; give everyone a role to play in the big issues; and identify peaceful solutions to potentially explosive problems.

In short, social peace is behind all the efforts we make through multiculturalism goals and strategies.

I have travelled across the country. I have listened sometimes to the misunderstanding but I have listened to the people and have heard what they have said about our diversity. I have heard about the economic advantage of a diverse population, advantages when we have such increases in foreign trade. We have also learned that when business is responsive to and reflective of its diversity it can be profitable as well.

The advertising council's colour your money study showed that by producing representative advertising companies such as the Bay, Zellers and McDonald's increased their revenues because people felt welcome. They felt they could be received behind the counter and were perceived as clients when the advertising was put out; they belonged as Canadians and would be served by Canadians.

This and other experiences have convinced me that the programs and policies under my responsibility are a great help in dealing with the problems facing us as a country with a very diverse population comprised of many different groups and peoples.

As you know, at least 46 different countries and ethnic communities are represented in my riding of Mount Royal, while Canada has over 100 ethnic communities.

Frank Rutter, a foreign affairs writer for the Vancouver Sun , has described multiculturalism as sweeping the world and as trying to balance a multicultural heritage with a national soul.

The implications of not achieving that balance are very worrisome, if not horrific. We only have to look at what is happening in the world around us to see the results of not trying to reconcile different realities of diversity and ensuring a sense of unity, a sense of belonging and a sense of pride.

I stated the obvious because Canada must clearly approach the issue of cultural diversity with rigour, sensitivity and broad-mindedness or be willing to suffer the consequences. The approach adopted by our country in dealing with multiculturalism is an asset that has allowed us to avoid the ethnic tensions plaguing other countries.

Let us realize the real picture of whom we are today. Forty-two per cent of all Canadians have origins other than British and French. With respect to our people of colour, those statistics are often referred to in Statistics Canada reports as visible minorities in Canada. Nationally these were 6 per cent in 1986, 10 per cent by the year 2000. In our major cities, 17 per cent in 1986 and 30 per cent by the year 2000. However in Toronto alone there will be approximately 50 per cent non-English and non-French backgrounds with 30 per cent visible minorities. Other major Canadian cities are undergoing similar changes.

Therefore the increasing diversity of Canada has broad ranging implications. Given an increasingly multicultural reality, Canadian governments and institutions face a number of practical challenges.

Let me close this part of my remarks by saying that fostering a national sense of belonging does not mean asking people to cut off their roots. It does not mean asking mainstream Canadians to forget their origins. It means telling, asking, expecting, teaching, training and educating so that we have an appreciation of where we started, with aboriginal, multicultural, multilingual peoples, whom we added and how we have lived together in peace and understanding.

I would hope that as I continue talking about the Canadian mosaic people will learn and appreciate the role that we play for a dollar a year for each Canadian.

We have to talk about how we ensure and promote growth and understanding of our diversity while recognizing our common values. I believe we have to find and implement effective ways to eliminate discrimination, prejudice, racism and bigotry based on the colour of our skin, our religious beliefs or our cultural differences. We have to learn how to encourage individuals and institutions to make a commitment to work toward eliminating and erasing racism.

These are all programs and projects which we undertake jointly with community groups to ensure that people can get together to understand and know each other in a much more neighbourly way.

How to involve people in welcoming and facilitating the integration-

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the question, if we can call it a question, was actually an expression of concern and an analysis of our society which, I think, is well-founded and I share the concerns expressed by the hon. member. As I believe I said at the beginning of my speech, legislation is part of the greater picture, which includes education, awareness and appreciating the differences in our society. And that is probably why I referred to the diversity that, to me, is a splendid aspect of our society but also a very fragile one, just as democracy is fragile. If we do not take care of it, if we do not approach it with that "stirred in the pot" love when we tend this splendid and colourful garden, if I may use this metaphor, our failure to do so will cause problems and a great deal of pain.

The problems are caused by a lack of understanding, a lack of information and stereotypes that are rooted deep down. That is why the department of which I am Secretary of State, the multiculturalism department, is so important. For what it takes to buy one chocolate bar a year for everyone in Canada, we are setting up programs to bring people together, education programs, awareness programs and programs to promote what we are as Canadians and the mutual respect that should be part of everything we do.

We must understand this. We must realize that when you come from another country, another culture, and speak a language other than English and French, you have a lot to learn, and it takes more than a year or two to do that. After a few years, you get to the point that you are in a position to learn and you can learn. The groups we find in our communities and our neighbourhoods are there to help each other, to give a helping hand to new residents and help them understand Canadian democracy, the way we act and the way we speak and what is acceptable and what is not, and that hate and any kind of sexual assault are not acceptable, period.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-41 because I believe that the bill that will review and examine sentencing practices must be responsive to the concerns and values of Canadians.

The bill reflects our commitment to a justice system that is balanced, fair and encourages respect for the law. This is an omnibus bill, as we all know, and it responds to a number of very important issues.

I wish to commend the Minister of Justice for the nature of the consultations that he undertook, the wide scope of this bill, which in the end clarifies and ensures improvements in the application of the Criminal Code.

I have been listening to concerns in this regard and I am sure that members can be very satisfied with the improvements and the strengthening of actions and sentencing around criminal acts.

I fully agree with the objective of this bill as well as with all its provisions. That being said, my remarks will deal with two points in particular: first, offences motivated by hate and second, offenders abusing a position of trust.

I believe that equality for all Canadians includes freedom from hatred and from harassment. Expressions of hatred have absolutely no place in Canadian society. Openness, understanding and sharing are features that shape our collective identity. Most Canadians believe that each one of us has the right to live free from hatred or expressions of hatred and actions that are motivated by hatred.

I have always felt, and I have actually been convinced, that a crime motivated by hate based on one's race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, mental or physical capacity or any other form of that nature is a very serious crime and needs to be looked at in a particular light.

With this bill, such hate motivations will be considered an aggravating circumstance in the Criminal Code for the first time. It therefore will define and ensure that these crimes will be treated much more severely.

One of the strongest aspects of the new hate crime proposal is in its broad scope. It enshrines even further the principles that one finds behind section 15 of the charter which is a fundamental value for all Canadians.

While we are generally more aware of hate crimes related to religion, racism or sexual orientation, we must not forget that women as a group also come under attack simply because they are women.

In the aftermath of the massacre of 14 women at the École Polytechnique de Montréal in 1989, our country was shocked to discover the hatred that some men feel toward women. That was a very shocking moment and made many Canadians sit up and take note.

Women's experience in the criminal justice system is primarily that of victim. The way they are treated in the justice system is critical in their efforts to achieve equality as a right. Our vision, reflected in Bill C-41 and other initiatives, is one of a society and a justice system in which all Canadians are full and equal partners, confident that their rights will be upheld by the law.

The disturbing increase in the expressions of hatred and discrimination in our society is well documented. Since 1989 there has been a marked upsurge in hate group activity throughout the world, certainly right here in Canada. These groups are now better organized, they are far more subtle in their approach, and they have developed new strategies which really need to be addressed. One needs to be far more sensitive to read the message behind the message. It is subliminal in many cases and much more invidious in its intent.

The Solicitor General has estimated that over 52 neo-Nazi groups and 85 other associations promoting hatred are currently operating in this country. I believe that is cause for serious concern.

In its 1993 annual audit of anti-semitic incidents in Canada, the league of human rights of B'Nai Brith Canada recorded a 31 per cent increase in anti-Semitic harassment and vandalism. The league documented a disturbing increase in hate group activity. They have, to quote the league: "adopted a more militant and activist stance than in prior years". I can tell the House that those acts of vandalism and those expressions of hatred, which I have seen on the walls of synagogues and buildings in my riding of Mount Royal, are really distressing and very disturbing. Young people who come to schools or go into the cemeteries are really quite shocked and it leaves a mark on them.

Often, our personal knowledge or experience of ways hatred can be expressed gives statistics a sense of reality and urgency. I am convinced that all the hon. members of this House can remember a specific incident or action intended to frighten or harm someone by reason of his or her race, religion, colour or sexual orientation, just because they were different.

The increasing diversity of our population's make-up poses quite a challenge to Canadian society as a whole.

We all have a sense of pride and are all very thrilled when we read that the United Nations finds Canada the finest place in the world in which to live. Notwithstanding that, we have a series of warts. It is important to look at these and see how we can excise this unacceptable behaviour from our society.

We know that Canada is a multicultural and multilingual country from its beginnings. Our native peoples, our aboriginal peoples, are multicultural and multilingual. They were joined by

English and French, both languages and both cultures, to form a beautiful mix. Now, according to the 1991 census, 42 per cent of Canadians have origins other than British or French.

It is important to note that in Mount Royal riding-and I think it is a perfect example, although perhaps a little bit more concentrated than in other cities-the statistics show that 43.5 per cent of the population is first generation immigrants to Canada. This does not take into account the balance of the population in my riding who are of ethnic origin and who have been here since the early 1800s. It is a very diversified riding and I am proud to have about 60 different ethnic minority groups represented. They speak the languages of the world. These are the languages and the cultures of multicultural business in this global economy. They are important to us for a variety of reasons and it is exciting because you can have the wonderful experience of living in such a multicultural society.

They make up, all these Canadians, the majority in every major urban centre. By the year 2006 the proportion of Canadians who are visible minorities is expected to be between 13 and 18 per cent. In Toronto, the city with the greatest diversity, some suggest that the proportion could be as high as 50 per cent. These great urban centres reflecting our diversity make for culturally and socially exciting and dynamic communities in which to live, ones in which we can really flourish and grow.

However, we have to be forever vigilant. Hate motivated crimes can be found in this kind of a mix if we do not take care, if we are not vigilant. It could be a threat to the social cohesion of these communities. It could impede equal and full participation for all. It leads to alienation, a sense of disenfranchisement and a feeling of powerlessness.

There are some basic trusts we as a nation cannot afford to break. I will enunciate some: the right of all persons to enjoy their own language and culture; the right of a family to worship without fear of violence and distrust; and the right of women to walk safely on the streets in their communities.

To avoid conflict and maintain social harmony, our institutions must redouble their efforts to develop policies, programs and practices that recognize the reality of Canadian diversity and move to ensure this social cohesion. We need access, understanding and respect if we are to live together in peace and harmony.

Among those institutions that are ensuring this happens is our justice system, which has a great responsibility and a fundamental role to play in ensuring this trust and fairness. The system must demonstrate without ambiguity that hate crimes will not be tolerated in Canada. It is just not to be tolerated. It is not the Canadian way and it is absolutely not acceptable.

The provisions of this bill by which hate motives constitute aggravating circumstances for the purpose of sentencing should have been implemented a long time ago. They reflect this government's commitment to protecting the fundamental right of all Canadians to live without being afraid, to live in peace and security and to live as equals. Obviously, it does not suffice to ensure that hate will be deemed an aggravating circumstance, this must be part of an integrated approach to promote understanding and respect within the society.

We must work together in a broad range of legislative and non-legislative areas. It is the responsibility of the people in this House representing all Canadians to ensure that hate and the manifestations of hate are eradicated from this society.

It is very important that we educate today's youth about hate crime: how to understand it; how to sense it; and how to speak out against it. We have to emphasize the determinant role they will play both in terms of prevention and in terms of the promotion of peace and goodwill.

In that spirit our multiculturalism department in many ways with its cross-cultural and intercultural activities and its race relations undertaking and in partnership with society has developed many programs. Among them are the very helpful programs of educational materials developed for students and teachers on human rights, prejudice, racism and racial discrimination.

We have acted in many ways with the schools. I have travelled across this country and have seen students in action. It has been a pleasure to listen to these young students who understand, recognize and respond to racism. They know prejudice when they see it. Unfortunately, it is when they get home that it often gets reinforced. It is very important that they learn the lesson of speaking out, so it never happens again.

Our program uses a variety of public educational tools to speak out against hate and racism. It explains that each one of us can make a difference and that Canadians need to work together to ensure peace and harmony. It works particularly when we work in collaboration with different ministries, for example with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice.

The multiculturalism department has done some very extensive work with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and many other such structured institutions.

This bill will give all of us another tool that can be used to educate while addressing the issues of hatred.

Unfortunately this century has and continues to demonstrate in many parts of the world the end result of unchecked acts of hatred based on who you are and not what you are. Canada is a place where this is not to happen any more. Canada is one

example to the world that we are determined to live in a respectful environment in a respectful society. Those who do not wish to share and participate in this Canadian experiment shall be given an appropriate sentence with this new bill which indicates we shall not accept these expressions in our society.

I said I wanted to pay attention to two aspects of this very extensive bill. The other aspect I want to discuss is the key element of the amendment package, sexual assault involving a breach of trust.

Under this bill if a person is found to be guilty of sexual assault and that person was in a position of trust or authority with the victim, that fact will be considered an aggravating factor which will affect the severity of the sentence. This is very important particularly for women and children for they are the primary victims of sexual assault.

The fact that sexual assault involving breach of trust is a grave problem in this country is very disturbing on the one hand and is plain to see on the other. Canadian statistics revealed that in 1993 over three-quarters of reported sexual assault victims knew their assailants. That StatsCan survey was a true eye opener. On taking the microscope and magnifying the study through the language in the Criminal Code we found statistics that were quite revolting with respect to sexual assault and the victims. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

According to a national phone survey done by StatsCan, only 6 per cent of the women who told interviewers they had been assaulted had never reported it to the police. They were frightened. Why? One of the reasons is that that women report sexual assaults they do not believe they will be treated fairly by the judge listening to the case within the court system.

The new directions and the new directives on sentencing are going to help change that attitude. The judges will be enlightened as to what this government believes should be the proper action and the proper response given in these circumstances.

In a society in which prejudice and stereotype still exist, a woman is often blamed for being sexually assaulted. What is happening as well is women are seeing the inappropriate sentences that are given to perpetrators. This helps reinforce their attitude that they are not being considered fairly in the decisions that are rendered.

For too long our justice system has operated without any clearly defined understanding of breaches of trust in cases of sexual assault. Indeed in some cases the fact that the aggressor occupied a position of trust either as a good parent or a pillar of the community has even led to lighter sentencing. This is wrong, terribly and shockingly wrong. It is totally unacceptable. I am very pleased that the Minister of Justice acknowledges this and has brought to bear some changes in the system which will enlighten the judges in this regard.

To state it plainly, when someone violates a position of trust, whether he is a relative, an employer, a teacher, a doctor or some other figure of authority, he may do even greater damage to the victim than the anonymous rapist who attacks in the dark alley. This is particularly true if the victim is young. I would like this House to know that 63 per cent of sexual assaults involve victims under the age of 18 years. I say this is wrong. It is terribly wrong and it has to stop.

Victims of aggressions involving breach of trust could well suffer irreparable emotional and psychological damage.

Women and children who were molested by a friend, a family member or a mentor can no longer trust and love. They lose part of their humanity.

It may be difficult for a woman who has been victim of an aggression to maintain healthy intimate relationships, whether with close male friends or members of their family and even with their own spouse.

Many have to quit work, while others can no longer trust certain professionals. Their pain and suffering is often exacerbated by the fact that their aggressor does not face prosecution or gets off with a slap on the wrist.

A national study of court cases conducted by the metro action committee on public violence against women and children looked at how sexual assaults involving breaches of trust are dealt with in our justice system. It concluded that judges often fail to recognize a breach of trust.

In the many court cases studied 47 per cent involved an offender who was a father, a paternal figure, a relative, a friend of the parent, someone in a position of authority, or someone in a professional role. They all had had privileged relationships with the victim. Yet in over 40 per cent of these cases this privileged relationship was not even mentioned in the judges' comments or in the discussion of aggravating factors.

Furthermore when judges do recognize a breach of trust it is not always evident that they have given it appropriate weight in determining the offender's sentence. This bill will begin to rectify that situation by giving judges clear directives about what constitutes a breach of trust. The reformed Criminal Code will be better equipped to deal with this form of sexual abuse.

This provision will also send a message to individuals in a position of power. It says that if you use your relationship to take advantage of women or children, you will be treated harshly by the system. In other words, the greater a person's influence, the greater the responsibility to treat others with respect, and the

greater the consideration of a stiffer fine and sentencing. Not even a fine, sentencing.

The amendments in this reform package, especially those dealing with hate crimes and breach of trust, will help rebuild people's faith in our justice system. It will encourage women to be far more courageous and more open and to feel that they will be better treated if they bring the cases before the courts. That faith has been sorely tested in recent years as we have learned of the extent of violence against women and have lived through many incidences of hate motivated crimes.

I am grateful to the Minister of Justice for moving swiftly to deal with these problems. This bill is an example of our government's commitment to a just and peaceful society, a safe society with safe streets. If those words sound familiar it is because I am repeating them. They are printed and published in our best seller, the red book. We have kept our promises. These proposals follow through on the commitments we have made. They are the result of extensive consultations and co-operation with the provinces and the territories on sentencing reform.

In the name of all of our citizens, the women, men and children of this society, I am very pleased with this bill. I hope as it goes though this House people will recognize the importance of the fairness of this bill.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me direct a supplementary question to the hon. member. I understood when he said Life means life. That is all very well and good. He is well aware of the fact, as I think many of us are, that the statistics on the level of crime show crime has gone down but the number of crimes being reported has gone up.

If we fill our prisons what are we to do? How does the member plan to keep our prison population in control?

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at what point does the hon. member consider the parole board ought to relook at such an impact statement?

The person has been condemned to a period of serving his sentence in prison. Shall he just be released without any forewarning, without anything? In terms of his sentence at what point should there be any consideration of the impact on the victims and when should they have a say?

I would like to ask an even more fundamental question, not in terms of the individual but in general. What would you do with all the people who have committed crimes? Where do you intend to house them and how do you intend to run those prisons?

[Discrimination, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague, the Minister of Heritage, and all members of this House will agree that the question of women is not a special interest group.

I would also suggest to my hon. colleague that there are special interests that are the interests of society contained in presentations made by many women's groups. I have met with many different women's groups over the period of many years.

I would like to suggest to the hon. member that trying to play games of this nature in the interest of the women and children of this country is far from an acceptable manner of procedure.

[Status Of Women, June 13th, 1994]

Thank you for the question, Madam. According to my information, the money has been allocated. It is nearly $10 million. If there is any delay in this regard, I consider your question very important and I will look into it with the minister responsible.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I found my hon. colleague's speech most interesting. I hope everyone will read it to get a clarification of the wonderful role that has been played to date.

In his next series of consultations, I would ask that the minister please ensure that more women's groups, more older citizens and ethnocultural communities are consulted. I know we did a fair job but not a good enough job in their view. I would hope that some commitment would be made as we go across the country on the next round.