Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to note the contribution made by a former New Democratic member of this House, Dawn Black, who introduced the bill for the establishment of this day in memory of the 14 women from Quebec, to be observed throughout Canada every December 6 and known as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
I think that it is very important to mention the names of these 14 women who died so tragically. Those who were killed must not be forgotten. The 14 victims were: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik Widajewicz, Maryse Leclair, Annie St-Arneault, Michèle Richard, Maryse Laganière, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier and Annie Turcotte.
I would like to quote from the brief by the Canadian Labour Congress and its status of women and human rights committee: "Imagine a world in which girls and women were safe in their homes, their schools, in the streets and in the workplace". Imagine, Madam Speaker.
All of us want to imagine what it would be like for all women and children to feel safe in their homes, in the streets and in their schools.
I will address several specific issues this morning. Many statistics have been given which I do not intend to repeat today. Rather, I will address several issues which I think are extremely important in specifically addressing the issue.
The first issue is that of gun control. It was for that reason in the previous Parliament my party supported legislation leading to greater gun control. It is still a question and more legislation will be coming before the House.
However I raise several points. In part I acknowledge the work of Yukon psychologist, Paula Pasquali. She raised some of these points as a woman and a psychologist who has worked tirelessly for many years on the issue of violence against women. She raised whether we are often talking about the wrong issue or asking the wrong question and whether we should be asking more specifically questions about safety. As Ms. Pasquali has noted, there is no doubt that some forms of gun control have certainly limited the accessibility of firearms to be used against women in the home, although we know it is still a great risk for many women because women have indeed been killed in the country.
She has proposed that we should also look at prohibiting individuals with a history of violence or threatening behaviour from acquiring firearms acquisition certificates and at taking firearms away from individuals who have been convicted of violent offences. We do not need any reforms to do that; we could do that under the existing Criminal Code.
One study funded by the Department of Justice found that police rarely seize firearms in homes where they respond to domestic calls, even though they know of their power to do so and are aware of the extent to which firearms are used against women. I would guess that firearms prohibitions are rarely ordered in cases of wife assault. This can be done under the existing law.
There is nothing radical about suggesting that firearms should be restricted for those who have committed violent crimes.
One argument put forward is that taking away guns from people who rely on them for hunting or trapping would take food off their table or take away their livelihood. In those cases there is clearly an argument that they should be required to store guns outside their family homes. I am talking specifically about people who have been convicted of violent crimes.
We should broaden the debate around gun control and not specifically relate it to the narrowness of it now. We should look very clearly at what it is we want to accomplish, which deaths and which crimes we are trying to prevent, and setting priorities. Should we be looking at more specifically violence in the home in addition to proposals that may reduce it through gun control? We also have to evaluate the current gun control act and look at how moneys could best be spent to eliminate violence in the home and the use of firearms in the home.
A second aspect of the criminal justice system of great concern to all of us is that we must insist that the system work to the benefit of women who choose to lay charges. There have been a number of studies. One recently completed in Ontario found that women were invariably disappointed with the response of the criminal justice system to assaults committed by the men with whom they lived. Many women do not want their partner to be punished but expect and need a system that will take effective action to ensure safety.
This Ontario study demonstrates that only rarely does the sentencing imposed accomplish the goal. Indeed Ms. Pasquali's own studies on sexual assault in Yukon do not give much hope unless there is a system in place which is clearly focused on the victim, on the needs of the victim, and on support for the batterer in terms of groups for batterers and so on.
In 1983 the Solicitor General of Canada issued a directive to the RCMP to lay charges and to the crown to prosecute charges of wife assault irrespective of the women's wishes. A lot of us at the time felt it was a good directive. Perhaps it is time to look at whether it has been effective for women. We should look at all laws that have been put in place to accomplish these ends.
A third issue in the criminal justice system I would like to address is the issue of those who have committed a violent crime getting a lesser sentence or being found not guilty on the basis that they were intoxicated by alcohol or had used drugs. The government should undertake to change the Criminal Code in this aspect. It has been a great shock to women across the country to know that in this day and age when the issues of violence have been so much addressed that this is still possible. It is totally unacceptable. I have received petitions from individuals all over the country who are outraged about it.
Services and the accessibility of services are very important. All women in violent situations live in fear. It has only been in the last 15 to 20 years that we have had a network of services: transition homes, hot lines, women's services and rape counselling centres. We have been able to say to women that violence is not acceptable, that they have an option. Society has taken on its responsibility. We as a society are responsible for the safety of our citizens.
I refer to the proposals of the Liberal member of Parliament from Hamilton-Wentworth who is saying that funding should be cut to interest groups. He cited in his comments in a number of places women's groups. Let me put forward a few statistics about what the priorities in society should be. We hear that society cannot afford some of the work support groups or advocacy groups do on behalf of women and children.
Why is it, many women must wonder today, that in 1992 the Canadian government gave a federal grant to Pratt & Whitney of over $54 million and in the same year gave the Canadian Day Care Advocacy $183,000? Why is it that in the same year the Canadian Marconi company received almost $10 million while the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women received about $250,000? Why is it that Spar Aerospace received almost $14 million that year and the Disabled Women's Network of Canada received just over $100,000?
Today of all days is the day to put to rest the mythology that it is not the responsibility of a government to address the safety of its citizens. To do so there must be local resources available for women and the federal government has a role in that.
In terms of accessibility I want to mention specifically rural areas of Canada. As many members will know, it is very difficult in most rural areas of the country for women suffering abuse to receive support services or often to receive legal or court services because of isolation. It is particularly important today to ensure that rural areas have a special focus in the planning done at the federal, provincial and territorial levels.
I can give two local examples. The Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre in Whitehorse, Yukon, has had to move three times in the last year. It is trying to offer services to women. It is one of a few services readily accessible to women in Yukon. It is shocking that this service cannot find a permanent home. Similarly in Watson Lake, Yukon, the Help and Hope Transition Home for Families is under threat and has had to shut down part time because of a lack of funding. It is through the Canada assistance plan funding for transition homes that territories and provinces receive partial funding for these homes.
We have not eradicated violence against women. I wish there was no need for transition homes for women who have been battered. However the need is there. Every day at the doors and on the phones of women's centres and transition homes across the nation, in every province and territory, there are people who are desperate for help. We cannot turn our backs on them.
This leads me to the social security review that barely addresses the particular issue. It addresses the Canada assistance plan. If the government were truly serious in its social security review about looking at all aspects of issues affecting families, it would have made a specific commitment to seriously address the issue of violence against women and children. It is not there, which is very disconcerting to many of us.
The issues of poverty and inequality relate to violence against women. There is no doubt that things like the NAFTA and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement have adversely affected the working lives of many women. Often it is women who have felt the brunt of the negative aspects of these trade arrangements. It is women particularly who have felt the brunt of cutbacks to social services in every province and territory.
It was mentioned today by the minister in an extremely important speech that women were central to the training of children in our families and to family life. Yet we still have one in five children in the country living in poverty, which means they have poor parents.
This is a form of violence everywhere in the world but it is a form of violence we can do something about. We have been very good in the House, as we were in 1989, saying we want to eradicate poverty by the year 2000. Wanting is not good enough. We have to take action and we can do that.
There are many examples of inequalities. I gave some financial examples earlier where once again those who advocate on behalf of the interests of women received some government funding but nothing compared to the priorities in other areas.
It is absolutely essential that we commit resources and have resources available for these services. Accessibility is a problem that many immigrant women have, either accessibility to English as a second language or to support services. The responsibility we as a society have for each and every person must be taken seriously by the House.
The previous Reform speaker indicated that we could do this if we were a bit more charitable and had a few more bake sales I guess. I am not against it. In fact, almost all services for women do private fund raising. I have been involved in many of those efforts as I am sure other members have been.
The reality is that they need a certain amount of core funding to be able to continue their work. We cannot turn our backs and pretend we can go back to days of charity. There has been some progress and greater awareness since this day was brought into law.
It is absolutely essential that we recommit to specific actions to reduce violence against women, to eliminate violence against women. Zero tolerance must be the objective in everything we
do. I do not believe it is simply what governments do, what this Parliament does. It is what we do as a society.
There are many specific actions we can take if we want to, it is clearly a matter of will. I would like to end by quoting a comment that appeared recently in an editorial in the Whitehorse Star which sums up this issue very well:
A government's primary mandate is to serve its electors. It's difficult to pinpoint a more urgent role than helping to preserve these people's physical well-being from domestic criminals-if not their very lives.
I urge all members of the House to seriously address this issue in their constituencies and to support legislation which will help with the support services and ensure that we commit ourselves to zero tolerance on violence against women.
