1991-03-13

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to affirm that under this government the gap between the rich and the poor is widening at tremendous speed.
While the government plays with the unemployment insurance benefits, employment is suffering its largest drop since 1982 and the economy continues to show no signs of recovery. The Minister of Finance predicted at budget time that the unemployment rate would be 10 per cent, but as I speak today, it is much higher than 10 per cent.
I am afraid for the people of Prince Edward Island and for Canada. The Canadian Jobs Strategy fund has been cut by $100 million. Between April 1990 and January 1991, Canadians have lost 288,000 jobs. At a time when the people of Prince Edward Island need work to support their families, funds for new social housing have been reduced and Islanders have been forced out into the street.
Since 1984, the people of Prince Edward Island have come to expect economic hardships. How much more will this government ask Islanders to take before it stops catering to the rich and faces the real problems of the average Canadian.


RED CROSS SOCIETY
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, when we are honouring Canadians for their efforts in the Persian Gulf war, let us not forget one of
Canada's great traditions, the Red Cross Society, leaders in international war relief.
To assist them in the role of the Persian Gulf, the federal government has pledged $4 million. In addition to this money, the society has launched a $1 million Persian Gulf appeal. So far individual Canadians, participating banks, provinces and territorial governments have contributed more than $370,000.
This year, 1991, marks the 95th anniversary of the Canadian Red Cross Society. This volunteer based organization, with over 3,000 volunteers in my city alone, provides emergency relief blood centres to 600 branches in more than 1,000 operating units.
It is particularly fitting at this time, when the original role of the Red Cross is highlighted by the gulf crisis, to invite all Canadians to congratulate the board members and the staff of volunteers of the Red Cross Society. They do a great service for Canada.


CANADA POST
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, without any consultation with the residents to be affected, Canada Post advised the people of Freetown, Breadalbane and Winsloe that all three post offices would be closing down. This "close them down and ask questions later" policy of Canada Post has got to stop.
Once again, the policies of this government have impacted negatively upon the lives of my constituents in Malpeque. Once again, this government has taken away another pillar of rural life in three communities in my riding. Once again, the only federal presence in these three communities is being removed.
The very fabric of rural life is being threatened, and rather than try to assist rural Canada in its fight for survival, this government's policies are accelerating the process.
I call on the federal government to demand that Canada Post review the damage its policies are causing rural communities. It is obvious the needs of rural

March 13, 1991
Canadians are a low priority for Canada Post and for this Conservative government.


CLEAN AIR ACCORD
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, today's much-touted Clean Air Accord remains deficient; celebration is premature. The ceremonial signing offers appearance without substance, hiding government failings in a flashy replay of previous agreements.
Compliance mechanisms required from monitoring and enforcement remain window dressing at best. Transboundary pollution of Canadian lands by toxic chemicals continue to be a threat. Funding for energy conservation and alternatives to fossil fuels has been slashed. December's promise by the environment minister for national acid rain caps in the Green Plan has been forgotten. Federal air standard agreements with the three western provinces have not been achieved.
This accord may be better than nothing, however, it fails to prevent pollution or protect the health and environment of Canadians. It leaves Canada satisfied to follow the lead of the U.S. in setting standards for air emissions and fails to commit the resources to determine our own stringent regulations for the well-being of Canada's future.


KIDNEY FOUNDATION OF CANADA
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to express my appreciation and sincere good wishes to the Kidney Foundation of Canada on the occasion of Kidney Month for 1991.
Dedicated volunteers of the Kidney Foundation of Canada ensure that Canadians afflicted with kidney disease and related disorders have access to quality information and specialized services.
In addition, the Kidney Foundation of Canada, with the help of thousands of donors, raises significant sums of money which go toward research and public education programs. The foundation's diligent work in enhancing the quality of life for people with kidney disease and in
sensitizing all Canadians to the special needs of those affected is to be commended.
I invite all Canadians to join me in saluting the members of the Kidney Foundation of Canada and in wishing them continued success in their important work in promoting public awareness of kidney disease, supporting excellence in research and encouraging organ donation.


ACID RAIN
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, to you, first of all, and your colleagues, my congratulations for the role you have played over the last decade in the long and difficult saga of reducing acid rain pollution in Canada.
As the Prime Minister and President Bush pose for a photo opportunity today, 3.2 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide pollution continue to cross from the U.S. to Canada every year. Put another way, in the 17 hours that President Bush is in Canada, over 6,000 tonnes of U.S. pollution will have crossed the border too. By 1995, 2.7 million tonnes per year will continue to drift our way and, by the year 2000, still two million tons.
Therefore, the Canadian public should keep in mind that the political accord signed today is only the first, not the final, step in the battle against transboundary acid rain. The next phase is to establish how much we must reduce acid gas emissions beyond the 50 per cent goal that was established a decade ago.
The acid rain battle is far from over.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, my statement concerns acid rain. Once again, we see the benefits of co-operation between the United States and Canada. In a few moments, a very important event will take place in Parliament.
The President of the United States, Mr. Bush, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mulroney, will sign an air quality agreement. As result of this agreement, substan-
March 13, 1991

tial funds in the United States and Canada will be released to guarantee cleaner air for a healthier environment in both our countries.
This is a great day for the whole North American continent, since our countries are committed to controlling transboundary air pollution. I want Quebecers and the people of Beauce to realize that without the leadership shown by Brian Mulroney, today's ceremony would not take place.
Madam Speaker, as the member for Beauce, I take pride in having organized a major seminar on acid rain and in having kept up the pressure on the government. Once again, the voice of the people of Beauce has been heard!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, since President Bush is in town today, I hope the Prime Minister takes an opportunity to discuss the U.S. loan rate on grain with him. The loan rate guides the price established on the Chicago grain market, and a modest increase of at least $1 a bushel in the loan rate would substantially raise world grain prices and reduce government deficiency payment expenditures to farmers.
Beneficiaries of such a policy would be taxpayers in the U.S. and Canada and farmers in both countries and in all other countries, including Third World farmers; U.S.-Canada deficits would be reduced; trade figures and trade balances in Canada and the U.S. would increase substantially.
Surely our leaders cannot reject such a good and sensible proposal, and I trust that the Prime Minister and the President will be able to make such an announcement after today.


CLEAN AIR ACCORD
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, at 3:35 p.m. this afternoon, our two great nations will conclude a formal Canada-U.S. air quality agreement of historical proportions. With the signatures of President George Bush and the Right Hon. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney firmly affixed to the document,
a major precedent will have been set in undoing some of the damage man has inflicted on the environment.
Beyond a doubt, the fight against acid rain has been long and hard but Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is to be commended. By placing acid rain high on his personal agenda, we are here today reaping the fruits of his efforts.
As one of the many who has been heavily involved in the battle against acid rain for over ten years, I can honestly say that today is the culmination of time and energy well spent and invested. The future now looks clearer and cleaner.
As well, we must not fail to commend Speaker Fraser for the great job that he has done as an environmentalist and a former Minister of the Environment.


MIDDLE EAST
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, the most positive outcome to the recent war in the gulf would, of course, be a lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours. When we consider that Jews, Muslims and Christians have lived side by side in the Middle East for thousands of years, such a peace is long past due. Until now, the deep rifts of hatred and misunderstanding have often led to horrible abuses. For example, Jews, living in Syria since before Roman times, see their most basic rights denied.
In the past we have had difficult and unpleasant relationships with Syria, but during the gulf war Syria was our ally; Syria was Israel's ally. This very fact of fighting on the same side has created an opening for new understanding between them.
Peace must be built on such an understanding and human rights abuses on all sides must stop.


THE BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Madam Speaker, I have an important point to make, further to what was said by the Prime Minister yesterday in the House. The Prime Minister said that reconciliation does not come easy. It calls for humility and understanding. It

March 13, 1991
Oral Questions
means the whole family must be able to discuss their problems.
Yesterday, in this very House, members of the Bloc Quebecois wanted to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the New Democratic Party, and we were denied the right to speak directly to the motion. We were only allowed to ask questions but not to speak to the motion as such. Is that Quebec's place within Canada? Is that the kind of respect Canada has for Quebec: Ask questions but don't speak to the motion? Madam Speaker, I should think that in the interests of democracy and out of respect for the rights of all members, you would want to hear what everyone in this House has to say.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. If an agreement on the environment is to be at all useful, it must contain the following: sanctions, enforcement, mechanisms for public scrutiny, independent monitoring mechanisms. My question is this: Can the Deputy Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the air pollution agreement to be signed today meets all these criteria? Can he give us the assurance it will not be just another case of window-dressing, like the Green Plan?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, today is an historic date for Canada. Our Prime Minister and President Bush will be signing an agreement veiy shortly. We have been discussing these possibilities since 1978, as some of my fellow members who were in the House at the time will remember and others who were not. However, the Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, was the first one to raise this issue, with very substantial support from all concerned, and especially from the hon. member for Parry Sound- Muskoka who, for as long as I have known him, has
worked very hard on this issue, and I want to congratulate all those who have given this matter their support.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, members of the government ought to know that this initiative was begun by my colleague. That is where it started.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I will say something else. The agreement that this government finally came to is just so much political puffery and so is this minister's answer.
The issue in an international agreement, if the minister does not know, ought to be, how can the citizens of each country be assured that the other country will carry out its terms?
The question I put to the minister is this. Is this agreement enforceable, one country versus the other? If not, of what value is it other than to provide a photo-op for a couple of Tories?


An hon. member:: Sour grapes.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, the policies of his hon. colleagues did little or almost nothing in this area for 20 years.


Some hon. members:: Nothing, nothing.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Today is a day to reflect on achievement and accomplishment, to celebrate what we have been able to do together. A vigorous new partnership has been brought together. Why not congratulate today instead of belittling. Today is a day to reflect on this success.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the agreement is not enforcable; that the agreement is an empty agreement. This is an agreement of absolutely no significance, so let us go on to something that is.
This week the Rawson Academy reported on the secret diversion of water from Saskatchewan to the United States. In the last two months, a number of incidences have been reported of potential exports of water. Let there be no mistake about it. We are dealing with potential precedents under the free trade agreement. The question is when will this government bring forth comprehensive legislation on water exports so that
March 13, 1991

Canadian citizens, both those who are for and against, can argue the issue out in public debate?
The true question is when will this government understand that Canadians do not want to be faced with a fait accompli by a government that is hiding its true agenda under a mound of public relations flackery.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, when will that member understand that this Canada-U.S. agreement does not allow for water exports.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Except for bottled water, of course, which, coincidentally, I am able to buy from time to time in the United States.


An hon. member:: There you go.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The United States is entitled to a certain portion of the natural flow of the Souris River according to a water apportionment agreement which was developed by the IJC in 1959 and revised as part of this agreement.
The licence issued on August 31, 1989, under the International River Improvements Act, included a condition prohibiting any water diversion from outside the Souris River drainage basin which would increase the natural flow of the river at the international boundary.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of the Environment and another minister told the House that a 1959 agreement developed by the International Joint Commission controls the diversion of Canadian waters to the United States.
Surely both ministers are aware that the IJC, a hallmark of co-operation between Canada and the United States, was entirely excluded from the amendments to that agreement, which are contained in the Rafferty-Alameda agreement-


Mr. Harvard:: Shame.
Oral Questions


Marlene Catterall: -which are effective for 100 years and that even today the International Joint Commission has not been informed that its mandate has changed.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit the government to immediately call on the expertise of the International Joint Commission and get an agreement that lets Canada control Canadian water in the interests of Canadians?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, I am sure I was clear in what I said.


Mr. Cadieux:: Absolutely.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The agreement that is in place does not allow export of any water except bottled water. The IJC is a public body. The United States is entitled to what I underlined and I am sure when the hon. member reflects on the answer that I have given her colleague, she will appreciate that there is absolutely nothing but bottled water that could be available right now in the United States.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I can understand that the minister is not familiar with the agreement, but it is very clear that this agreement for 100 years surrenders control of Canadian water, no matter what Canadian needs are. Surely, both Canadians and Americans are entitled to a straightforward position and answer from the government on Canadian water and its availability to Americans.
Will the Prime Minister take the occasion of President Bush's visit to say that an unfortunate error has been made with this agreement, that it is not acceptable to Canada. The President is a reasonable man and I am sure he will understand that the Prime Minister wants to correct his mistake.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, the straight answer is no. No.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Oral Questions


BUSINESS COUNCIL ON NATIONAL ISSUES
[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1991
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, the Business Council on National Issues is one of the loudest big business voices calling for major cuts in government spending. The BCNI in fact has called for "sacrifices on the part of everyone" and said that no money at all should go to business.
justify a measure that would allow the super-rich to avoid a tax that they have had 21 years' notice to pay, while calling in his recent budget for everyone's help in sharing the burden of debt.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: This is one other example where this government is closing a loophole.
Yet, now we learn incredibly that this government is giving $400,000 as a hand-out to the BCNI to help with the study. Will this government block this hand-out to the corporate elite and tell the BCNI that this is the sacrifice that it must make?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that this was a study that we wanted to do in the government. We went to the BCNI and asked it to share in the cost of this study. It agreed to share in the cost of that study. The reason why we asked it to share is because we view the question of competitiveness as a matter which involves both the private sector and the public sector.
We are participating in that study, the BCNI is participating in the study, and I believe there are others who are participating in that study, because we believe that with a partnership, with both private sector and public sector addressing this problem, we can have a broader commitment and therefore broader chances of success.
The provision was originally put in place in 1971 and explicitly called for more precise rules surrounding this particular rule, and it was contemplated that those rules would be designed prior to the termination of the 21-year period.
What the paper that I released in February does is provide those precise rules which permit the government to put a tighter control on this and avoid the extension of the rule, as my hon. friend would allege.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that what he is referring to could have been done by another means and is only part of the legislation that I am referring to.
The fact is that this amounts to, as Professor Neil Brooks has said, "a gift worth several billion dollars". Katherine Bush of Blake Cassels says "the government is giving away money".
The fact is that this is a boondoggle, this is a tax break for the very rich, and it belies everything the Minister of Finance says about burden sharing and deficit reduction.
Will the minister rise now and make a commitment not
to bring this in; to deal with some of the problems that need to be dealt with in another way, but not to provide CAPITAL GAINS TAX	this tax break to the rich.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, while we are on the topic of hand-outs to the BCNI, I have another question for the Minister of Finance pertaining to the draft legislation that he released on February 11 that allows people to keep the capital gains in private trusts safely sheltered from tax beyond the original 21-year period that ends in 1993, allowing some of the wealthiest families in Canada a tax dodge potentially worth billions of dollars.
I want to ask the minister, given his persistent rhetoric about burden sharing and deficit reduction, how he can


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would point out to my hon. friend that if we do not do this, it will be a tax break to the rich. What we are proposing to do with the paper that I put out on February 11 is to bring in far more precise rules to avoid the extension of these trusts, which could be done under the existing rule.
It is another example of this government tightening up on tax provisions to make it far easier for this government to gain a greater share of revenues from people in upper income brackets so that they will bear their fair share of tax.
March 13, 1991


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent -Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Montreal Island.
In 1990, the manufacturing sector in Montreal lost 31,500 jobs. Today, 188,000 people in Montreal are unemployed.


An hon. member:: Shame!


Shirley Maheu: Forty-one thousand of these jobless are young people. Is that how we build a country? When is the minister going to wake up and do his job, which is to look after the development and prosperity of Montreal?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (TVansport)):: Madam Speaker, it takes a lot of nerve for a member of the Liberal Party to try and teach the Conservative Party how to create jobs on Montreal Island.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Corbeil: Perhaps, Madam Speaker, we should make allowances for the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville who may not have all the facts, but we cannot make the same allowances for the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace who has been sitting in this House as a Liberal member for 25 years.
Before 1984, Madam Speaker, during the last 17 or 18 years the Liberals were in power in this country, Montreal lost not 100, not 200, but 4,000 jobs. When they were defeated-a good thing for Canada-there were 4,000 jobs less on Montreal Island than when they came to power. When this government took over in 1984, it managed to create what is today a total of 83,000 jobs, many of them in the riding of the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, when for instance, we helped Canadair with the stretch jet.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, the answer is totally unrelated to the current situation in Montreal.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Shirley Maheu: You are always referring to the past, seven years ago. Come back to the present!
Oral Questions
My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can a $100 million cutback in the Canadian Job Strategy make the unemployment rate drop in Montreal where it stands at 15.1 per cent?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, if my colleague wants to talk about what has been happening since 1984,1 must tell her that economic and regional development agreements with the province of Quebec are already planned and will amount to approximately $440 million for the period between 1988 and 1993. As Minister of State working with the hon. Barbara McDougall, I have personally participated in the constitution of committees in support of the recommendations of the CREESOM Report. We developped programs concerning the industrial base, with the help of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. I could also mention the housing assistance we provided.
In response to the hon. member, the $100 million cut she is referring to will enable us to pursue the programs that are already part of the process. We will continue to work with the collectivities which are aware of their needs and we will identify priorities. Bill C-21 and the Labour Force Strategy finally enable us to provide training and have an adequate labour force. I could go on. We supported MACs. I was with my colleague in Montreal, last Monday, to make a joint announcement-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. minister will have a chance to finish answering later.
The hon. member for Hamilton East.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. The government's logic is pitiful. She claims that taking $100 million out of the job creation budget is going to help 41,000 unemployed young people in Montreal. Considering that 41,000 young people under 30 have been laid off in Montreal since last year, doesn't this government realize it is destroying the heart and soul of one of the greatest cities in the world? When is it going to do something to create jobs instead of spouting political rhetoric?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that the Canadian Jobs Strategy is part of our global strategy at the Department of Employment and Immigration. For

March 13, 1991
Oral Questions
the current year, we have a global budget of $1.7 billion, an increase over last year's. Repeat, we intend to keep implementing community-based programs. Our philos-phy, which has been applied since 1984, has proved to our satisfaction that this is the right way to do it, and that is why we will keep trying to create jobs and get through the recession. We have helped in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Considering the Minister responsible for Montreal has utterly failed in his task, doesn't he think it is time to give the people of Montreal jobs and some real hope, and that a first step in this direction would be to get rid of the minister who is supposed to be responsible for employment in Montreal?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, once again it is clear that hon. members opposite are totally irresponsible, considering the fact that for over a year, they prevented Bill C-21 from being passed, legislation that would provide hundreds of millions of dollars for training and retraining. Today, those same members are complaining that workers are not able to adjust to the new technological jobs we have created, and I simply want to mention some recent measures taken by the federal government. We helped set up the training centre for the petrochemical industry. We helped establish the training centre for flat glass workers. We invested several million dollars in Canadair to update the stretch jet. We contributed $40 million to a-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the minister will want to continue at some other time.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for ACOA. Is the minister prepared today, as he suggested he might be yesterday, to identify or
otherwise characterize those 12 Enterprise Cape Breton or ACOA supported projects that are under RCMP investigation, a fact that he revealed also yesterday?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I want to tell my colleague that I welcome his interest in helping the part of Canada that badly needs help, but I would hope his interest would be more constructive and less prurient.
I told him frankly in answer to a direct question that there were RCMP investigations. If I were to give him any more details, he would be the first one to condemn me for lack of giving these people and these organizations due process.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, of course I hope the minister realizes by failing to provide even minimal information, he leaves a cloud over a good many projects supported by ACOA.
My supplementary is that on May 10,1990, when some very serious questions were raised about the ECB support for Technitread, which is also now under RCMP investigation, the minister said if there were a mistake made, he would take full responsibility for it. There have been a lot of mistakes made at ECB and at ACOA.
Is the minister now prepared to take the appropriate ministerial responsibility for those 12 RCMP investigations; for Nsc Diesel, Celcom, Universal Metals, Arrow LM, Hi Tech Woodworkers, Atlantic Defence Industries and for that salmon farm, all of which, it would seem to me, Madam Speaker, are serious mistakes?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: wish my good friend would fuel his questions with less vitriol and adrenalin and little bit more logic. He must know, being a very erudite individual, that these particular instances are under investigation. They do require due process of law. As the president of ACOA pointed out yesterday, some 7,600 of these enterprises have succeeded with a great deal of economic benefit to a poor region of Canada.
If he wishes to kick the entrails of 12 that are in trouble, then that is up to him.
March 13, 1991


HOUSING
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing. The Toronto Star recently quoted Mayor Last-man of the city of North York as saying that he has not heard form the federal government any more on the Downsview housing initiative and that it does not appear to be working on it.
Has the federal government given up on its proposal to make more affordable housing available to people at Downsview?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Madam Speaker, most certainly the federal government has not given up on that initiative. In fact, when the concept plan for housing on that particular site was completed, it became clear that the traffic capacity on the roads in the area was overburdened and that in order to solve that problem it was going to involve the de Havilland property.
Unfortunately, until we find a resolution to the ownership of Boeing for de Havilland, it is impossible to resolve the traffic problem in the area. However, talks are ongoing on a regular basis, in fact usually on a weekly basis, with the staff of the city of North York. It is very much on the go.


Barbara Greene: Madam Speaker, why is five million square feet of office construction going ahead on Yonge Street but housing that is affordable cannot go ahead in Downsview?


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, again I think the hon. member appreciates that there are a number of issues involved with this particular site.
One is sewers, which obviously is an aspect that involves the Yonge Street development and commercial development. Certainly that involves the Downsview property as well, but that is not the key to the Downsview property at the moment. The key is solving the traffic problems, and that depends on what is ongoing on the ownership of Boeing for the de Havilland site.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who will be aware of the incident at his offices in Port aux Basques yesterday.
I do not ask the minister to condone the vandalism; I certainly do not, but I do ask him not to blind himself to the real issue here, which is a desperate cry for help, for some attention, from the fishermen and plant workers whose only demand of the minister is that he let them go out there and catch fish and cut it.
He knows that he can solve this problem by a stroke of the pen, by making a simple paper transaction between two adjacent zones, between 4-R and 3-PN with respect to redfish. I ask the minister now: Would he agree to do that?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, maybe the hon. member does not condone these acts, and I do not either, but I would want the House to recall that last year, for example, the people in that very area were experiencing a similar problem.
This government funnelled over $3 million through the local IAS committee to look after the welfare of those people, so I do not see why it was necessary to resort to that kind of violent action yesterday to draw attention to the problem. I do not think it is necessary at all.
As for the question of whether we are going to take fish from 4-R and give it to 3-PN, he will recall that this minister gave these inshore fishermen double the quota of redfish in 4-RST.
Today I am being asked to take the fish away from Paul and give it to Pierre. No, I will not do that.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, first of all I say to the minister that it is not welfare these people want; it is some work.
It is his own diabolical agenda which has incited those people in the first place. He has refused for seven months to meet with them. He botched the opening of the winter fishery. He slapped on outrageous user fees at a time when they could not pay, and now he refuses to make a simple paper transaction.

March 13, 1991
Oral Questions
Will he call off this deliberate campaign he has going against fishermen and plant workers, his cowardly intimidation and harassment of people whose only sin is that they would like to work?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, it takes the tiny politician in the hon. member to try to score political points out of the misery of people. That is what he is doing.
Madam Speaker, a stroke of the pen. We are talking in Newfoundland, Labrador and all the rest of Atlantic Canada about a sustainable fishery. We have worked with these fishermen, these people; we keep working with them. They have asked us to enforce the rules. Now that the rules do not seem to fit a little tiny group, they want me to put all the rules aside.
I will not do that, and the member knows it. What he is asking me to do, what he does not want the people to acknowledge, what he does not want the people to know, is that we took the allowance.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order.


PORK PRODUCERS
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, in March 1987, Canadian pork producers were assured by the Prime Minister in this House of Commons that a free trade agreement with the United States would help Canadian farmers by increasing predictability and security of access of exports by the farm sector to United States markets.
Now, four years later, the United States is refusing to accept the January decision of the free trade dispute settling mechanism on Canadian pork exports.
Can the Minister for International Trade inform this House of the nature of the discussions between the Prime Minister and President Bush today on this most important matter?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, the series of actions that we have taken together with Canadian pork producers in connection with pork has been an unparalleled example of success. We have been successful in the GATT panel with reference to this question. We have been successful
with respect to a panel under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
Now, in desperation, the U.S. National Pork Producers Council has filed a petition asking United States trade representatives to establish an extraordinary challenge committee to review the panel's action. That is an act of desperation on its part. It is an extraordinary procedure the council is asking to be used which has not been used so far. It can only properly be used with respect to some misbehaviour of panel members. It is extremely unlikely, if the USTR gives permission for it to go forward, that it would be successful.
To date our record is unparalleled in the success we have had under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in this important area.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, Canadian pork exported to the United States makes up about 3 per cent to 4 per cent of its total market, yet this harassment continues.
In 1987, Clayton Yeutter, told his colleagues that in the event of a dispute between the free trade agreement and U.S. trade remedy laws, the U.S. law shall prevail.
Can the minister assure this House that yet another panel review, article 1904 of the free trade agreement, will not be superseded by U.S. trade remedy laws?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this is a matter that started, actually back before-


Mr. Peterson:: Before Confederation.


John Carnell Crosbie: No, not before Confederation; before Canada received enlightenment and we took over in 1984. This is a matter that started then.
Thank heaven we have the U.S. Canada-Free Trade Agreement, so we have the process we are now going through.
I can only say that when this whole process is through, $70 million will be coming back to Canadian pork producers and the value of the U.S.-Canada FTA will be proven beyond doubt for every member of this House.


ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
March 13, 1991

President Bush, as I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister knows, has endorsed plans to drill unlawfully for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is the last great tract of pristine land in the United States and is the calving ground for Canada's 180,000-strong porcupine caribou herd.
Since the United States energy secretary yesterday warned that the President will veto any attempts to protect the wildlife refuge, in particular the 10-02 lands, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell Canadians what steps he and the Prime Minister will be taking to drive home to President Bush that the drilling in the refuge will violate four international agreements with Canada and decimate one of the last great wild herds of mammals on earth?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member would know, the position of Canada on ANWR has been clearly stated a number of times, both from External Affairs as well as International Relations at the highest level.
Also the member should note that when the Secretary of Energy for the United States put forward his new national energy strategy, it was out of a long list of public hearings they had on how they could increase the domestic production of oil and gas. That is their position. Our position on ANWR has not changed from that stated previously.


HUDSON BAY MINING AND SMELTING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister. I gave him notice earlier today of this question.
The minister is aware of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, which is the sixth largest source of sulphur dioxide emissions in Canada, over 250,000 tonnes in 1990, must start to modernize now in order to meet the Canadian SO2 by 1994.
Will the minister confirm that the federal government will participate in the modernization plan through loan financing? While he is on his feet, will he also assure the communities and workers affected that the final decision will be made soon?
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the courtesy he extended to me by giving me notice of this question.
The hon. member will know that there have been negotiations on HBMS for some period of time. It is in conjunction with what we are celebrating today, namely the accord that is being signed between our country and the United States. With the seven eastern provinces, including Manitoba in that configuration, we were party to reducing SO2 emissions.
I can tell the hon. member from the federal point of view that we have concluded our negotiations. I believe the province of Manitoba has also accepted that and we have also conveyed that to HBMS. In fact, I have conveyed to the other two parties that whenever they are ready to sign the agreement we stand ready to sign it. I think we will do it literally within days if suitable dates can be found.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General.
Will the minister tell the House why Ryszard Pasz-kowski of Edmonton was sent by CSIS to Rome during the summer of 1986?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind my hon. colleague that he tabled an Order Paper Question to that effect, I believe on March 7 or 8, and it will be replied to at an appropriate time.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General should be aware that a government travel document was provided by CSIS to Paszkowski that summer. This has been documented by Richard Cleroux in his book Official Secrets.
My supplementary question is for the Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration. Excuse me for putting it in English.
Mr. Paszkowski's wife, Elzbieta, has recently been found, as the minister knows, to be a refugee in Canada. The minister's own department is seeking to expel him. Will the minister not intervene in this case to allow her

March 13, 1991
Oral Questions
husband who has rendered significant services, I believe, to CSIS, to remain in this country with his wife and son?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I would just like to tell my hon. friend that if he knows the answer to the question I do not see why he is asking it, assuming that the information as to that travel document which he alleges is true. I will neither deny or confirm that.
With respect to the book to which he refers, I do not think it is my responsibility to become a literary critic. With respect to Mr. Paszkowski, as my hon. friend knows, SIRC has looked into the case of Mr. Paszkowski. In its report of 1987-88. SIRC said: "We satisfied ourselves that CSIS dealt properly with Mr. Paszkowski".


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Recent events at the prison at Renous involving Allan Legere have led to questions regarding security in our prisons. Allan Legere, the convicted murderer who escaped last year, has had unauthorized and unsupervised visits, and potentially dangerous metal objects were discovered.
What is the minister doing to resolve this dangerous situation and to reassure the people of New Brunswick?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Legere is not presently entitled, Madam Speaker, to any contact visits.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, I am concerned about public safety and the citizens of New Brunswick are also concerned. They remember well when Legere escaped and was on the loose for six months. He is in familiar territory and he knows the guards and the people in that area.
Would the minister be willing to arrange for Legere to be moved to a special handling unit outside the Renous prison in another institution?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, the security measures with respect to Mr. Legere have been reviewed, and all appropriate corrections have been taken.


EL SALVADOR
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade in his capacity as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It concerns the recent election in El Salvador which according to OAS observers from Canada and elsewhere was marked by intimidation, threats and fraud.
In view of the latest allegations that the ARENA Party which controls the electoral council is trying to manipulate the election results to place the democratic convergence in fourth place despite its strong third place showing, will the minister assure the House that he will voice Canada's serious concern to the El Salvadoran authorities about this attempt to steal the apparent victory of the democratic opposition in these already very seriously flawed elections?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, with reference to the legislative and municipal elections in question which were held March 10, Canada dispatched eight official observers to the elections who were serving with the Organization of American States monitoring group.
They are going to report to the OAS, and we will have an opportunity to hear their views informally once they return from El Salvador.
In addition to the eight official observers, we had an unofficial observer in the person of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina. He was down there as well. I do not see him back as yet, but we would be pleased to hear from him when he comes back.
At the present time, based on the heap of information we have, we cannot give a definitive reply. When we receive these reports from our observers, we will then make a considered opinion on this matter.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Trinity- Spadina who is in the region would be pleased to speak on behalf of the Government of Canada on this question, if he is authorized to do so.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Since January 15, when U.S. President George Bush released some $42.5 million in military aid to the brutal military authorities in El Salvador, death squads have killed and injured El Salvadorans in El Zapote and elsewhere. Troops have detained journalists
March 13, 1991

and the offices of the newspaper Diario Latino were destroyed.
I want to ask the acting minister: Will the Prime Minister today, in his meeting with U.S. President George Bush, urge President Bush to stop funding this bloody military regime which has been responsible for over 70,000 deaths? Will he ensure that President George Bush's new world order includes at last a commitment to peace, democracy and justice for the people of El Salvador?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I by no means accept all the alleged statements of fact made by the hon. member.
We all do know that there is a very difficult situation in El Salvador and that this has been a very tragic situation for some at least eight or ten years now.
We are pleased that the governments of El Salvador and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front are continuing peace negotiations, which we would certainly hope and urge could be concluded.
With respect to American policy in the area, that is a matter for the United States government to decide. I believe that today the President and the Prime Minister will be devoting their main efforts to discussing what the chances and prospects are for peaceful solutions in the gulf area in the Middle East. That will be the main thrust of their talks today.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In the Flouse last week, Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic members supported my motion to include in the Canada Labour Code a provision for paid precautionary withdrawal from work for pregnant employees in federally-regulated businesses in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
Since the motion was introduced the Bloc Quebebois has not joined in this important debate.
Routine Proceedings
My question to the minister: Can he tell us today that our concerns over that issue are under consideration and that the Canada Labour Code will be amended to promote the well-being of pregnant workers in Canada and Quebec?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Abitibi for his enduring concern and his relevant questions. I can assure him that since his representations we did refer the matter to a department committee made up of employers and employees. Once their report has been filed later this spring we intend to introduce the appropriate legislation in early fall.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow as an allotted day for the purpose of supply.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: I have the honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions. It contains 688 signatures, gathered in part by the Hamilton Baltic Crisis Committee.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to do two things; first, immediately recognize the legitimate democratically elected governments of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia and establish diplomatic relations with them and second, demand that the Soviet Union withdraw all its military forces from the three Baltic republics.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition under Standing Order 36. The petition is in respect of the gulf war which of course is now over, but it seemed to me important that the views

March 13, 1991
Routine Proceedings
of those who had signed the petition be recorded in the records of this House and so I file it on their behalf. They had called for a cease-fire. I am sure that the effort they put into this, along with the effort of millions of other Canadians, has been taken into account by this House in its deliberations on this tragic war.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present a petition which outlines the undue hardships of families that are trying to bring their spouses from India. It now takes three years to bring your spouse from India through immigration procedures.
The petitioners are urging the government to devise a system whereby in a bona fide marriage the spouse would be allowed enter Canada on a visitor's visa, pending the granting of landed immigrant status.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of people in my riding who are still hopeful that the government will come to its senses and rescind the goods and services tax.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my delight to present a petition signed by almost every single resident in the great community of Westwold, British Columbia, concerning the closure of their post office and urging the government to reconsider the closure. I am pleased to see that my good friend, the minister, is here and perhaps I should pass along this petition to his usual enthusiastic self.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, and some of the communities in the North Thompson Valley.
The petitioners are asking the government to reconsider the decision to cut back on the quality of VIA Rail service and to not only improve VIA Rail service by having a more first rate passenger rail system but also to reinstate the main line route that was cut through the Canadian Rockies.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present which has been signed by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of taxation data centre employees in Winnipeg. They are protesting the fact the Department of National Revenue has had a policy not to charge its employees for parking where the workplace is located a long distance from public transportation routes. The Department of National Revenue has in the past decided not to charge the employees of the Winnipeg District Thxation Centre for parking for this reason. The employees at the Winnipeg District Taxation Centre have been advised that the Department of National Revenue will begin charging employees for parking even though the centre is no closer to public transportation than before.
All these petitioners are calling upon Parliament to direct the Department of National Revenue to continue to not charge its employees at the Winnipeg District Taxation Centre for parking.
You might notice, Mr. Speaker, that this petition is worded in the past tense as if the parking charges have not already become fact. The fact is that employees are being charged for their parking and this petition is presented late because it took the clerk's office several months to determine whether the petition was in order or not. Therefore, I apologize to the employees for the length of time it took to present this petition and for the fact that they are already being charged for parking. But it had nothing to do with me, Mr. Speaker, it had to do with the quite lengthy, and I believe inappropriate, delay in determining whether this petition was presentable to the House or not.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from constituents in the community of Port Alberni on Vancouver Island. These constituents are complaining about the constant number of what they call unwanted and unfair cutbacks in the postal service in that community.
As Mr. Speaker will know, the post office has been cutting back services in my constituency, closing down rural post offices at Royston and Coombs on central Vancouver Island, and my constituents would like to see the post office restore its customer services and act as if it wanted to stay in the business. They request that Canada Post Corporation be instructed to keep existing

March 13, 1991

outlets, operate longer hours, expand revenue generating services, stop privatizing, and start increasing services to raise revenues.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to bring forward petitions asking the government to reconsider the position it has taken with GST on its printed material.
Obviously throughout history, printed material has never been taxed in this country and now, at this time, we are really hurting a lot of Canadians who are going to school and need printed material in order to educate themselves to enter the labour force.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions stand?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. On September 27, 1990 I put motion P-29 on the Order Paper to ask the government to follow up on my request to table in the House copies of all correspondence between His Excellency and Her Majesty the Queen concerning the operation of section 26 of the Constitution Act. I also have motion P-32 dating back to October 19, 1990 and asking for copies of all letters, documents and correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec concerning the deployment of Canadian Forces at Kahnawake and Kanesatake.
Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for months. Does the government intend to respond and produce these documents, yes or no? That is a very simple question.
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: These are Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers. We are presently on Questions on the Order Paper. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I am aware that my colleague is getting impatient. As it happens, both these motions for the production of papers are still under consideration. I might point out to my colleague that since the opening of the session we did respond to 31 of 41 such motions, an average of 77 per cent.
I know that my colleague is still waiting for action on his two motions. They are under consideration.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a similar point in regard to Notice of Motions for the Production of Papers. Is it the wish of the Chair that I wait until that item is called before raising the point?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues opposite will not appreciate this, but I ask that the notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on March 7, 1990, I tabled in the House a motion asking for an order of the House to issue a copy of the list of all the strip clubs and other establishments receiving funding from the Federal Business Development Bank since 1972.1 want the government to answer this question, No. P-19.
Also, on item No. P-23, standing in my name, on March 28, 1990, I asked for a copy of all logs, registers and correspondence pertaining to the use of CN business cars by Mr. Brian Gallery for the years 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

Supply
Mr. Speaker, I also want the government to tell us if it will answer item No. P-41 standing in my name. That is for the Canada Post Corporation to give us a list of all management personnel that have benefited from golf club memberships.
I want answers to those important questions, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I made a note of the representations of my colleague and I am sure the government will clarify the matter in the near future.

Motion No. P-19
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the current list of all companies, strip clubs and other similar establishments to have received funding or loans directly or indirectly from the Federal Business Development Bank since 1972.
Motion No. P-23
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all logs, registers, correspondence and reports pertaining to the use of CN business cars by Mr. Brian O'N. Gallery in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.
Motion No. P-41
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of invoices or summaries of invoices outlining any or all expenses of the Canada Post Corporation in purchasing golf club memberships for its management, board of directors and employees, including the names of all persons benefiting from the expenditures in question.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to our rules, I would ask that all three of those items, the one in relation to CN business cars, the one in relation to strip clubs that have been financed by the government and the one in the relation to golf club memberships bought for Canada Post officials with public dollars, be transferred for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Transferred for debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81 - VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax) moved:
That this House call upon the Prime Minister to appoint a royal
commission on violence against women.
She said: I rise today in support of this motion because the women of Canada are in crisis. It is unfortunate that it took the unmitigated tragedy of December 1989 in Montreal to bring to our attention the crisis facing Canadian women in the area of violence. In my party we call most strongly for the appointment of a royal commission on violence against women.
We are not alone in this call. We are supported by our colleagues to the left in the New Democratic Party. We are also supported by any number of women's groups, nationally, regionally and provintially, some of whom I will be speaking about later in my remarks.
I am going to go at this in a rather unusual way to begin, in that I am going to talk about the reasons against a royal commission.
One of the reasons most frequently cited since various women's groups and political parties have been calling for the establishment of such a commission has been the cost. There is no question when Canada is in a recession, when cutbacks are facing us all, that we all have to be concerned with the question of costs.
The second area with relation to costs has been raised again by a number of people. The cost of a royal commission would be better spent on direct services to women in crisis, to transition houses and so on.
Indeed, if I thought that kind of money would go in direct services, the kind of money it takes to run a royal commission, I might be briefly tempted to adhere to those beliefs myself. But it would be a brief temptation. I will go into the reason I say when I speak of the reasons for a royal commission.
But let me come up against some other criticisms. Frequently we hear that the reports of royal commissions are left to die on the shelves of libraries across the country. They gather dust or they are only partially implemented. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is true.
Just some royal commissions that have been left to this fate are the Cooke commission on child care in Canada, the Abella commission on employment equity, the Fraser commission on pornography and prostitution, and many, many sections of Senator Florence Bird's incredible and, if I may call it this, "the grandmother of royal
March 13, 1991
[Stage Direction]
commissions", the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
Royal commissions tend right now to be a bit in disfavour because of the Spicer Commission, which is irritating many Canadians because of what they see as amorphous and fuzzy national exercises in navel gazing. But a royal commission, constituted correctly, rooted in women's experience, with built-in guarantees can create the kind of action and the kind of success that we desperately need.
First of all, a royal commission on violence against women, before it is appointed, the Prime Minister and the government should engage in a wide consultation with front-line workers, with transition house staff, with sexual assault crisis centre workers, with women's centre workers, with police in those few municipalities with programs that truly identify problems and respond appropriately; and with academics in women's studies, sociology, anthropology, criminology and various other relevant departments.
I said that a number of women's groups, nation-wide, have been calling for the appointment of a royal commission on violence against women. Some of these groups are the YWCA of Canada, various advisory councils around the country, the Canadian Research Institution for the Advancement of Women and the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women-just to name a few. They are calling for a royal commission, always provided that it is not a way to back-burner an issue that is facing us on a daily basis and threatening the lives of women.
The mandate of a royal commission must be to hear the experience of the victims, to determine empirically the incidence of violence against women. We suspect that as yet we cannot prove empirically that violence against women crosses all boundaries-economic, social, cultural and educational.
The royal commission must seek out the causes of violence against women. Is it related to alcohol and drug abuse? Is it stress related due to economic conditions? Is it rooted in the economic dependency of women? Is it rooted in the fact that women are, in general, physically weaker than men? Is there, indeed, one lowest common
Supply
denominator, or are there a variety of indicators and triggers?
Yesterday at the Subcommittee on Violence Against Women, Dr. Eileen Sanders of Carleton University's School of Journalism spoke to us on violence in the media.
One of the things she told us was that the traditional areas of research are inadequate to deal with this problem. In other words, the all-pervasiveness of violence, and in particular violence against women, in our society does not necessarily respond to old-style cause and effect research projects. We must look at a broader base and a broader experience of women throughout the country and of those who work with women in crisis to give us at least the beginning of the answers we need to construct the solutions.
Can we predetermine indicators of violence and can we thus educate and violence-proof our children to break what has become a vicious cycle of abuse in our society?
Ever since the Montreal massacre, women across the country, and men too, have been galvanized-academics, professionals, housewives-asking why. Why is it that our country and western society in general, indeed world society, is faced with what is a plague of violent behaviour of men toward women? Women are asking, perhaps in the saddest voices of all, how do we protect ourselves and how does society help us protect ourselves, most terribly from those we love?
Random violence in the street is terrifying, but how much more terrifying is violence against women which, like its antithesis, charity, appears to begin and flourish at home. It is a fact that in this country women are beaten and murdered primarily by their partners. One suspects, and I say again, this is the problem, suspicion is not empirical proof that the increasing violence against women by strangers, Marc Lepine, date rape, street attacks, stem from societal attitudes.
Clearly, to some extent, if women and beaten and harassed at home, and as a society we do nothing constructive to combat this, then an insidious belief that the battering of women is inconsequential becomes de facto a part of our communal fabric. We need desperate-
[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1991
Supply
ly to shine the harsh light of reality on this dark side of our society, on this dark side of too many people's daily lives.
Again, we believe that a royal commission, travelling nation-wide, hearing evidence nation-wide, can do this where lesser initiatives cannot.
Many women committed to ending this horror say that money spent on a royal commission, as I said before, would be better spent on direct services. Let me state now that I, and my colleagues in this party, men and women, have and will continue to plead for money for services. It is a national scandal that 50 per cent of the women and their children who seek help from transition houses must be turned away. Yes, 50 per cent. That is both disgraceful and terrifying.
Remember, this is not an either/or situation. We desperately need both. We need transition houses, but we also need the research, the education and the publicity that a royal commission can engender.
We know, for example, that the province of Ontario in the last several years put on an excellent ad campaign to raise awareness of the battery of women. Hosts of women in that province, encouraged by these ads, came forward to seek assistance. They were turned away because the money, the beds, the facilities just were not there.
We also know that as yet many judges and legislators and police still do not react correctly. Every lawyer and social worker in this House knows the answer to this one. Police in general do not respond to domestic disputes as they do to other complaints. I recall one incident when a battered wife who had a court order from the Chief Justice. She called me on the phone and said her husband was banging down her kitchen door with a baseball bat, that she had the police department on the other line and they were saying to her: "How do we know you have a court order". I called them, identified myself, told them of the court order, gave them the date and all the relevant information and they still refused to come.
Fortunately, that particular incident did not end in actual physical abuse. But, I ask all members of this House to imagine the psychological abuse that took place from that encounter. Imagine the kind of faith that woman would have in our system after that took place.
Too many judges sentence when a conviction is obtained inappropriately. We cannot forget, and it is again to our national shame, that in this country in the last two years we heard one judge call a pre-school female child sexually provocative. We heard another judge state that sexual assaults on native women were less serious because the women may have been drinking or sleeping in a public place. Another judge in the province of Ontario implied that an exotic dancer, the victim of a sexual assault, had by reason of her employment invited the assault and thus gave up her right to say no.
As a nation, we must act now to stem this tide of violence. Those bright, ambitious and non-traditional young women who died so tragically at Ecole Polytechnique must be memorialized, but not by white roses, white ribbons or plaques, but by remedies.
We cannot restore their lives. We cannot return them to their families, to their beginning careers, to their friends, nor can we restore the lives of the other 119 women who died in 1989 in Canada at the hands of their partners.
The other day, in questioning the Prime Minister about the economic situation facing women in this country, he responded with a list of appointments made by the federal government of women to boards, commissions, to the courts and so on. I have applauded every one of those appointments, but that was not the issue. The issue is ostensibly economic and, I believe, inextricably wrapped up with the issue of violence is the position of women in our society.
I would like to respond to the Prime Minister with a few facts of my own from the Index on Canadian Women, published in December 1990.
We already know, we have heard it ad nauseam, that Statistics Canada reports that women still earn only 66 cents for every dollar earned by men, that Canadian women face a higher risk of being poor than men. The National Council of Welfare reports that in 1987, 57 per cent of single mothers lived below the poverty line and that 1,515,000 Canadian women lived in poverty. That was four years ago. We were not in a recession in 1987. How much worse are those figures today?
Statistics Canada figures for 1988 show a high proportion of women, 17.2 per cent, have less than a grade nine education, and that 84 per cent of Canadian women working outside the home are employed in service
[Stage Direction]
industries and concentrated in non-unionized, lower paying occupations.
In 1988, 28.2 per cent of female workers were clerical workers. In 1986, 1,001,340 clerical workers worked part-time or part-year and earned salaries that were below the national poverty level. Only 36 per cent of women covered by the Employment Equity Act earn over $27,500, compared to 80 per cent of men; 28 per cent of aboriginal women, compared to 72 per cent of aboriginal men; 38 per cent of disabled women, compared to 81 per cent of disabled men earn over this figure and 28 per cent of visible minority women, as compared to 73 per cent of visible minority men earn over this figure.
In 1989, three out of four Canadian women in prime child-bearing and raising age groups, 20 to 45, were in the labour force. Adequate child care has become less accessible rather than more accessible.
By 1989, there were 450,000 more pre-school children with mothers in the labour force without licensed child care than there were in 1979. In 1987, only 8 per cent of children with working mothers were cared for in licensed child care services.
One in four Canadian women are sexually abused at some time in their lives, half before they reach the age of 17. One in ten women are beaten by their male partners. In the last two years in Canada, over 100 women per year have been killed by their male partners.
Twenty years after the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, women are still not even close to being equal participants. Of the 167 recommendations made in that royal commission, only 55 have been implemented.
Last week I was accused of being negative. I guess I have to plead guilty to that. The truth is that the vast majority of Canadian women do not share in the Canadian dream. They live in poverty and work in job ghettos. They cannot move freely in our society. Every woman in this House as well as every woman watching this and every woman in this country, whether she admits it or not, is vulnerable to violence.
Supply
Project Haven and the recent initiatives announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare are well intentioned. I have no doubt of that, but they are criminally inadequate.
The workers on the front lines are themselves overworked, underpaid and subject to burnout from the enormity of the task they are attempting to perform.
Last week in response to a question, I was as I said, accused of being negative. Again, I say I plead guilty. The violence experienced by women in Canada is inextricably tied to economics, to discrimination on the basis of sex and to the failure of all governments to take meaningful action.
Yes, the country is burdened with a deficit. Yes, we must be sound fiscal managers. Yes, we must keep our house in order financially, but a government that preaches these truisms must also remove its blinkers. If women, who make up 52 per cent of our population, cannot enjoy basic security of the person, and if their government ignores their crisis, it does not seem to me to be much of a government.
We need immediate and concrete action. Groups across this country ciy out for a royal commission on violence against women. We need to find answers, solutions and a resolution of the problem. If we ignore these cries, we do not deserve the title of representatives of the people.
["It being after six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired.\nThis House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1)."]
Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I obviously know of the hon. member's interest in this subject.
I wonder if she has given any thought to ways in which provincial and territorial governments might be involved in a royal commission, being aware, as she indicated, that this is not an issue that the federal government alone can solve or deal with.
If as a result of some of the presentations she has heard at the standing committee she could give any advice in this area, it would be appreciated.


Ms. Clancy:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for her question.
One of the things that I think is very interesting is taking place in my province of Nova Scotia. It has been recommended and I hope it is taking place. We have not heard definitely yet on a response.

March 13, 1991
Supply
Debbie Forsythe Smith, president of the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women, has asked for a review. At the time that she asked for the review, there had been five murders with the same profile-women murdered by their partners-in under two years.
Tragically, there have been two more murders in the last month in the metropolitan area of Halifax-Dartmouth. Indeed, there was another one shortly after I spoke last week.
Deborah Forsythe Smith and her council have asked the Attorney General of Nova Scotia to set up a special review commission to look at these five murders in particular to try to find if there is a common denominator and if there are indicators that could give us some idea of how to anticipate and possibly prevent this kind of behaviour.
There was some comment by the Attorney General in Nova Scotia, but there has not yet been a final response. I would hope they would do that. I would see that as something that could feed very well into a royal commission in the sense that a royal commission, of course, does not just hold hearings, it also commissions reports and takes reports from whatever source. I would think that a report such as this in Nova Scotia would be invaluable.
I would also think that a response to the situation in Ontario, following that ad campaign, would be of great assistance as well, because a number of witnesses who have come to us at the committee talked about how particularly well done the Ontario ad campaign was. I had a very special feeling about that. A good friend of mine, an actress whom I had worked with, was one of the main actors in those ads. It was very moving, very compelling and communicated the thought well. As I say, the response from the people was overwhelming, but the facilities were not there. I would think the Ontario government could be of help.
A third response to that relates to the whole question of native women. When we had native women appearing before the committee several weeks ago, they talked about the special needs of native and northern women in this area. I think this is something to which we must be extremely sensitive and, indeed, it may well be that we discover what works for women in urban centres like Halifax, Toronto, Montreal and so on, will not work in
rural Canada, will not work with native aboriginal women and will not work perhaps with immigrant women. That is why this royal commission must be rooted in women's experience to bring across, as Dr. Saunders, from Carleton, said yesterday, "a new form of research that really hits the problem".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax gave a vibrant and compelling testimony in support of the motion put forward by the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada, which reads:
That this House call upon the Prime Minister to appoint a Royal
Commission on Violence Against Women.
I have here, on my desk, a huge file on the subject, Mr. Speaker. I have always taken an interest in this matter. In my riding, we have the Maison de I'Amitie, or friendship house, a shelter for battered women, and I have to admit that, even then, one shelter does not seem to be enough. I think we would need two of them.
I was impressed by the comment made by my colleague from Halifax who stated that 50 per cent of the women and their children who seek help cannot have or are denied access to shelters. I share her concern for the serious problems facing the million or so Canadian women and children who are abused every year by a spouse. I also agree with her that, in our career as members of Parliament, we have all seen various cases of cruel and even sadistic treatment, Mr. Speaker, inflicted upon too many women and children.
I have a question to ask the hon. member because she mentioned in her speech that perhaps we should consider broadening the mandate of this royal commission to include the effects of violence in order to prevent it and involving as many Canadians, men and women, in this much needed process.

I received, just in the last day or so, a letter from the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario. I think she is familiar with that organization. It concerns their desire to establish a royal commission on violence against women, to which they attach a long list of groups and organizations which support this proposal.
March 13, 1991

I just want to ask the member one question. In asking for a comprehensive study on the subject of violence, does she agree that we should at least involve as many Canadians as possible and that we want to prevent violence, not just deal with its consequences? Does she agree with this group of people, the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations, that it is imperative for us to address this system?


Mary Catherine Clancy: I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, for his comments.
Indeed I agree most strongly with the Ontario women teachers association. I am happy to say that its representatives have spoken to us and have been witnesses before the subcommittee on the status of women on the topic of violence against women.
They have as well in the province of Ontario, through the good offices of Ontario teachers, come up with a number of programs in the schools. This relates as well to the minister's question. This kind of program can be of tremendous value, shared across the country.
The creation of a royal commission can solve a problem that many of the front-line workers against violence against women have told us about, that is that there is no mechanism for them to communicate with each other at the moment. If persons working in a transition house in Nova Scotia could communicate with their colleagues in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and so on, it would be of invaluable assistance and the data collected would be tremendous. The exchange of programs such as the kind the Ontario teachers have come up with would be of great assistance to the Nova Scotia Teachers Union, B.C. teachers, and so on and so forth.
It is the need to pull all this material together, to pull together the kind of research that is necessary to get at this all-pervasive problem, that causes women such as those in the Ontario Women Teachers Federation and the other groups I have mentioned, such as the YWCAs and so on, to call for this commission.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Halifax for bringing this motion forward to the House of Commons. It is essential that we debate this issue.
Supply
We sit together on a subcommittee of health and welfare, the subcommittee on the status of women that is right now hearing witnesses on violence against women. We have been hearing various groups from across the country-transition home workers, teachers, some victims of violence themselves, and religious people working to provide assistance to women who are battered. We have heard from a cross-section of Canadian women on this issue.
What does the hon. friend feel is the underlying theme that we are hearing over and over again from these presentations? How would she respond to my concern about the systemic discrimination against women in our society and how that contributes toward the whole issue of violence against women?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby for her question.
That in a sense is the whole root and branch of the issue. We live in a society that is systemically discriminatory against women. Indeed, I look around this House right now and I count six women sitting in seats, duly elected, and I think: wow, are we ever lucky that we are here, because the odds were sure against us; all of us, no matter what party we belong to, and I think we all know it.
That is why I rhymed off all those horrific statistics that I mentioned before. The problem is that systemic discrimination against women is intrinsically economic. It is rooted in patriarchy and it is rooted, with the greatest of respect and affection to the vast majority of my male colleagues, in a lack of understanding on the part of the people who truly wield the power.
In the vast majority of cases, I think men do not really comprehend how deeply rooted discrimination against women is. It is so deeply rooted, it is so much a part of our society and the way we live, it is so utterly a part of their daily lives, that they cannot see the forest for the trees. Until those of us who are lucky enough to crash through these barriers and make our voices heard, make those voices loud enough and united enough to bring these issues home, we are still going to be voices ciying in the wilderness.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would be the last one to cut off the hon. member, but her time has expired.

March 13, 1991
Supply


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the chance to join in the debate on this issue this afternoon. It is very important that we debate an issue as fundamental to society as violence against women. It is an issue which I would hope members on all sides of the House are concerned about, care about, and are prepared to join in finding solutions.
While it is an issue that women have primarily brought to the public agenda and have brought to the public fore, it is absolutely essential that men understand and become involved in this issue. We need their co-operation and understanding, as my hon. colleague has just talked about, if we are to make some of the fundamental changes and attitudinal changes, in society which are going to enable us to one day eliminate violence against women.
Violence against women is not only physical violence when we talk about the issue at large. Physical violence is often the final result of many years or months of emotional abuse which many women suffer, whether it is in a marriage, another family situation, or with a partner with whom they are living. We have to understand that when we are talking about violence against women, we also have to include that kind of emotional, psychological abuse which many workers in this field that I have talked with say can often have more devastating long-term impacts on women because it so destroys their sense of self-esteem and self-worth that they do not find any way of getting out of those situations.
Physical abuse, yes. That is absolutely heinous in every way, but we have to find ways to address emotional abuse as well.
It is important to understand the statistics, to know just how grave this situation is across Canada. From the various studies and reports that we have been able to put together from Status of Women-and there has been a number of works done both in Canada and elsewhere- the most commonly known statistics at this time indicate that one in four women will be sexually assaulted at some time in her life, and that half of the sexual assaults will be perpetrated on women under the age of 17. That includes the issue of sexual abuse of female children, which is so appalling, and of teenage women as well.
Statistics show that one in ten women in Canada is assaulted by her husband or partner, and that half the women in Canada are afraid to go out after dark in their own neighbourhoods. Rightly or wrongly, that is the perception they have. I would imagine that all women in this House have felt that at certain times. I know I have in certain situations, certain cities that I have lived in. If I can't be as free as a man to go out and be able to participate in every aspect of society, that denies me my freedom and my equality.
We also know that one homicide in five in this country is a family violence homicide. Also, about 4 per cent of seniors now report being abused, which is a whole new issue. As violence against women was not talked about 20 years ago in the royal commission on the status of women, it is only in the last five years that the whole issue of abuse of seniors has really been talked about. That includes physical violence and also emotional abuse of seniors as well.
One study of disabled women found that almost half of disabled women had been sexually abused as children, that one in four were sexually assaulted as an adult, and that most of these women had been abused by their caretakers. We could rhyme off these statistics, but when we think of the devastation of the lives of these women behind these statistics, it gets pretty emotional as far as I am concerned. I am sure we have all known women who have been victims of violence. We have probably known the perpetrators as well in different instances.
My colleague mentioned aboriginal women. The statistics there are even more horrendous, some as high as eight out of ten aboriginal women have been sexually assaulted or have been physically abused at some time in their lives. And we know what that leads to.
It is not only the physical, the emotional harm that is done to women through violence. It leads to inequality. It is almost a chicken and egg situation: inequality that leads to the violence but violence then leads to inequality. It leads to the diminution of self-esteem, self-worth, and the ability of women then to get themselves out of situations. Without the kind of support that many women's organizations, shelters, and crisis lines across the country have provided, many of these women would continue to live in silence and terror. I think it has been only 18 years since the first women's shelter was opened
March 13, 1991

in Canada. They have done an enormously important and successful job, and we all applaud those efforts.
Certainly the goal of federal and provincial governments everywhere has to be to work toward the achievement of equality of all citizens in our society. I guess I perceive Canadian society, despite the dark and gloomy statistics that I have just reported on violence, as being one of the most fortunate societies around the world. When I had the opportunity last fall to chair the Commonwealth Women's Affairs Ministers' meeting, in recognizing of most of the countries that we were dealing with around the Commonwealth we were indeed more fortunate in this country. We had the legal mechanisms. We had more economic and social equality than even some of our closest friends in countries like Australia. Yet we know there are ways to go. Elow do we work toward achieving that equality?
Certainly one way is by having women here in this House of Commons as role models and being able to speak out to show women across the country that it is possible for women to be involved in the decision-making processes of this country. We want to encourage that in every possible way, as I know all my colleagues do from whatever party they represent, that we need more women in this House of Commons, in legislatures and in municipal councils who understand and can raise these issues at every level.
Our Prime Minister quoted statistics the other day about the numbers of women in various government positions. I know in a sense that those are just numbers, but they are important because they are again showing women as role models. We see that women have now gone from 37 to 83 in judicial postings and that women now are holding judgeships at the federal level within our system and are having an influence. We have seen women assuming positions of responsibility in the Public Service at the deputy minister level. Women have increased from 7 to 24 as the heads of missions at the diplomatic level. All those kinds of examples are important because they too become role models.
When we look at the kind of initiatives that have been taken over these past few years to move toward economic equality, each one of those is a step and part of the road to progress of economic equality. Some might say
Supply
that it has not been fast enough but always there is balance.
We have moved forward on employment equity. We have moved forward on pay equity. We have moved forward on changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act in areas such as maternity benefits. We have moved forward indeed on family violence.
Three years ago was the first time that a federal government initiated a family violence program with $40 million. As a result of that program we are seeing a lot of the action. We are seeing a lot of activity generated across the country, which is raising the voices of women and making people aware of this issue.
I was looking at a report on the funding that has been provided in the last four years. The types of projects are fascinating: everything from workshops in Stony Rapids, Saskatchewan on the prevention of family violence to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Obviously that is an area where police have to become more effective in their intervention work. The Provincial Advisory Council of Newfoundland has established an inter-agency commission to create a model of co-ordinated activity against family violence. There are projects in my home province of British Columbia dealing with disabled women. There have been 600 or 700 projects funded-some for a couple of thousand dollars, some for hundreds of thousands of dollars-as we work forward toward investigating areas of research, prevention, education and support services.
Obviously more needs to be done because still violence persists. We have only just started to skim the surface in our understanding. I do not think we have a full understanding of what it is that creates or triggers a male to become the batterer or assaulter. We know that statistics show about 85 per cent of violence against women is related to those in trust and about 15 per cent to those who are unknown to the women.
What is it? Is it frustration? Is it indeed the fact that women are perceived as both physically less equal and in some ways economically or psychologically less equal? There are all those kinds of issues. We know that there is a generational component to this as well. Both the abusers and those who are victims of abuse are more likely to continue that into the next generation. We have to find ways of breaking that cycle of violence within our society.

March 13, 1991
Supply
We know there is a need to review our laws. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, today in Vancouver made some announcements about some of the initiatives she will be taking in the criminal justice system to review our laws and to work with judges, the Solicitor General and law enforcement agencies to be more effective in dealing with family violence. This is all part of the new $136 million program that my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced two weeks ago. I know he will be talking about that a little later.
We know there has been a lot done in education. The program in Ontario was mentioned. I agree that was an excellent program. The province of Quebec has undertaken education programs, the province of British Columbia has as well. Yukon territory has just announced a fascinating new policy dealing with family violence. It is probably the most comprehensive policy statement I have seen in this country and deals with all facets of it. Those kinds of initiatives at provincial and territorial levels are very important.
We need education of our young people. The Canadian Teachers Federation project "Thumbs Down" will take into the schools programs to help children right from kindergarten all the way up to understand the root causes of violence, to deal themselves with how they might react in violent situations, to be able to say no, and to understand that violence is not acceptable in our society. That is an important part of the whole puzzle we are dealing with as well.
My federal and provincial colleagues, including myself as Minister responsible for the Status of Women, last May produced what we called The Lake Louise Declaration on Family Violence, in which we have agreed to work together to develop a national strategy. Our officials have been working on that. We are planning to bring it forward later this spring when we meet again in Newfoundland and to find ways to co-ordinate our efforts so that at the federal, provincial and territorial levels we will tiy not to duplicate or overlap our efforts and to see what are the gaps.
We have just recently commissioned through Status of Women Linda MacLeod, one of the foremost experts in this country on family violence, to do a review for us, a kind of a pre-study to indicate what in her opinion are the gaps in terms of research and what are the mechanisms we should be looking at to move forward.
I do not think there is any doubt in my mind or in the minds of anyone in this House that we need mechanisms to move forward in our understanding of this issue. I would ask my colleagues who sit on the subcommittee on the status of women and are examining this issue to give us their advice on the kinds of mechanisms that are most appropriate. If we are talking about a royal commission, I worked for a royal commission for four years so I have a somewhat jaundiced view in that I do not think four years is necessary to get on with some of the actions required.
We need innovative approaches, whether it is through a royal commission or other kinds of mechanisms, to reach out to women; not just sitting around hotel rooms and having regular hearings but mechanism by which we can actually find out from women what their experiences are and be able to make women feel comfortable in relaying those kinds of experiences to some kind of initiative that might help us understand the issue as well.
Obviously what I would like to see is something that is cost effective, that does not duplicate what is already being done, and that can help us move forward, maybe on a step-by-step basis. I would like to see something for which we do not have to wait until the end to finally have action. I would like to see us not have to set up whole new infrastructures to deal with an issue where there are perhaps some existing infrastructures through the National Advisory Council or groups like that, where we might be able to do things more effectively and perhaps from a feminist point of view and not just copy-cat what has been done in the past, but think creatively of how we can address this issue most effectively in the future.
We need a focus on research. I have met with the Canadian Association of University Teachers on some of their proposals for centres of excellence. They are working now with the Social Science and Humanities
March 13, 1991

Research Council on those. We have existing groups out there that I think we could bring together.
As I indicated, because many of the things that need to be done in terms of service delivery, fall primarily within the jurisdiction of the provinces, we obviously need their involvement, co-operation and support. There is no sense spending time and putting forward recommendations when there is no one there to pick them up and run with them. As I mentioned, the province of British Columbia has just recently set up a task force on family violence. The province of Manitoba is doing some work in that area as well, and as colleague mentioned, the province of Nova Scotia is also active in that area.
Maybe we can find a way of linking all these activities together so they are not all going off separately and ensuring that again we are not overlapping, not duplicating, but we are trying to get to the real core of the subject.
When thinking about some of the things that need to be done-and I do not pretend to be an expert; I do not imagine any of us are experts in this field- and from my own experiences of talking to women who are both victims of violence and those who work with women at the grass roots level, many of them have said to me that we really have to do more with our young people, that is the age we really have to start addressing on this issue.
I feel more needs to be done with the media. So many of the messages our children get about the values of our society and on issues of equality of men and women, or on issues of violence, come from the media. Surely there are some ways we can bring the media together, to be involved in helping us to deal with these issues.
I am sure my hon. colleagues know these same stories, and it is not only from a personal point of view and my daughter's point of view, but others that I meet, there is something that seems to happen often to young girls between the ages of 12 and 14 that somehow their sights become diminished and from that stage on there is a transition where, often their own sense of equality changes. How do we get to young women at that age, to stop that from happening? The editorial in this month's Chatelaine deals with that issue and I think is a very interesting comment as well.
Supply
So we have to deal with our young people if we are going to look at education and prevention. We also have to look at whether there are really effective measures that we can take to deal with abusers or potential abusers. The jury is still out. I have heard reports both ways, as to whether some of the rehabilitation programs are effective or not. Some seem to be, some do not seem to be. Again, if we are going to deal with this issue with our present population, we have to find out what it is that works, that can trigger a change in behaviour among abusers or potential abusers.
So the challenge is there. It is a challenge for us all to work on. I am delighted with the work that my colleagues are doing, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, through Indian Affairs, $36 million that will be made available for aboriginal communities to decide for themselves how they want to deal with the issue of violence within their communities, both child sexual abuse and family violence. I know they have welcomed that, and we can use these resources over the next four years to take some significant steps forward.
I also welcome other ideas and suggestions of mechanisms by which we can develop our understanding and do it effectively without stalling on the progress that needs to be made.
Neither I nor any of the women here want to be sitting here four years from now, as I am sure we all shall be, and feel that we have not made any substantial progress.
So I would ask all colleagues to join together so that we can say, as a Canadian society, no to violence against women, that it is not acceptable in our society and that we can work together to change the attitudes, the causes and put in place those measures that can truly ensure that Canada is a place where women can be truly free and truly equal and free from violence.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, family violence is a social problem. It is the outward sign of some attitudes, such as sexism, ageism, and tolerance toward violence.
No social group, no socio-economic group, no culture and no region is safe from family violence. It is a challenge to our traditional approach with regard to prevention, protection, and treatment.

March 13, 1991
Supply
Assistance programs for the victims involve several service networks and institutions. Twenty years after the last public inquiry on this issue, we must all work together, Madam Speaker, because of the complex needs and different cultural backgrounds of the victims.

Those words are from the government's own document on family violence. If the minister really believes that, knowing our cultural communities, our adverse and diverse cultures today, a lot of violence is propagated there, how can you say that we are prepared to just go at it without having someone study the situation? Then we may be able to shame those that need the help and the communities that have to give the help into doing something about it.


Mary Collins: I will respond to the hon. member and say, yes, indeed. I think it is very important for the public to understand that violence against women knows no economic bounds. Sometimes people think, well that only happens to poor women. That is not true. I know in my own region that the women who go to clinics are often professional women living with professional husbands.
It does not necessarily relate to one's socioeconomic background. Certainly in terms of the different ethnic communities in our country, one of the things we do know is that many of the women in those communities have been more afraid of coming out. Many of them have come from a culture where violence perhaps has been tolerated, are not aware that in our society it is not tolerated and are not aware of the services that are available. It has been good to see, for example, the province of Ontario's program. All of their materials are being made available in a number of languages so that they, hopefully, can get into those places in the community where women can access them.
A lot of research has been done. I would want to say to the hon. member that if she looks through the listing of studies and research that have been done in universities and by other organizations, a lot of work has been done and a lot is known. I am not sure it has all been put together and integrated in some way that enables us to be most effective. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, we have asked Linda McLeod, who is one of the experts in this field, to help us with this process over the next
month or so, and we might have a better understanding at Status of Women of where we should go next. We do not want to spend money uselessly on research that has already been undertaken.
There obviously are areas where research is required and probably areas where it would not be that helpful. We have to be able to use our resources effectively to find the answers that are still unknown.


Dawn Black: It is
really interesting to sit today and listen to the member for Halifax and the minister who is from my province of British Columbia.
As I sat here, I could not help but wonder: If the positions were reversed, if women had the majority of seats in this House of Commons and if men were only 14 per cent of the members of the House, perhaps this issue would get the full attention that it needs. I just had to say that.
I listened to the minister carefully. She talked about the chicken and egg scenario and the evidence was not clear on whether violence leads to inequality or whether it is the inequality that leads to violence. I believe very clearly that is the inequality, the sexism and the misogyny that we see in our society that extends itself to violence against women. I would like her to kind of expand on the either/or statement that she made.
The other comment that I have is that the minister talked about the 14 per cent of us who are here in this place being role models for other Canadian women. I do not want to be a role model any more. My mother had role models. She had Agnes MacPhail and Grace Macln-nis. I had role models. I had Pauline Jewett and Margaret Mitchell. Darn it, it is time that we no longer look for role models, but we look for equality in society where women participate in every sector of our society on an equal and just basis.


Mary Collins: I think the reality is that, as young people grow up, they do need role models. That is not necessarily sexist. It is in all aspects of life. They look to adults as role models. As we know, back in the 1940s and 1950s the only roles that women were playing were homemakers. That was the kind of role that they anticipated they would play.
March 13, 1991

Men need role models, too. It would be nice to have a lot more. I know that all my hon. colleagues would work towards that end. It is still going to be a while.
In terms of which leads to which, I think there is both.
I have known women who I would have perceived felt totally equal in all sorts of ways and yet, as a result of violence that was perpetrated, it was so demoralizing and created such a terrible trauma that they were not able to operate continuously in that manner.
It can have that effect individually on women as well, particularly as I mentioned, the kind of emotional abuse to which many women are subjected. A young women, through her teenage life and then enters into a marriage supposedly thinking it is all going to be wonderful, finds out that the partner is the kind of person who is constantly putting her down. Nothing is right. The house is not clean. The supper is not ready. These things may sound trivial, in a way. Finally, they just bear down on someone who is constantly being criticized.
I think one thing we tend to do in our society is criticize people too much. As young women, as teenagers they are constantly being criticized. If someone is always being criticized it is very difficult to develop one's ov,n sense of self-worth.
I might extrapolate that to this Chamber. If we did not criticize each other as much as my hon. colleague from Rosedale said last week, maybe we could move on in a much more positive way for the improvement of all members of society as a whole.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, want to make a couple of comments and put a question to the hon. member.
The disadvantage of following the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby is that she took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to say that until such time as there are more women in this House, equality will never be there.
I made a comment when I was speaking on the abortion issue earlier this year about how if men were able to conceive, we would never even discuss an abortion bill. I think it is the case that if men were on the receiving end of the majority of violence today, the laws punishing the offenders would be much stricter than they are. I think it is a shame that sometimes men who
Supply
commit violence against women are not given enough time in jail to reflect on their offences.
I just wanted to ask, and this may seem like an unfair question to the member, because I am not sure whether she was as member at the time, but some years ago in the House one of the members-the party really does not matter, but it was the party that this hon. minister belongs to-one of the members committed spousal assault and was convicted of that spousal assault. However, I do not think strong enough measures were taken to ensure that this member would understand the feelings against spousal assault. I wonder whether she would be willing to entertain, and I think most people would, that a member of the House should be evicted or ousted who commits spousal assault or violence against women?


Mary Collins: I think there are mechanisms in the House by which the House manages its own affairs and so it would be inappropriate I think as a minister to be commenting on that.
I would like to comment on your earlier point though, because we do not have as many women in the House as we would like. We have to ensure that the men in the House understand and appreciate the issues that we were talking about. Perhaps there is a special burden on the men in the House to really take the time to make sure that they get out in their communities and visit the shelters, visit the women's centres, talk to women who are victims and show that as male members of Parliament they are as committed to dealing with this issue both in your personal behaviour and in your behaviour as a member of Parliament and are committed to coming back to the House to support us as women in our efforts to eradicate violence in Canadian society.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, in 1989, 119 women were murdered in domestic violence. Wife battering is a national disgrace. It is epidemic. Two and a half million Canadian women are beaten by their male partners and in many ways society closes its eyes.
Just over a year ago on December 6, 1989, one man gunned down 14 young women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and the country was in shock. Journalists, commentators, politicians all tried to make sense out of this horror. But few could accept the fact that he killed these young women simply because they were women, women he targeted as feminists. How many Canadians know that more women were killed by their male

March 13, 1991
Supply
partners in 1990 in Montreal than were murdered at the Ecole Polytechnique?
There is an urgent need to balance programs that treat today's violence with programs that prevent future tragedy. Women and children are in danger now. Transition houses, aggressive charging practices, counselling of victims and offenders all recognize the problem, yet they are not enough. They treat the result of violence, but they do not challenge the root of violence in our society, violence against women and children.
Prevention is an overwhelming challenge. We have heard it spoken about here today on both sides of the House. It is a massive challenge for our society. But violence against women is endemic in our culture.
Sexism and misogyny exist in newspapers, videos, rock videos, films, newspapers, ads, virtually eveiywhere. The images that our society sees on a daily basis are images that include violence against women.
Violence against women is the horrible extension of sexism in our society. It is sexism and misogyny taken to its worst degree, this most horrific degree and it is increasing.
Concentration on intervention alone marginalizes the victims. We have all heard the line: They deserved it; they should have left; they should never have married a man like that-and on and on it goes.
Yet we know that it is not a marginal problem. Conservative estimates tell us that one in 10 Canadian women in Canada today are beaten by their male partners. One in four women or girls are sexually assaulted. In 1988 15 per cent of all Canadian homicide victims were women killed by their male partners.
In 1988, according to the Canadian Centre for Justice statistics, 75,921 men were charged with assault, including wife abuse.
In 1987, the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General reported 16,282 domestic assaults, and in 93.5 per cent of those assaults, those charged were male.
One of every two women and her children are turned away from transition houses in Canada because of a lack of space. Where do they go? Where do they end up? We know that the rate is even higher in some sections of this country. That is the national rate.
Women still earn on average 65 cents on every dollar that men earn, and we know that that wage gap has widened in the last two years. It was 66 cents, it has got worse. We are not making the kinds of economic gains for women that we know are so necessary and we know are part of the root of all of this problem of inequality and women's sense of powerlessness in our society.
Yet this government refuses to take strong and effective action on the issue of violence against women. Last month the government announced $136 million over four years for a family violence initiative. This means $15 million will be spent in the year 1991-92; $34 million in 1992-93; and the remainder allocated for after the term of this government ends.
But the real priorities of the government are revealed in their budget that was released a couple of weeks ago; a continuation of the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, a decapitation of the Canada Assistance Plan, which is the federal-provincial funding mechanism that currently funds shelters for battered women, counselling for both victims and abusers, sexual assault centres, child care spaces, child welfare services. All were funded under the Canada Assistance Plan.
It seems that this government gives a drop in the bucket to the women of Canada one day and then empties the bucket a day or so later.
It is clear what is needed. We must increase shelter spaces and second-stage housing for battered women. We must provide funding to regional associations of battered women's houses so that these people can communicate and get the message out and understand what is going on in their communities and how it relates to the situation in other parts of Canada.
We need a comprehensive education program which includes mandatory gender sensitivity training for judges and for police forces and all of our judiciary.
We need flexible community-based programs for our rural areas.
March 13, 1991

We must recognize our multicultural diversity in this area. We must recognize it when we are providing programs and these programs must be developed in consultation with those communities. We must combat violence in the media. The minister spoke earlier of violence in the media. We know that the Ontario native women's association tells us that eight out of ten native women are battered. This is horrific. We must listen to native women and we must act. I acknowledge that the program introduced by the government does give an opportunity for the native people themselves to have input into that program.
I sit on the status of women subcommittee of the standing committee on health and welfare. I wish that the status of women committee were a standing committee, as it was in past Parliaments. It is not now; it is a subcommittee. We are now conducting hearings on violence against women. We have listened. We have listened to women from shelters for battered women; we have listened to women in the Canadian Teachers Association who have produced a great resource called "Thumbs Down", a classroom response toward violence against women. We have listened to the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario which has also put out a document and a newsletter outlining all of the problems and concerns. Things are happening at the educational level of young people in our society. The professional associations are taking their responsibilities seriously on the issue of violence against women and working toward dealing with it in an educational sense in the classrooms.
We talk about the statistics in the House, and all of us who have spoken today on this issue have raised the statistics. While sitting in that committee room, I heard individual women from every region of the country tell us the same things. The women who work in the transition homes virtually said the same things. When the women from British Columbia spoke, they were surprised when we told them that the women from the Atlantic region had said the same thing or that the women from Ontario had said the same thing: that they were experiencing second generation abuse of families, and that they were both experiencing the same kinds of needs and seeing the same kinds of problems.
I think virtually all of the organizations that appeared before the subcommittee called for a royal commission on violence against women. I support their call for a royal commission. I support it wholeheartedly, and the
Supply
New Democratic Party supports it. We also called for a royal commission on violence against women some time ago.
It must be more than simply a public relations exercise. It cannot exist at a cost to essential services, some of the services that I have already talked about: shelters for battered women, counselling, educational services. And it most of all cannot be an excuse for lack of action.
It must be mandated to explore all aspects of violence against women, including the systemic causes of sexism in our society. It must deal with the issue of economics and the fact that women are not equal economic partners in our society, and that much of the violence against women results from this inequality. The commission must be made up of professionals and workers who deal with violence against women, who understand the issues surrounding violence against women, and it should also be made up of women who themselves have been victims of this violence. I think that the commission should be at least 50 per cent female.
I am pleased to support this call for a royal commission. I would urge the government to take this call seriously, which has grassroots support right across Canada. We do know that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which was held some 20 years ago did serve a purpose. It pulled Canadian women together. I remember when that commission was being held, as a young woman in Vancouver, who was at home with three young children and whose own consciousness around these issues had not been raised at that point.
I remember hearing about this commission that was travelling across the country and the issues they were raising that were of concern to women. I think we can achieve the same kinds of educational benefits from a royal commission on violence against women.
The minister spoke of educating and encouraging males in our society, in our House of Commons, to take on this issue, to understand this issue and take some responsibility for finding a solution in our society for violence against women and children. I think that a royal commission would serve that purpose. I think it would be a wonderful educational tool. It would travel to every section of Canada and listen to women's voices, listen to the women who work in the field and educate the men in our society as well about the horrors of violence against

March 13, 1991
Supply
women and just how much, in real terms, it costs our society in every way.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. I know she has been a very active participant in the subcommittee dealing with this issue. As I mentioned, we will look forward to its report which I hope will give some definition to the specific areas it thinks require further study.
I just want to make one comment. The member, in her statement, indicated that the CAP payments through which much of the money flows for support of shelters had been cut. I just like to remind the hon. member that, indeed, is not correct. CAP payments have not been cut. They continue to grow. In the wealthy provinces of Ontario and Alberta and British Columbia, they continue to grow at 5 per cent, and in the other provinces continue their full growth. So, I would not see that should have any impact on the provinces' ability to continue their funding, as I would certainly encourage them to do.
The question I have for my colleague has to do with something I read in the paper this morning and I was really quite shocked. I am sure that my colleague is as well. In the NDP government in the province of Ontario, the consumer affairs minister, as I understand it, who last week posed as a "Sunshine Boy", is now purported to have an assistant who, indeed, had been charged and convicted of wife battering and is now working as a special advisor dealing with sexism in advertising.
My hon. colleague talked about advertising and the media being a veiy important area where we have to root out sexism, so I am wondering what advice she is giving to her colleagues at Queen's Parks, on something which I was really shocked about. Perhaps, it goes to prove the point that violence against women exists not only in every sector of society, but within every political part of society as well. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke about the Canada Assistance Plan, CAP, for the three wealthiest provinces, as she said. I would remind the minister that 46 per cent of the poor in Canada live in those three provinces.
The minister comes from the same province I do. She is familiar with the actions of the premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm. She knows what is going on in British Columbia right now as that government disintegrates right before our veiy eyes. She knows what his position has been on the equality of women in society. If she is relying on the faith of Bill Vander Zalm to provide those shelters and to provide child care spaces, I would say she is sadly, sadly naive, because he is not going to do it and I think the minister knows that well.
She mentioned a situation that happened recently in Ontario where we saw the foolishness of a minister in the Ontario government posing as a "Sunshine Boy". It seemed very foolish to me. I agree with her.
The issue around his assistant or adviser, I think, is a much more serious issue. I think it was a very inappropriate appointment. I understand that Mr. Grimaldi has been removed from that position. I commend the Rae government for taking action quickly. I am not embarrassed to admit that New Democrats sometimes show poor judgement as well.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment both the mover of the motion and particularly my colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby, the women's critic in our party. Certainly we have heard from all the speakers who have spoken so far of the need for the men in this Chamber and in the political system to grasp the issues that are at stake here and to get involved in these issues behind the 14 per cent of MPs who are women in this House.
Certainly the member needs to be credited by all women in our society and certainly by all of us who are interested in these issues for the role she has played not only within our caucus, but within the debate in Canada on these issues. I compliment her for making more of us aware of this issue in a much more constructive kind of way than many of us had been before.
There are two particular issues that I would like to raise with my colleague. First, she mentioned the economic factors that are involved. I would like to point out to her that in my constituency of Prince Albert-Churchill River, the federal government through the Department of Indian Affairs pays family assistance in a
March 13, 1991

community like Fond du Lac at about the level of $450 for a family of four.
Unfortunately, the economic circumstances are such that many people are on social assistance. The traditional economic base has eroded, as many people know. It is not the fault of those women and children living on that amount. The government recognized that in part and raised it another $100,1 believe, to about $550 because of the isolation.
However, there has been a study which indicates that it costs $950 in those communities just to feed a family of four in accordance with the Canada food rules, and all they get is $550. They are $400 a month short and that puts all kinds of pressure on those families. It causes family breakdowns, people moving to the cities and so on. It is strictly an economic matter that we are looking at.
In those communities they certainly welcomed the new initiative on family violence in Indian communities. However, we have a serious problem in that because of isolation and historic factors of one sort or another, it is very difficult to organize in those communities. You need to have proposals; you have to be able to deal with government bureaucracy. In a lot of these cases the kind of support to women that exists in many of the other communities and urban centres does not exist for these people.
We are talking here about people who not only face a gender problem, but also a race problem and a regional problem. I invite my colleague to address that question.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his comments, particularly the one about the purpose I have served in our caucus, perhaps, of heightening the consciousness of some of my male colleagues in my own caucus. I appreciate that.
My colleague talks about a situation for rural women and native women in our society and outlined, I think very clearly, just what some women in Canada are up against, and how difficult it is in rural areas of Canada to provide these kinds of services and to get the community together in order to do that.
I think it is very important that when we are dealing with violence against native women in our society, as I said in my remarks, native women themselves must have
Supply
some control over the programs that are offered, over the way the transition home they want to start, or is started, operates.
I would point out too that economics, in my view, the fact that the gender gap in wages is widening, the fact that welfare rates in our country have not kept pace with inflation, has continued to serve to keep women down in these positions in our society.
In Vancouver there was a food bank established only for women and children. I think that is really a damning indication of what is happening to women and children in our society; a food bank simply, and only for, women and children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The next two are 10 minutes, plus five minutes questions and comments.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today compels me to speak to a subject that is painful, one that should not even be on this government's agenda in 1991 and should have ceased to exist years ago. I am referring to violence against women.
I know there are programs. I realize the federal government has just announced it will spend $136 million on measures to deal with family violence. However, I fail to understand how we could have let the situation become what it is today.
Mr. Speaker, violence against women has become almost common place. This is unacceptable. Unfortunately, respect for women is far from a foregone conclusion in any country.
Women represent half the world's population and work two thirds of all hours worked. They also constitute the largest group of poor, exploited individuals. One wonders how women an still be neglected to that extent in a world that claims to be increasingly civilized, a world that is exploring the outer edges of the universe.
Today, one would almost think technology seems more important than the basic well-being of human beings, especially human beings of the female sex.

March 13, 1991
Supply
Mr. Speaker, violence against women, which includes assault, mutilation, murder, infanticide, rape and criminal negligence, is probably the most widespread human rights issue but also the one that gets the least recognition. Why? Because it is so disturbing.
Each year in Canada, one woman out of eight at least-that is more than one million Canadian women- are abused by the man they live with. Women are victims of violence on the sole basis of their sex, and that remains a major obstacle to human growth. Unfortunately, too many women are considered as mere objects: luxury items, baby machines, domestics. If it sounds appalling, too bad! The fact remains that such is reality in this great country of ours. It is a fact of every day life for too many women.
Mr. Speaker, spousal abuse can take many forms. Women can be physically or sexually assaulted, emotionally and psychologically intimidated, degraded, deprived or exploited by their partners. Violence can leave not only visible marks on the body but also invisible emotional and psychological scars. The victim can feel terrorized, depressed, humiliated, desperate, shamed, abandoned and anxious.
Sadly, spousal abuse is an integral part of the Canadian society. It has become imperative that governments at all levels get involved to ensure the protection of Canadian women of all walks of life. They must get involved. No one must be allowed to abuse women in any way in Canada.
The federal government must relentlessly emphasize the greater welfare of the population. It must keep providing assistance to women groups, community organizations and front-line workers so that this problem can be eradicated by the end of the century.
Every woman must be allowed to play her role to the fullest in our society. Women must be allowed their dignity. The problem of spousal abuse must be dealt with urgently because, too often, it leads to family violence.

The campus reality is another area we must seriously look at. The use of sexist language in the classroom and educational materials, sexist articles in papers, demeaning graffiti, sexual harassment and assault are all part of
a vicious circle of attitudes and actions that send the wrong message about gender relations, at the expense of women. Why is it that some examples of sexism and violence against women on Canadian campuses make it into the news? Why do so many go unreported? What does this say of our society?
In most cases, after a headline everything is forgotten. In general, professors and the administration have done nothing to prevent or respond to sexism and violence against women. Things must change.
Slowly a few institutions are establishing sexual harassment policies and committees. It is a beginning, but it is only a beginning. It will not be able to go very far without financial assistance.
Federal and provincial governments have repeatedly cut back in funding for the operation of our universities and colleges. The federal budget announced this week continued this trend by extending the freeze on transfer payments to the provinces for health and education. In an already strained system campus initiatives to better the status of women will undoubtedly be among the first to be cut.

Mr. Speaker, battered and raped women need support and medical care. Funds are lacking. The government must respond to the urgent needs of such a large number of its citizens. Violence can only breed violence. Is this the future that we want to give our youth? Is this the vision of man that we want to give our daughters? No, Mr. Speaker. We must rethink our structures and, particularly, our priorities. We must consider these women who are at the roots of this country. They must be able to live without fear, without shame.
Poverty, misery, unemployment, illiteracy, these are all evils that can only increase the anger, the assaults, the rapes. It is unacceptable. We must put social problems at the top of this government agenda. We must give back to Canadian women their position in this society.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the problem cannot be solved by legislation or by a government program, but the federal government must show leadership. It must mobilize and help fund those who are ready to make changes. It must show Canadian women that it takes the
March 13, 1991

problem seriously, but particularly, that it really wants to solve it.
A Royal Commission on Violence Against Women could be a welcome gesture and a sign of goodwill from this government. It has already been 20 years. It is time to re-examine the situation today.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this evil must disappear so that every woman can regain her dignity and live with pride.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Laurent for a very thoughtful and sensitive speech on the motion before the House today, that this House call upon the Prime Minister to appoint a royal commission on violence against women.
I have a couple of questions which I think I can roll into one. A recent release of Amnesty International's report called Women on the Front Line outlines extreme violence against women's human rights. I wonder if the member could comment on whether this should be the mandate also of the royal commission, which would include discussion about the role Canada could play in the international community to combat violence against women.
Second, in speaking with a former colleague of mine from Saskatchewan, there is an increase in family violence in that province due to the horrible state of the farm economy. This is probably due to the high interest rates, the GATT issues, and all kinds of things like the weather. Many farms are going bankrupt and wife battering, child abuse and suicide are certainly on the increase in the farm community. The issue is that there is no place for women to go. Farm women and children are isolated even from their closest neighbour. There could be many miles between them. It is very difficult to keep track of the types of abuse that are going on in this situation. As I mentioned, most farmers cannot even see each other's houses and programs are not readily available for these women.
I am wondering if the royal commission could also look at ways to better provide services to the people of rural Canada. Will it be looking at putting in place a better
Supply
system of tracking violence against women in the situation I have just asked about?
I would like a response to these questions.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nepean. When we are talking about a royal commission and about what Canada can do in the international community, I would be tempted to say that we have to start in our own community.
How can we possibly advise anyone in the international community? How can we possibly complain or criticize what is going on elsewhere when we have not been able to look at what is going on in our country?
Twenty years is a long time. Canada has changed a great deal in the last 20 years. I think we should be in a position to look at the international community as it touches violence against women, but first of all I would like us to look at our community.
I beg the ministers, since they are both here, to do something about this issue and to stop using bits and dregs of information that is out there. An in depth study has not been done with our cultural communities, and that is where a high level of violence is found.
I do not have any answers for families living in the western part of Canada, but I do know one thing. Coincidentally the member for Hamilton Mountain gave me her figures on increases in violence, in sex offences, and in assault. In 1987 the figures in just one Canadian city show 37 sexual assaults. In 1989, 536 in the same city and it is increasing. Normal assaults, which are not absolutely classified as sexual assaults, have probably increased in the same proportion.
This is why we need someone to work on this problem. Even though I realize the money has been given, we need to know where it could really be put to best use.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I too am delighted to speak to the motion brought forward by my colleague from Halifax.
In part the motion reads:
That this House call upon the Prime Minister to appoint a royal
commission on violence against women.
Certainly the Liberal Party gives a tremendous amount of importance to this issue, and so we have taken this initiative and challenge to government.

March 13, 1991
Supply
It is hard for me, a man, to comprehend totally the feeling of fear the night holds for women. They are conditioned from birth to be wary. They learn to recognize situations that may hold harm.
Traditionally those situations have been connected to the night. An assailant attacks a woman alone in a secluded spot, a darkened area. Now tradition is changing. There are few situations today that do not hold harm and fear for a woman.
More and more often danger comes not in the shape of a stranger, but in the form of a woman's husband, son, male friend or date. Beatings and murders of women have increased phenomenally over the past five years. Terms like date rape, which I first heard in 1984, and gender violence, last year, are now being woven into our language.
The sanctuary of the home is becoming a myth. Sixty per cent of women murdered die at the hands of their partners. Twenty-five per cent of women had been sexually assaulted and abused, half before the age of 17, as reported by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
What of women who choose independent living? Do they feel safe living alone? At least 4 per cent of seniors are abused-and I am sure a good proportion of them are women too-by a family member at some time.
In 1989, 119 women were murdered by fists and knives, not by guns. And 75 per cent of the assailants were known. They happened at home, as reported by the December 1990 issue of the Canadian Forum.
I have heard of cases where young native women, hoping to escape abuse in the home, have turned to pregnancy and a subsequent welfare cheque as a means of escaping their homes and abuse. In fact, women on reservations and in remote aboriginal communities suffer a level of abuse that far exceeds the national level. They have nowhere to turn, nowhere to escape their abusers.
Fifty-two per cent of disabled women have been raped, assaulted or abused. This is truly a tragic commentary on our country. At least one in ten women is assaulted by her spouse or boyfriend.
The government has countered this flood of violence with its Family Violence Initiatives Program, a program that still falls short of delivering the solutions we need.
We must know the reasons behind the aggression of some men toward women. To understand the enemy, it has been said, is the best way to disarm the enemy.
Why does one man in ten assault his female partner? Who are these brutal men? They have to be accountable. What has led them to do the things they do? What are the best ways to help the victims of violence, most importantly? What more needs to be done?
Answers must be sought for these questions. The Minister of National Health and Welfare on February 20, 1991, in announcing the Family Violence Initiative, said in his opening statement: "I appeal for concerted national action on family violence".
In the previous December, I and many more of my Liberal colleagues called upon the government to create a royal commission on violence against women. We are asked: Why is there need for this commission? Let me attempt to answer that question.
First, I believe it will help Canadians to identify fully the spectrum of the causes of this grievous problem. On an individual basis we will know whether the poverty, insufficiency of income, unemployment, and poor education are related to insufficiency of government programs. We will also know whether they have the capacity to make a living, to buy a home and whether at times of crisis, illnesses, accidents, separation and divorce they have a transitional shelter to go to. We can examine whether as a society the government has been doing its job. Has the government been doing its job, for example, in the area of pornography trade and prostitution, just to mention one, that always is promoted on the backs of women who then become victims?
We will be able to ascertain the true magnitude of the problem. We will even be able to ascertain the age distribution in a very accurate way. Knowing the dimension of this problem will make us able to provide the proper approach-and it will give us a sense of the true gravity of this situation. It will tell us the nature of the problem, whether it is physical, sexual assault, psychological or even financial deprivation. It will tell us where violence occurs and what magnitude of that occurs in the homes, on the streets and even on school campuses. We will be able to examine the sequelae of this problem: The

y
March 13, 1991

immediate and the long-term. As the critic for health and welfare, I have discussed this issue with my associate critics, the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Mississauga. Truly, Mr. Speaker, when we imagine the sequelae of violence against women when they survive the physical violence, they end up having problems with alcohol and drug abuse, delinquency, prostitution, mental incapacitation and even suicide. When we fully appreciate the gravity of the problem, then perhaps this government will be compelled to truly take all the necessary steps.
We will be able to provide a comprehensive approach and not the piecemeal approach, and this is another value of a royal commission.
Last, Mr. Speaker, a royal commission during its process will be able to focus public awareness on this issue, sensitize Canadians, sensitize women as to the manifestations of violence, and even sensitize the media. The history of royal commissions on many other major issues in our country has taught us that great results have emanated from them.
We need great results to emanate from this proposed royal commission. It is worth an investment, Mr. Speaker. It is worth an investment. It will be a true signal lo Canadians that we are serious. It is wise and it is right and it is timely.



Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to interrupt before the minister gets started. There have been consultations among the three parties and at approximately five o'clock I was instructed to come in the House and ask for unanimous consent for two housekeeping motions, which I think you will find have been agreed to.
If I could read the first one:
That Chapter XIII of the Standing Orders of this House be amended by including the following paragraph:
Members of Standing, Special, Joint and Legislative committees shall give 24 hour prior notice of any substantive motion to the Chairman of their respective committees, before such motion may be considered.
Point of Order
And that this Order be deemed rescinded when the House
prorogues or alters the Standing Orders to cause a reorganization of
committees to occur, or when the forty-ninth Report of the Striking
Committee is adopted.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that, yes, there have been discussions, almost endless discussions, for many months now. This is part of a solution that will allow us to have some of our committees resume functioning, at least between now and when one of those three events occurs. And we do support it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that what the government whip indicates to us is correct. However, I have not had the opportunity to consult with our own representative on this issue and I am not apprised of it. If the House concurs I will endeavour in the next few minutes to ascertain that what is proposed by the government Whip is indeed what was agreed to. And I will come back to the Whip immediately after the discourse of the next member who is scheduled to speak.
If the House concurs with that, perhaps we could hold in abeyance approval of what has been proposed by the government Whip until the next speaker has terminated his or her remarks.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the deputy House leader on the other side left my office 20 minutes ago and it was at the request of that party that I was to do this around five o'clock. I don't know what has gone wrong, but people have other commitments.
I wonder if he could take my word for it that in fact the wording is exact, that it has been checked, that it has been in the hands of his party for quite some hours, that the House leader was involved, that the Whip was involved, and that that was the recommendation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the member is doing this with all good intentions, but I cannot pretend that I have heard-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope that you can come to agreement outside the House and when you do come in, I will be able to listen to it.
The hon. Minister of Health and Welfare has the floor on debate.

March 13, 1991
Supply


ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81 - VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Clancy (p. 18406).
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, when I came to the Department of National Health and Welfare I knew that family violence, and especially violence against women, was a serious problem in our culture, but I don't think I realized how deep and difficult a problem it would be to solve for each of us.
Many of our colleagues who have spoken in the debate before me have mentioned the ugly picture that is painted by statistics. They show that 10 per cent of women are assaulted by their male partners. We know that at least 25 per cent of girls are abused by the age of 16 and that about 60 per cent of the women murdered each year die at the hands of their partners.
These figures may well be conservative. Abused women are often too frightened to disclose the oppression they suffer. Experts estimate that the spoken or perceived threat of reprisal keeps more than half of the victims of abuse from speaking out and seeking help.
Violence against women is classic tyranny, and the tools of its perpetrators are entrapment, humiliation and intimidation. Victims of extreme cases become depersonalized, like survivors of other traumas. Efforts by victims to change the patterns of violence or to escape the offender are often met with increased threats of beatings and murder. The result is that women who have tried to escape and reorient their lives cannot be guaranteed safe haven in far too many cases.
Much of the violence against women takes place in the home. The family, the central unit of our society from which individuals gain their sense of security, compassion and self-esteem, is for many Canadian women a purgatory of rejection, manipulation and abuse. For far too many women, the family is experienced as a structure in which the supreme power of one over others is maintained through violence.
The abuse can be physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, or material. Some consequences of wife abuse, such as bruises and broken bones, are visible.
Shelter workers will attest to the pitiable condition in which some of their residents arrive, maimed and disfigured, when the violence they suffer finally drives them into hiding. Less evident, though often more severe, is the emotional and psychological damage the victims of wife abuse endure, wounds that never heal; terror and depression, hopelessness and isolation.
The reluctance of victims to speak about their abuse and the refusal of others to become involved creates a conspiracy of silence which protects the abuser. For far too long Canadians have been tempted to simply look away, to accept the brutal treatment of the innocent as someone else's problem, or to say that it is something that should be dealt with behind closed doors.
It is not someone else's problem. It belongs to all of us. If we simply look the other way, we are complicit in acts of violence which leave the victims intimidated, sexually assaulted, molested, beaten, tortured and, far too frequently, dead.
The question that begs a response is: What twisted logic makes some men think that they can abuse women? The answer is elusive, but clearly social values and conventions which do not assure equal rights and status to women, children and seniors make them vulnerable to violence in the family. Traditional views which deem men to be the head of their household, demand that women honour and obey their husbands, and insist that children be seen and not heard are major factors in the cultural permission that men feel when they channel their emotions through a tunnel of violence.
In the past, action to protect the victims of abuse, apprehend and punish the offenders, and address the root causes of family violence has been slow to evolve.
Women's groups have long stressed the importance of protection and shelter for battered women and their children. They have taken a leading role both in developing a response to the needs of the victims and in promoting general understanding of the nature of violence itself.
Their efforts have been fruitful and tireless, since the first shelter was opened in British Columbia in 1972. We now have over 300 shelters in Canada.
March 13, 1991

Point of Order
The late 1970s in Canada saw widespread legislative reform of family law, particularly matrimonial property law, aided by a new cohort of feminist lawyers working toward recognition of marriage as a partnership of equals.
Among the federal responses to the problem of family violence in the 1980s was the Badgely report in 1984 which examined the adequacy of laws designed to protect the vulnerable. On the basis of that report and for the first time in this country's history the government of Canada addressed family violence as a matter of national concern in the Speech from the Throne.

In 1986, the federal government launched a $25 million five-year Child Sexual Abuse program and, two years later, a $40 million four-year Family Violence Initiative.
We built new shelters. We learned how to train people to deal with family violence. We conducted research and learned a great deal about the extent and nature of violence against women.
We funded more than 700 projects, each of which had a practical and measurable objective. Under Project Haven, for instance, which is administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, up to 500 new shelter units are being created for abused women and their children.


POINT OF ORDER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. I have now consulted with my colleagues and I am pleased to offer the unanimous consent that was previously requested.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, there is a second motion that I would like to read to the House and I think there is a similar understanding:
That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 104 and 114, the Chief Government Whip may appoint one additional Government Member to the membership of the Standing Committee of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, by advising the Clerk of the House, in writing, before Monday March 18, 1991.
This Order shall be deemed rescinded when the House prorogues or alters the Standing Orders to cause a reorganization of committees to occur or when the forty-ninth report of the Striking Committee is adopted.
I believe there is a similar understanding and I would like to make comments once we have accepted it.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, yes, there has been consultation and we agree with the government.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, yes, there has been consultation on this motion as well and I think it is an excellent way around the particular dilemma we have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is my job to give notice to the Table and I do so now that we would like to have an organization meeting of the committee Monday at 3.30 p.m. I think it might be helpful to the members of the committee if, in the meantime, the clerk's office could make some approach to the citizen's forum about their availability because I suspect that that will be one of the items the committee would like to deal with some time next week.
I would also like to make a public commitment to the notion that the committee once up and running, obviously has a bit of a backlog, and if it met several times next week, certainly government members would be prepared to meet as frequently as necessary after the usual consultation between the three parties regarding suitable topics and witnesses.

March 13, 1991
Supply


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I actually want to rise on a point of personal privilege. Yesterday, in the heat of debate, I used some unparliamentary language which is found on the bottom of page 18327. I want to unequivocally withdraw those remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It has been withdrawn. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell my friend the government Whip that I understand and appreciate this turn of events. After yesterday's events in this Elouse, where I was partly responsible for raising the matter, I think we have now seen that common sense and lot of understanding prevails. I am very happy that consumer and corporate affairs will be reconvened on Monday to proceed with the examination of the whole question of the Spicer commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Now, can we get
back to debate. The hon. Minister of Health and Welfare.


ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81 - VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Clancy (p. 18406).
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is very gracious of you to recognize me again.

Mr. Speaker, the federal Women's Film Program was supported in its effort to produce and distribute films related to women's issues. The Disabled Women's Network was funded to conduct workshops with transition house staff, raising awareness about the vulnerability of women to abuse.
The Canadian Teacher's Federation was able to distribute to its member network the resource "Thumbs Down-A Classroom Response to Violence Against Women." And 56,000 Canadian physicians received a special adaptation of the Ontario Medical Association's "Reports on Wife Assault."
Today in every jurisdiction in Canada we have mechanisms to address family violence and our common efforts
have led us to loudly reaffirm a central value of our society-that violence, in any form, is unacceptable. We recognize that violence in Canada is a serious, pervasive and intolerable ill. Will recognize also that it is a national problem, one that will require nothing less than a national response if we are to succeed in a significant way. This is society's problem. No law or program enacted by government can make it disappear. What government can do, however, is to provide leadership and to help to mobilize the efforts of countless individuals, agencies and organizations to make a concerted and sustained effort to stop the suffering. Last month we did just that when we announced a new Family Violence Initiative, one designed to build on the experience of the past four years and to encourage new approaches and alliances.

Mr. Speaker, I listened earlier as my colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby mentioned in her remarks the fact that this new initiative on family violence would amount to $136 million in new funds, a figure that she dismissed as a mere drop in the bucket.
For the women who are suffering from family violence and for the others who are all too often its victims, this $136 million in new funds is important and welcomed news, indeed.
When members opposite denigrate the role of the federal government in dealing with issues related to family violence, they should be aware of the fact that through our contributions in health care, through our contributions through the Canada Assistance Plan, through direct spending we are making under the family violence program, we are spending, likely, in excess of a billion dollars a year to provide assistance to victims of family violence. That is an important contribution that is made by this Parliament and by the federal government.
I listened, but listened without success, to hear colleagues on the other side make suggestions for ways that we could be more effective in terms of targeting that money. I listened for concrete suggestions and new initiatives that could be taken and new ways in which we could assist the victims of family violence, or that we could intervene today to prevent the cycle of family violence from continuing for yet another generation.
March 13, 1991

What we have heard from the other side is two things: first, that we should simply be increasing the amount of money, that $136 million is trivial; and second, that instead of acting what we should be doing is studying.
I listened to my colleague and friend from Winnipeg as he gave his remarks a few minutes ago in calling for more study, as his colleagues did as well. Elow much more study is needed for us to recognize that all too often women and children are left in situations that are abusive because they have no place to go?
How much more study is needed before we recognize that family violence is part of a cycle that carries on from generation to generation and that it is essential for us to act now to break that cycle?
How much more study is needed before we recognize that there are problems all too often in our courts in an insensitivity to the needs of victims of family violence, or should we be acting now?
How much more study is needed before we come to the conclusion that policies in the past, that have required that women who have been abused in homes would have to lay the charges, were wrong and that police officers should be given instructions when they are called to domestic disputes that they should lay the charges? We do not need more study of that, we need action.
How much more study is needed before we are able to conclude that measures have to be taken to look at the portrayal of women and children in the media, to recognize the fact that all too often that portrayal diminishes their humanity, reduces their worth and allows them to be abused? Need we study that further, or can we act today to deal with this sort of a problem?
That is what the policy on family violence is designed to do. It is designed to build on the enormous reservoir of talent that there is in this country, on the commitment, which is growing at all levels in our society across Canada at all levels of government and throughout society, that recognizes that it is time today, not two years hence, but today for attitudes to change, for programs to be put in place, for all of us to recognize that this is society's problem and that all of us are involved. Let us not wait until later to do it, let us act now.
Supply
That is why that $136 million in new funds is so very important. That is why the other legislative initiatives that were disclosed in the Family Violence Program will be so important for Canadians as well because we can act today. We do have the data that we need to make significant progress and we will learn more. We will learn more from studies, there is no question about that, but there is no excuse for us not taking action today, action which will help to stem the suffering and the loss of life of far too many people.
The evidence is there. It is incontrovertible. It is powerful. The silent suffering of so many women across Canada implores us to take action at this level in this Parliament to provide leadership today and not years from now.

Mr. Speaker, if the strategy is to be successful it must serve as a catalyst for action, part of a series of initiatives at different levels of government and society which are needed to combat deeply rooted societal attitudes.
Consequently we undertook a massive series of consultations with provincial and territorial governments and the non-government sector. We consulted widely with all levels of government, women's groups, child advocacy organizations, senior's groups, front-line service providers, professional associations and researchers.
In June of 1989, we hosted a National Forum on Family Violence to identify major issues and suggest avenues for activity.
The result is a new program which will make available $136 million, in new funds, over the next four years, more than twice the level of funding currently committed by the federal government to address the problem of violence.
The federal strategy has three main objectives: to combat the attitudes and stereotypes that encourage and excuse this senseless violence, to ensure that the brutal people who commit these acts are called to account, and, most importantly, to provide help to the innocent victims who, all too often, are asked to bear their cruel burden in silence.
Through the initiative the Government will strengthen intervention and treatment services by training RCMP recruits, and the staffs of Correctional Services Canada

March 13, 1991
Supply
and the National Parole Board to better understand the patterns of violence faced by women.
Training materials will be developed and supported for judges, physicians, nurses and social workers-both those who appear in court and those who work on the front lines. Of major urgency, availability of housing for victims will be substantially improved. Treatment will be provided to violent and sexual offenders in all 60 federal correctional institutions.

Today in Vancouver my colleague, the Minister of Justice, is announcing the government's plans to review provisions of the Criminal Code, the Divorce Act and other legislation with regard to pornography, the adequacy of current bail provisions and the forcible removal of offenders from the home. This is action which should be taken now to begin this and not waiting until later.
Within my own department we will fund community projects designed to treat and prevent abuse, train physicians and social workers, collect and disseminate information and conduct research and evaluation. The national clearing house on family violence will receive an almost fourfold budgetary increase, enabling it to build upon existing resources and improve public access to its materials.
We will continue our support to the National Film Board family violence collection, a collection of videos which have been seen by 8.5 million Canadians. We are not waiting until later, this is action that needs to be taken now.
In consultation with aboriginal communities, we will train 2,000 health care and social service workers serving Indian reserves and Inuit communities, relying upon their help to develop prevention programs in over 500 communities.
Undoubtedly, the most important element of this initiative is to serve as a catalyst for all of society to mobilize its resources to pull together to deal with this issue. It is not a federal government issue; it is a national problem in which all of us-governments, the private sector, voluntary agencies and individuals-must share together. All must work together. All of us must mobilize what resources we can find to deal with the problem that is pervasive, that cuts across all demographic and geographic lines in our society and a problem which
causes suffering and, in too many instances, death on the part of its innocent victims.
That is the plea that I make today to members of the Flouse: not to put things off until later, not to say that we do not have enough information to know that this problem is pervasive or to know that there are measures we can take today to begin to bring down the level of this violence, but for us all to work with all sectors of society starting today, to mobilize those resources, to change attitudes, to begin to ensure that the human worth and dignity of every Canadian is respected and to begin to bring down that level of violence in our society and to ensure that those people who suffer the senseless violence receive the aid and assistance that they so desperately need.
By working together, we can do precisely that. No issue is more fundamental for this Parliament, no issue more demands action today than that we work together on this. Studies, yes; studies will continue. But it is essential that we commit ourselves today to acting today before more innocent victims have to suffer for our failures.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I begin my comment with a sincere apology to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is quite clear that I obviously used words which the minister did not understand in my speech. I apologize for that.
I cannot believe that anything other than a misunderstanding could give rise to what I find to be unacceptable in the minister's tone and in his speech. I cannot believe that the members on this side of the House or, indeed, on his side of the House would denigrate the question of violence against women.
I do not think I, my colleagues in the Liberal Party or in the New Democratic Party have ever tried to take that kind of a shot at the minister. I am sure that one of us is misunderstanding the other here. If it happens to be me, then I certainly apologize.
I want to ask the minister a couple of questions. First of all, he says that this is a national problem. I could not agree more. Of course, it is a national problem. He talks about co-operation among all sectors, and I agree with that as well. I hope that means that the minister is talking to his friends in business, in the professions and in other parts and sectors of this society. I would like to
* [DOT]
March 13, 1991

know about that because as yet, if he is doing so, he is not getting much of a response.
I would like to know what the minister thinks is the root cause or causes of violence against women. For weeks we have been sitting in the violence against women subcommittee and hearing that we do not know what the actual causes are. Yes, there are the indicators of alcoholism; yes, there are the indicators of economic stress; yes, there are indicators of dysfunctional families and so on. There are others who do not fall into these categories.
I know the minister to be an intelligent man. I know the minister to be a compassionate man. What we are calling for here is concrete action today.
I said in my speech earlier that I believe the initiatives announced several weeks ago were in good faith. I am not going to get into a numbers game with the minister, but $136 million given the cuts that came the following week is one tiny example.
Second stage housing was cut by $23.6 million. Laudable. That is one building per province if we do not count the territories. At the same time, the government cuts $411 million to government subsidized housing.
Where I come from, they call that "robbing Peter to pay Paul". I do not think it is robbing Mike to pay Perrin. At any rate, I want to know, if the minister thinks that we are not advocating action in a royal commission, what he has to say about the fact that none of his $136 million is going directly to transition houses when 50 per cent of women are turned away every year.
I want to know what he thinks about the fact that Project Haven has spent barely a third of its budget and it is almost at the end of its program life. Women's groups across the country which work in the field of abused women are complaining that they cannot access this money. When I asked this minister two weeks ago if programs for judges and police in this country would be mandatory, he would not answer me.
I want to know, today: Will they be mandatory? Those judges who go voluntarily do not need the courses. It is those who will not go. He asked for concrete suggestions, and we said: "a royal commission". I repeat that it is not either/or. We need a royal commission and we need direct services.
Supply
Come to our committee, I tell him, Mr. Speaker, through you, and hear what the front line workers are saying. Stop these pious platitudes. Stop the band-aid responses, give us real action and ask the Prime Minister to do it today.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says: "Stop the band-aid response of $136 million and legislative responses in changing legislation to try to deal with this problem. Sensitize people to try to make sure that this sort of abuse does not exist any more. Have concrete action", which is to study the problem further.
I do not think that that is a very constructive suggestion to make. What we need from members participating in this debate on both sides of the House is proposals for action. Study, yes.
My colleague, the Minister of State for the Status of Women has made it clear that we will be inviting from the subcommittee on the status of women suggestions on how best to proceed in terms of further work. One of those recommendations made by the subcommittee may well deal with the question of a royal commission.
What we need today is action today, where the information is before us today as to what the problem is. There is a broad range of information on that.


Mary Catherine Clancy: How much money for transition houses, Perrin?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member mentions transition houses. I am glad she did that because she has systematically, since the announcement was made a couple of weeks ago, given information that simply was not accurate.
Either already built or committed to be built are in the neighbourhood of 440 units of housing under Project Haven. If the hon. member had checked her facts she would have found that. In addition to that, some $21 million will be added to the budget of CMHC to provide for additional housing, much of it second-stage housing.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Second stage.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member dismisses this again as unimportant. Where do these people go after the first two weeks that they spend in the transition house? Where do they go?

March 13, 1991
Supply
We will be putting money directly in to providing assistance to enable people to set up homes that people can go to to become re-established in the community. We will be continuing to do what we can to broaden the services available for women who suffer from this sort of abuse all too often.
Had the hon. member, before she made comments that were ill-informed and which were just plain wrong, taken the trouble to inquire of CMHC or of National Health and Welfare we would have been glad to give her that information. But this should be much more than a partisan issue, it should be an issue which transcends partisanship, and on all sides of the House there should be a commitment for us to work together today, not later but today, to deal with an issue which is causing far too many people to suffer.
The hon. member asked whether I misunderstood the comments that she made in the House. I would refer her to comments that were made by one of her colleagues who talked about the need for studies so we can set priorities on the $136 million. We do not need to put it off, we need action.


Mary Catherine Clancy: What about the 50 per cent?


Henry Perrin Beatty: What is important today is that we do have the information that we need to know that housing is important. We know that we need to have intervention, that offenders need treatment. We know that all too often women and children are taken out of the houses and the abuser remains behind afterward. We know, today, that the portrayal of women and children in the media all too often create the conditions in which violence is possible. We know that this is a problem which is not going to go away and that it requires that each of us commit ourselves today to working together to redress this problem before it becomes worse.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I, too, take offence at the tone of the minister's remarks in relation to comments and speeches that have been made in the House. I, too, agree that this is not a partisan issue. It is in fact an issue of women's lives and women's very survival in our country. It is not a partisan issue.
Women from every economic sector are battered and beaten, not just poor women. I, too, wonder if the minister listened or heard. Perhaps he listened and did
not hear the comments that have been made here today, because the comments that were made gave concrete suggestions to the minister and to the government on steps that can be taken right now, immediately.
We did not just ask for research, we asked for action on this issue. When he talks about Project Haven, a program that was announced before the last election that was to provide 500 new beds in shelters for battered women, the fact is at this time, 1991, not even one-third of them have been completed and they have not all been allocated, and I have checked with CMHC.
The minister mentioned that the Minister of Justice had a press conference today. Again, it sounds like another press conference about the same initiatives. Did she announce that there will be mandatory gender-sensitivity training for the judiciary, for judges and for police officers? Did the Minister of Justice announce that in Vancouver today as the communication that I have had with her has asked her to do, as the communication of women has asked her to do? Did the Minister of Justice make that announcement today in Vancouver?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that this should not be a partisan issue and that perhaps I did not hear what she had to say earlier.
I did hear what she had to say earlier as she dismissed a commitment of $136 million of new funds as, in her words, a drop in the bucket or as, my colleague from Halifax repeats, peanuts.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Peanuts.


Henry Perrin Beatty: This, she says, is peanuts or a drop in the bucket. They dismissed over a billion dollars being put by the federal government into dealing with issues related to this sort of violence, a billion dollars a year or more than that going into the Canada Assistance Plan and EPF to assist victims of violence, in addition to the sort of money we are talking about here. That is to be dismissed.
If we are to be successful in dealing with this sort of an issue, it is important that we mobilize all of the resources at all levels of society. The federal government is showing a range of initiatives here that we have already announced. What we are doing is building on initiatives
March 13, 1991

already in place and on partnerships which have already been developed to enable us-


Mary Catherine Clancy: You are building on sand.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member from Halifax says that we are building on sand. We are building on sand, she says, when we are giving assistance to social workers for training to deal with issues of family violence. We are building on sand, she says, when we are giving training, for example, to police officers. There are some 500 of them going through the RCMP academy each year.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Is it mandatory?


Henry Perrin Beatty: We are building on sand, she says, when we are building housing units for victims of violence. We are building on sand, she says, when we give money to community groups to enable them to provide services to victims of violence.
I do not believe we are building on sand. I believe that we are building on a bedrock of co-operation which will have profound effects in improving the quality of life for Canadians.


Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this debate, the opposition has been saying the government is indifferent or seems to be indifferent to the problems facing women. Mr. Speaker, it so happens we are very much aware of what the government is doing to deal with the disastrous effects of violence against women.
Perhaps the minister could expand somewhat on the program he announced a few weeks ago, a program that in my opinion is taking great strides towards eliminating violence against women.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, indeed I would be glad to do that.
What we have done is take an initiative which involves some six different departments of government. It is a designed deal at the criminal level with people who are abusers. It is designed to ensure that there are services made available to offenders to try to train them and to try to rehabilitate them. It is designed to provide assis-
Supply
tance to people who suffer from family violence. It is designed to build partnerships with groups in the private sector, non-governmental organizations, to work together to try to change attitudes and to provide services. It is designed to activate networks at the provincial and local levels, which can be important in terms of making people more aware of when family violence occurs and how to deal with it. It is designed to build upon services through police officers, Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board to ensure that offenders guilty of family violence either receive the treatment that is necessary or that measures are taken to ensure that their victims are properly protected from them.
It is designed to look at issues which all too often take a woman and children who have been abused out of the home and leave the abuser still in the home, with them losing both their whole way of life and their home.
Through this concerted action we are confident that we can have an important impact on the level of violence from which far too many women in this society suffer.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the member for Halifax on proposing this motion today.
We have gone through a period of time over recent weeks and months, in which the attention of virtually all Canadians was glued to one issue and almost nothing else. Of course I am referring to the war in the Persian Gulf. In that period of time other issues that we could have and perhaps even should have been talking about were not raised as much as they could have been.
That does not mean to say that everyone in public office or even advocacy groups did not do their jobs. Even in instances when very important issues were raised, the attention of the media and Canadians generally was focused in another direction. To a degree, raising important issues that should have received much attention was sometimes like whistling in the wind.
Our colleague from Halifax reminds us today of an important topic that indeed should have been raised in the House before and has been raised in the House before by her and others. She has been very vigilant in raising issues involving family violence, and more particularly violence against women. A few weeks ago she raised criticism involving the minister's initiative. She

March 13, 1991
Supply
has questioned the government on several occasions, and I congratulate her for that.

Mr. Speaker, the subject before the House today is a sad one. I think it is appropriate that both men and women are speaking to this issue in the House today. We are talking about violence against women, but we are also talking about the violence perpetrated by men against women. Of course, in most cases when we talk about violence in this connection, we are talking about violence by men against women, and that is what we are talking about today.
I am not proud of the fact, Mr. Speaker, and think it should be repeated over and over again, in this House and elsewhere, until such time that men, both collectively and individually, realize that violence against women is unacceptable and that it must stop.

As late as the end of the last century, women, once married, were considered to be chattels of their husbands, a form of property. Perhaps some of that mindset is regrettably still there among some people today, treating indeed their wife or partner or significant other, however one wants to put it, as being their property.
The issue in question has been studied a lot. The minister has referred to that. However, if it has been studied so successfully and if all has been done, why is the problem still there? Why is the problem still there in the numbers and magnitude that we know that it is? Obviously we do not have all the answers. I would like to think that if the minister had all the answers he could have given us all the solutions. If any of us had all the answers we could have provided all the solutions and the problem would be gone. But it is not; the problem is still there in very large numbers.
In my previous incarnation in politics, if I may put it that way, when I was a member of the Ontario legislature, I was the social policy spokesperson for our party. We had a study by the Ontario legislature committee on social development, on violence against women. Day after day we listened to testimony from women's groups, even on occasion from battering husbands. There were days in which the evidence was virtually impossible to listen to. There were days on which I had to walk out of
the committee room several times during the deliberations because it was just so awful to hear.
It is almost a decade ago. As a matter of fact, as I look now at the calendar in front of us on the clerks' table, I notice that we are only six days away from my 10th anniversary of my election to Queen's Park, March 19, 1981. It was shortly after that that we had this study. Ten years have gone by, or close to it, and yet the problem is still there.
I do not accept the minister's argument that the request of my colleague from Halifax is unreasonable. I do not accept his comment that we have all the answers now and that there is no need to have this royal commission.
I am paraphrasing his words earlier. He said: "We don't need to study the issue further. We can act today". If that is true, I will have to back up one day and pretend we are on March 12, 1991 and say that if we could act today, why did we not act yesterday or the day before? Presumably if as of half an hour ago the minister had all those answers that he was referring to, he must have had them for sometime. He must have had them yesterday or a week ago or at some other period of time.
I am not blaming the minister in the sense that I hold him responsible for the violence that exists. That would be unfair and untrue, but I do blame the minister for that attitude of saying that we do not need to revisit this issue again and to study it further.
I am the first one to criticize expenditures on government use or sometimes overuse of royal commissions on a variety of issues. I can say as an opposition critic on government expenditures that I certainly would not criticize the principle of having such an expenditure now. The issue is of such import that all members of the House should join together and request that royal commission by the government.
It is my hope that the government, notwithstanding the remarks only moments ago of the minister, will undertake such a study on family violence and violence against women particularly.
As I indicated to you a little earlier, Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with our colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. With that I will end my comments and I will look forward to the contribution by my colleague from Cape Breton-East
March 13, 1991

Richmond who is the former critic of this very important issue for our caucus.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to remind my colleague that in the previous Parliament the government did take the first step concerning family violence.
I do not know whether he remembers that. The first step has been made. The government has decided to give priority to this matter and continue to take action.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I fully agree with the minister's position. Perhaps I should draw my colleague's attention to last Sunday's Martine Corriveau editorial in Le Soldi entitled "No more commissions of inquiry".
She was referring to the request made by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women to have such a commission appointed. She said about this request that "the least one can say is that it lacks originality and raises suspicions".
I will not read the whole editorial, but she went on to say: "If we are to review past experiences, analyze current data, consult university research projects and explore new ways of intervening, there are procedures lest costly and probably more effective than referring the issue to an inquiry commission, royal though it might be".
We need evidence and opinions? Why not use the very simple tools available to the first human democracies, such as informal meetings, genuine citizens' forums, sectorial sessions chaired by advocacy people from various fields of activities in each county, each region, and each province?
She concluded that "the millions of dollars saved could be used to reduce the deficit, eliminating one cause of economic violence against Canadian society as a whole".
Mr. Speaker, what I want to know from my colleague is how, at a time when we seek to give priority to measures designed to reduce violence, would we proceed with a study which would only delay any action we might take to repress violence?
Supply


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first of all those two initiatives are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why Parliament cannot undertake this royal commission and at the same time continue all those those great programs that the hon. member refers to.
Finally, the member has said that she has an editorial that proves her point. I can table a similar editorial that proves the exact opposite point. This one is from the Daily News of Friday, March 1, 1991 entitled "We need a royal commission on violence against women". One editorial does not the truth make.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in the short time that I have I do want to be on the record in support of my colleague from Halifax who has called upon the government to commission a royal commission with regard to the violence against women.
It was approximately 15 months ago that a troubled young man, full of blind hatred and unfounded fears and armed with a semi-automatic rifle, marched into the Ecole Polytechnique at the University of Montreal. The cold, insane reality of that day saw him go after young women in the hallways and classrooms of the engineering school last December 6 and trumpeting his rage brutally cut down 14 young, innocent female students.
Surely those young women, in the fleeting moments of their lives, must have felt a fear that men my age and perhaps your age, Mr. Speaker, cannot fully appreciate or understand.
It is the fear that a woman feels when she is walking from her in a dark and lonely underground parking garage and hears the hollow sound of footsteps close behind. It is the fear a woman feels when late at night her husband or boyfriend comes home drunk, angry, full of violence and unrepentant rage. It is the fear a woman feels when she is walking alone on a quiet sidewalk in the chilly early evening and sees her own shadow cast by the street lights being overtaken by someone else's presence. It is a fear that seizes you in the stomach and it is a fear marked by terror and by tears.
But violence against women is much more, much more than a lone gunman stalking the hallways of a school or a rapist lurking in the shadows of a quiet street. Violence against women occurs everywhere: at the work place, in the home and on the street. It can occur unfortunately at any time.

March 13, 1991
Supply
The attacker can be wearing jeans and a tee-shirt or outfitted in a dark grey flannel suit. Sometimes the abuse is between a husband and a wife and sometimes it is the corporate executive who earns $80,000 a year.
I will give an example. There is the man who picked up his wife of 32 years at the restaurant where she had worked and said he had to take her to a lawyer's office to sign the divorce papers. Instead, he took her to an isolated field, killed her and then he killed himself.
There is the young woman, the young mother and her little boy. I defended individuals such as these. They were both very much alone, getting ready to move out after five months of living in a shelter for battered women. You can picture it, Mr. Speaker. The room is filled almost to the ceiling with green plastic garbage bags that contain their clothes and other belongings. But they have courage, confidence in a new start and growing hope for a better life.
Finally, in those two moments that I have, sometimes the abuse is rape.
It is the 16-year old girl, just an average person, a so-so athlete and a mediocre student but friendly and outgoing. She loves being with her friends, listening to a few tunes and partying on the weekend. But one Friday night she is out at a party and the parents are not at home. What starts out as a handful of young people hanging out in the family room, gathered around the
stereo, turns into a crowd of over 100 teenagers and young adults. There is beer, hard liquor and cheap wine.
The 16-year old girl has agreed to have a drink, and the drinks keep coming. In the early morning hours she is dragged upstairs to a bedroom by three or four of the older boys, boys she does not go to school with, boys she does not even know. She does not know what is happening to her. She is raped and she passes out. She is left all alone in a strange room until sometime later in the day when she can find her own way home.
It happens, Mr. Speaker. It happens all too often.
When I see the list of organizations in this country that have called for a royal commission on violence against women, from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women-and I want to table this list with my remarks-I cannot see any justification in any government, regardless of one's partisan political affiliation, for not having a royal commission which can thoroughly discuss the issues and, more important, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you would agree as a father and a husband, and I as a father of two girls, would want to know the real causes of family violence against women.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being after six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 14, 1991