Debates of Dec. 6th, 1994

Violence Against Women

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

No parole?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No, but we will discuss this in committee. I am the one who proposed-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The time has expired.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this matter today.

Geneviève Bergeron, Hélèn Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Havernick, Barbara Marta Klucknik, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie

St-Arnault and Annie Turcotte. These are the names of the 14 women whose lives were needlessly extinguished at the Ècole Polytechnique five years ago.

It has always bothered me that the name of their assailant comes more readily to mind than theirs. Today and every future December 6 is now designated as Canada's national day of remembrance and action to end violence against women. Ceremonies, vigils and public actions will focus public awareness on the many far-reaching implications of violence against women. These involve the social, psychological and economic well-being of women, men and children across society and across Canada.

Tonight in my city of London a monument memorializing the 14 women and others who are victims of violence is being unveiled. The monument is inscribed: "The London Women's Monument was dedicated on December 6, 1994, the fifth anniversary of the Montreal massacre. It is a place to remember and reflect on violence, particularly violence against women, and all women and men who work to end it".

Women's rights are human rights. We must acknowledge that violence against women is often a byproduct of gendered social inequality and can be a rejection of women's progressive empowerment.

Change can be led by governments but the most effective change begins with individuals. All men and women can make a personal commitment to the principle of zero tolerance, that no amount of violence is acceptable and that women's safety is a priority. As individuals we can focus more on co-operation instead of competition.

Earlier today the four federal and provincial female London politicians, representing three different political parties, issued a joint statement speaking out against violence against women. Violence against women is a social issue, even though many see it only as a political issue.

As individuals we can decide not to laugh at women-hating jokes, just as we do not laugh at racial slurs. Violence against women is not a funny issue. As individuals we can listen and discuss women's experiences, their fears and the equality barriers they face. It is still much more comfortable to be dismissive or to trivialize the alarming statistics which we have now compiled. Denial has never solved problems. It is time now to speak out and challenge any tolerance of violence or sexist behaviour.

Where possible, individuals can give financial or political support to services for victims and survivors. Individuals can volunteer at local transition homes and rape crisis shelters and be supportive of municipal, provincial, federal and non-government initiatives in their own neighbourhoods and cities. Violence against women robs women of their self-esteem, their dignity and in too many cases it robs them of their life.

Since Statistics Canada conducted its first national survey on violence against women in 1993, which was the first of its kind worldwide, the gravity of the situation has been brought to light. According to this survey, as many as 51 per cent of Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. Almost 45 per cent of all women experienced violence by men known to them, their dates, boyfriends, marital partners, friends, family, their neighbours.

A woman is shot every six days in Canada. Firearms are the weapon of choice for spousal homicides. During the period between 1974 and 1992, 42 per cent of the women killed by their spouses were shot. As shattering as these statistics are they only account for part of the problem since Statistics Canada defines violence as experiences of physical or sexual assault. It does not touch upon other dimensions of violence to which many women are subjected.

Three other areas identified in the 1993 report "Changing the Landscape: Ending Violence-Achieving Equality" are psychological violence, being violence that encompasses various tactics to undermine a woman's self-confidence; financial violence whereby a woman's access to employment or investment opportunities are curtailed by a partner or family member; and spiritual abuse in which cultural and religious beliefs are destroyed through ridicule or punishment. A wide range of indicators give evidence that this societal ill is pervasive and systemic.

As a result women from all walks of life are targets of various acts of violence. Not only are the causes and the forms of violence against women extremely insidious but so too are their effects. Violence scars not only women but also the children and the men around them. It marks the body but also deeply wounds the mind and the spirit of those affected.

As a result of having been abused a woman's physical and/or mental health may be at stake. Her chances of advancement in her working life may be jeopardized and her interpersonal skills generally deteriorate.

As well as having these devastating effects on the women concerned, such violence is proven to seriously destabilize the children who witness it. Boys who are brought up in an abusive household are more likely to become violent fathers and girls are more likely to become victims at the hands of their future partners. In fact women with violent fathers-in-law are three times more at risk than those women with non-violent fathers-in-law. We have to stop these cycles.

As in other issues such as poverty and crime there will never be one Utopian legislative effort. There are no magic wands that can instantly eradicate the scourge of violence against women.

As with all complex issues there must be interdisciplinary approaches.

First, we must state what we stand for. Canada has done this internationally by initiating the UN declaration on the elimination of violence against women which was adopted in December 1993. For the first time internationally we have the appointment of a United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women who will report to the United Nations Commissioner of Human Rights starting March 1995.

Next we look at all levels of government agendas and incorporate concrete concepts that will move us toward the goal of ending violence against women. This will of necessity include increased public education.

Last April the Department of Canadian Heritage collaboratively launched a three year radio and television campaign on violence in society. In October 1994 the court challenges program was reinstated to ensure funding for legal cases of national significance which clarify equality and language rights under Canada's Constitution.

The sentencing reform bill is now being studied in committee which would assist in providing different options to deal with crime, including violence.

Earlier this year in the House I spoke on another bill with more than 100 amendments to the Criminal Code, including provisions that would make peace bonds more effective. For example, police officers will be able to apply for peace bonds on behalf of the women at risk.

The National Crime Prevention Council was established in July 1994. It will address women's vulnerability to crime as part of its mandate.

I believe that the firearms control being introduced will also effect safety in our homes and in our streets. A national firearms registry, the banning of certain firearms, including the one used in the Montreal massacre, and more flexible prohibition orders, will benefit women and should save lives.

Last June the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women adopted the Regina declaration on the rights of women subjected to violence which calls on the justice system to ensure the equal protection of women subjected to violence. In the same month the federal justice minister, the federal health minister and the Secretary of State for the Status of Women held a consultation with women's groups on the issue of violence against women. Further consultation will continue. I believe that it must be ongoing if we are to succeed in overcoming this problem.

I am grateful that members of this House have been offered this opportunity to speak on the issue today.

My wish and my hope is that the sentiments expressed within this House today will carry us forward each and every day in our jobs as legislators so that we are ever mindful of the situation of women who experience violence in Canada. I believe we are progressing and I am grateful for that. However, there is much that can still be done.

I hope that individual Canadians listening today will continue to do their part in their homes, in their communities, and in our ridings.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair views this as a very serious debate and would indicate that I recognized a member earlier who was in fact not on the list. I had misread the list and recognized the hon. member from the Bloc and gave him the floor which I should not have done.

I was told that there was an agreement between the two parties. Because I made a mistake, the Official Opposition is now willing to let four Liberals speak one after the other. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that, with this agreement, all the members who want to do so will speak this afternoon. I now recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from a woman in my riding by the name of Sally. Sally has given me permission to make her letter public. Sally's letter speaks to the impact of violence on women and the resulting poverty they face. The letter was prepared for our Campaign 2000 meeting. Campaign 2000 is an umbrella organization comprised of many drawn together to fight child poverty.

"My name is Sally and I am the independent parent of two little girls. I am also a financially challenged recipient of family benefits. While I am grateful for the assistance I receive, I will say that I have become discouraged by the system's lack of insight and insensitivity to the roadblocks faced by myself and others on the road to financial independence.

"When I first became aware of Campaign 2000, the word poverty was a difficult one to envision in relation to my situation. Visions of starving children in third world countries leapt to mind. However, over time it has become increasingly difficult for me to meet my children's needs and systems and bureaucrats turn deaf ears in a country such as Canada. I have come to the brutal realization that I do indeed fall far below the poverty line.

"In making the decision to leave an extremely abusive situation and needing to enter a woman's shelter, my life and that of my children changed abruptly two years ago, now reduced to relying on a system where $1,028 per month is to cover living expenses being accommodation, phone and utilities. Clothing and feeding myself and my two daughters becomes a hard lesson in the realities of life for far too many children in Canada. Food bank? I can only go once a month if I

can get transportation. So, why not get a job? I have tried, but unfortunately I live in a rural area where one opening at a local store gets over 300 applications. Tough competition for a stay at home mom out of the workforce for seven years.

"Add in the problems of transportation and day care of an affordable nature and the picture becomes bleaker. So why not get some upgrading? Better your education. Again the obstacles of transportation, day care and waiting lists loom large.

"Support? For two years now I have struggled with a system of lawyers, legal aid and the family support person in trying to get some financial relief for my daughters. After this period I have succeeded in having $22,000 in legal aid liens placed against my home and an agreement from my husband to pay $100 a month support, that is $50 per child. Since this agreement in June of this year has been in effect and in spite of the fact that he makes $50,000 per year, I have not received any support from him.

"This person is also on probation for uttering death threats. Two provisions of his probation are (1) he must maintain his dependents. He has failed to do this. I have spoken with lawyers and his probation officer to try and enlist their help but my words fall on deaf ears.

"A second provision of his probation order is that he must seek and maintain employment. I'm now told he was laid off when he requested help from his probation officer in getting some relief. Despite that fact he still is seen at his work daily and despite that if he is in fact unemployed, that is the second breach of his probation. Still nothing is done.

"A third provision of his probation is that he remain 300 metres away from myself and my residence. He repeatedly breaks this provision. I have been again to his probation officer. I have been to her supervisor. I was told by a police officer that I was fabricating lies and thrown out of the police station by this officer. The police have been to my home repeatedly. One of the officer's comment was that until someone shows up with a bullet hole there's nothing that we can do.

"If you are wondering what the third provision has to do with poverty and the plight of my children, I'll tell you. The financial strain of repairing busted doors, windows, plumbing that's been drilled and cut, slashed tires, having a crowbar taken to the side of my vehicle and numerous other acts of vandalism begins to take its toll.

"The police have recommended doorbolts and deadlocks, expensive outdoor sensor lights. Well, for that you need money and hydro. A year ago in April after being unable to meet a payment deadline, the hydro to my home had been disconnected. It still remains so. Hydro tax-rolled my bill after running an original $800 bill up to over $1,700 with service charges and late payment charges. They also charged me for having their line and a hot water heater even though they cut their service off. They still come every three months to read a meter I no longer have and then service charge me.

"It was also explained to me that if I ever wanted Ontario Hydro back, I would pay for the lines to be reconnected plus they would require a $1,600 deposit. I would have phoned their head office, but in July of that same year Bell disconnected my phone for a $50 bill, despite the fact that they had required a $200 deposit from me, despite the fact that at that time I was in a women's shelter while the trial was going on against my husband. While he was out on bail he left his probation officer's office and came to my home to once again threaten my children and myself.

"In June of this year I received a call from the bank. Due to my husband's refusal to sign the mortgage renewal despite the court order that allowed me to reside in my home and add the fact that I'm on family benefits, I was told I had 30 days to vacate, despite the fact that I have faithfully paid the mortgage, taxes and now the hydro arrears. Another lawyer, another bill. I have one year to get this straightened out. Time is running out.

"I rely on your imagination and empathy to realize what effect all this has had on my two little girls. I say those magic words social assistance and watch human decency and respect fly out the window. Buy a car? Home improvement loan? Start a business? I can hear the bank manager's laughter still ringing in my ears. I almost gave up there and then.

"But I am here tonight because I owe it to my children to keep trying and hopefully one day someone will listen and changes will be made so my two daughters and all the other children in this nation of plenty will have a bright future.

"Thank you for listening".

It is my understanding that Sally is now in hiding away from her abusive and very violent husband. I hope that somehow someone will be able to get these words to her so she will know that her story has been told on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a very touching story. It is upsetting to me because it shows that the proper laws are not in place to protect this person or that they are not enforced. Either case is totally unacceptable.

The member should let the justice minister know this is totally unacceptable and demand that either the proper laws are put in place or that the laws that are there are enforced. I would like the member to comment on that.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that in Sally's letter she has outlined a number of situations of institutional abuse.

It is very difficult when women are placed in this situation and they go to those people they feel should be protecting them, for example the police, and their charges are dismissed. They are told they are troublemakers. Part of the problem with this has to do with overall societal attitude.

The Minister of Justice is very sensitive to these issues. I have heard members opposite say that we should be concerned about violence against all people. I totally agree with that but somehow violence against women is a special category and they are being made a special interest group.

We have to understand that until we address the issue of violence against women as a particular kind of violence and the kinds of intimidation it creates for an entire group within this society, namely women, we will never be able to address the problems of institutional abuse. No matter how good our laws are unless the attitudes, the understanding and the sensitivities that are related to this very complex and devastating issue are understood these matters will not be addressed.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on this national day of remembrance and action to end violence against women I believe we should not only remember this act once a year but throughout the year.

This House is well apprised of the statistics relating to the violence and abuse against women. These numbers represent those incidents which have been reported, the ones we know about. However, the number of violent and abusive incidents which have not been reported are even more frightening. It is a tidal wave which must be abated.

When safe houses must be established in urban areas and police must begin escorting women to their homes to claim sometimes only the clothing on their backs or to visit their children, then it is a sad testimony to the state of relationship deterioration between men and women as well as the new face that family life in Canada is taking. When we must stand up in this House and legislate against indecent abnormal behaviour then the time has come for action not only on the part of government but also individuals and corporations, all who live within our communities.

Violence is not some strange enigma which explodes from the ground in random procession. Its seeds are planted carefully years and even generations in advance. The images of violence children are exposed to on television and in society at large and the subsequent lessons they learn from parents sets in motion a cycle of learning aggressive behaviour which is as precise as clockwork.

If through this cycle we instil in our children a low sense of self-worth or never help them to build a sense of self-esteem their lives are threatened. This is extremely counterproductive and increasingly dangerous as they grow older and develop intimate relationships because under the threat of having self-worth challenged they will either withdraw or lash out. Unfortunately more often than not the males in society are prone to lashing out with anger while females tend to withdraw.

More often than not pressures are exerted from poverty, communication breakdown, community decay, alcohol and drug abuse, barrages of messages in the media to possess or acquire material goods in order to be relegated upward from a non-person status. All of these contribute to the already overwhelming pressures of rearing children and making choices in this day and age.

All too often the metaphor that when soldiers are not fighting on the front they are fighting in the camps can be applied to this appalling situation of violence against women and children. Many good decent people who start off in a relationship with the best of intentions end up watching with shock and horror as their relationship decays into verbal and physical abuse as individuals either lash out with threats or actual violence.

Why is this? The pressures of everyday life and finances draw a family's attention away from its primary goal: the establishment of family, roots and future to each other's personal performance and contribution in the relationship. When self-esteem is challenged there is either a withdrawal into separation and divorce or again lashing out in anger.

It is not the function and purpose of this government to interfere in the personal lives of Canadians. However, I believe we have a responsibility and we must make a conscious choice for the future on behalf of the family and on behalf of women and children specifically.

Programs and policies must be developed which provide not only for zero tolerance but also give teeth that will allow law enforcement to implement changes. This must be set as a last resort for those who cross the line, who choose not only to brutalize but to exploit women and children as well.

We must also change our view and our bias of interpersonal relationships. The laws we write must encourage protection of both the immediate and extended families. We must allow for dealing with potential abuse through caring professionals. A sense of community and personal accountability must be developed in the inner cities.

Finally, we must not only begin to communicate but we must also listen. I would venture to say that the 63 women who were murdered in 1993 fell prey to a person who was already in a state of detachment and isolation. If only there had been in existence a network of people with whom these spouses could talk openly

and honestly about their situation. We know that open and honest communication is not a prelude to murder.

Again there must be communication in our society not only among our peers but outside our comfort zone as well. Parents must start talking to their children, grandparents with grandchildren, men with women, and labour with management.

I fear that if the tide does not turn on this problem, if we do not start honestly communicating in a fashion that will solve rather than dissolve our relationships, then we as a society will be so distrustful that our internal growth will cease and Canadian families will continue to perish and die.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on my colleague's excellent articulation. I thank her for her thoughts. I would like to share a few of my thoughts by way of comment.

Violence against women in a real sense is an insult to life. It is an indignity to our core Canadian values. As well it is a challenge to peace, order and good government.

The incidents mentioned are staggering, but the real concern of course are the people who are affected the most: orphaned children, grieving families and the suffering of the whole community.

I congratulate the member for her participation. It is hoped that violence against women which happened in the past and continues to happen will not happen in the future.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. As he has said, this does go beyond women, men and children. It is a community. Life in my estimation is a process of human relationships. The process of living is developing and sharing those relationships. Those relationships are what accumulate to make up the family which in turn makes up the community.

I believe as the hon. member does that violence against any person is a violation of the dignity of human life. Human life is at the bottom of the foundation of all things we must respect in our communities.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard of today's debate, I naturally thought about the victims at l'École polytechnique, but I also thought about all the other victims of violence, about the 300 and some women who have died in violent incidents since 1989, and about the thousands of women who face various acts of violence every day. It is important to see this situation, not necessarily as a particularly atrocious fact, but as a situation prevailing throughout our society, which has led to unacceptable behaviours and to which we must give priority so that Quebec society, Canadian society can be held up as an example of a violence free society.

Part of the problem we are facing can be found in this House today: all members are denouncing violence and saying that we must take the right measures to prevent such incidents from happening again in the future, but we encounter the same problem in society.

Violence is often a problem, partly because we do not talk about the reality, the fact that people are affected. Victims of violence are not allowed to speak out, so they can overcome their fears and get on with their lives after going through a period of violence. For example, violent men have few opportunities to express who they are and release this negative energy, so that they can clean up their act and allow the situation to evolve.

That is why, in considering what I expected from this debate, I thought a great deal about my children, my two daughters, Audrey and Maude, and my son, Renaud, because it is for them that we are trying to build a different society.

When we read stories about how violence is perpetuated, we see that some behaviours are often passed on from father to son or from mother to daughter and that even abusers are not necessarily aware of their violent tendencies. As I said earlier, we must hold a public debate on the subject and initiate a dialogue that will enable us to correct these situations.

Some specific ways to promote this dialogue are by supporting women's centres or groups that look after violent men, because you may have the best intentions in the world, but if you do not have the energy and resources needed for these discussions to go on, they will not take place and we will inherit the negative results, as we have for a long time, with tragic events like what happened at l'École polytechnique and all the tragic events that we learn about and which we hear reported as anecdotes; repression is suggested as the way to deal with them, but I think that repression is a last resort to prevent physical violence.

Of course, we must eliminate violence by properly controlling firearms and all other instruments of violence; we must control them to prevent a recurrence of events like those at l'École polytechnique. But at the same time, we must look further and see what is behind this event and find out what caused it.

We realize that conjugal violence and violence in general is a complex phenomenon because it involves not only poor families, middle class families or rich families. Domestic violence occurs in all classes of society and we must find ways to correct this problem.

Earlier, I talked about creating proper conditions. However, many people in our society have basic needs that are not met, for education, family income, child care, equity in social programs; also, the new types of families in our society do not have the support services they need. Single-parent families and blended families experience completely new situations to which our social programs are not necessarily suited.

I would also say that violence has a subversive aspect, a rather perverse aspect due to the inequality between men and women in terms of employment and career opportunities.

This perpetuates the feeling of inequality, and often allows some men to establish relations in which women are dependent, thus creating a situation which can potentially lead to violence. But there is not only physical violence; there are many other forms of violence.

Consequently, it is important to do prevention from the time a child is born, since the way that child will develop will influence, to a degree, his perception of things. We must ensure that families can give birth to children in acceptable conditions, feed them properly and provide them with all the necessary elements to grow and build their self-esteem, so as to help them develop respect for their fellow citizens, members of the opposite sex and friends, as well as relations based on mutual respect instead of dependency.

Clearly, we must launch an attack on several fronts. We are faced with a situation similar to that of child poverty, in the sense that a preventive and comprehensive strategy is required to end violence, but we also need ad hoc measures to deal with emergencies.

It is also important to look at what can be done during the various stages of a child's development to curb the tendency to resort to violence. Do we grant adequate maternity leave to all Canadian women, so that they can give birth in proper conditions? If these women are single parents situation, do they have adequate financial resources to live in acceptable conditions?

Later on, when a child is growing, does he benefit from adequate daycare services? Are there not people right now who would like to have access to such services to help their children develop in a proper environment? Do we not stereotype people increasingly?

Children born in relatively well off families that can afford privately funded quality daycare will receive a more stable education. These children will develop more self-confidence. On the other hand, there are those who are trapped in the vicious circle of financial dependency and can see no way out. So we have to work to ensure that equal opportunities become more prevalent, so that 20 or 25 years from now, changes will be noticeable, with less violence and fewer groups living in conditions conducive to violence.

Then there is school and career. If women go back to experiencing difficulty in finding employment and to being in a position of inferiority in the jobs that they do get, if they cannot have access to university careers, if we fail to eliminate stereotypes in that regard, we help perpetuate the existing climate.

On that subject, choices must be made-they are still under consideration-concerning the social security reform for example. Students could have to take full responsibility for their loans. This means that they will have much higher debts to pay off when they graduate. And it would be unfair to women who would choose to start a family.

Specific measures such as these do not have a direct bearing on dramatic acts of violence, but nevertheless add to the set of conditions which eventually lead to violence.

I would also like to see that, later in life, women who have grown up and become adults are able to start a family and have children in acceptable conditions, so that they do not find themselves in a situation where they themselves could become violent toward their children because we have failed to put in place an adequate social system to enable them to raise them in decent conditions.

This whole debate on violence is a societal issue and, perhaps it should also be pointed out, an individual issue. Because somewhere we have to take a good look at ourselves and at our own behaviour. I think that if this debate made all Quebecers or all Canadians take a moment of their evening to think about and discuss potential sources of violence in their environments, as well as individual behaviours which could be corrected, and the need to adapt, we could say that we helped reduce the opportunities for violence in our society. I think that this would be a good response to today's debate. It is up to each one of us.

This is also a government responsibility. A review is under way. The Minister of Justice spoke earlier about a series of measures that have been or will be taken, but important choices must be made regarding the resources to be allocated to the various programs, the approach to this problem, and I think that the results will show how successful our efforts were. This government must take concrete actions that will bring about some improvement in the situation and make our society better before the new millennium rolls around.

When we commemorate again in five or ten years the terrible event that occurred at l'École polytechnique, instead of talking about the negative side of the current situation, we will at least be able to tell all those who were made aware of the issue of violence by this event, all those who made a contribution, all the women who circulated petitions until a gun control law was passed, that the mission has been accomplished. We will have

succeeded in reducing violence in our society, and this may be the best test.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think this afternoon in this debate that many of us are in agreement. We in this House are very disturbed and share the sense of horror at the events that took place five years ago today. When we hear of these kinds of actions and hear about human suffering, we think of ourselves in those moments as one family, that it is one of our family who is suffering.

I want to ask the member a question. It seems to me that he mentioned that social conditions are very important to people who may become violent in their lives. I wonder what he feels is the role of the economy. Does he feel that a weakened or a stronger economy that may have some impact on these sensitive issues?

[Translation]

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent question and I discussed it a little in my presentation when I talked about employment. Yes, I think that if this country had an active job creation policy for using our human resources to their full potential, it would mean that every man and every woman in our society could make his or her contribution to it.

An active employment policy would mean that we would care more about the whole social aspect, because our society now often tends to emphasize productivity as an end in itself, although Canadian society, despite its faults, has still developed some values like compassion.

In this day and age, we should avoid following the American model blindly; we see the results they have obtained in terms of violence. They are our southern neighbours and we can see it right away. I think that is what haunts us in actions like the terrible event at l'École polytechnique, as someone said in an article in Le Devoir today. The writer saw it as an indication of what we might see, which is more commonly associated with the United States.

I think that to counter that, to get back to the hon. member's question, yes, if the economy works well, if people work, if they pay taxes, we will be able to have a better distribution of justice. I think that is a contribution which this government could and should make in particular when it will have to adjust its reform of social programs to respond more closely to the representations made to it by many groups across Canada.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, very quickly to the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. He spoke with great integrity about women, the difficulty of developing careers and raising families, and the need almost to be a super human being, to do it all and to do it well with grace, dignity and respect for the children and family.

What role do you believe that men play in the lives of sharing some of the responsibilities of child nurturing and rearing so that some of that pressure is relieved from the women in our society?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unless members want to hear from the Speaker I would ask them to put questions through the Chair.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great interest in this issue, considering that with our work schedule as members of Parliament, it might be very tempting to adopt the traditional role of the father. That being said, as a man, I can only pay tribute to the hon. member for her work with children.

One of the main things we can do is to act as men and parents who believe in a different model than the traditional one, a model based on respect for young girls and women, based on the belief that they deserve the same opportunities as men to develop their potential, and also based on real support in every day life, whenever possible.

In the case of families where both spouses are often together, I believe in sharing chores. It is also important-and that goes for every family-to discuss problems and other issues such as spousal abuse, because these things do exist. For example, if we witness this type of violence on TV, it may be good to discuss it for a minute, instead of quickly switching channels.

I also think that when half of the seats in this House will be filled by women, our institution will more balanced and will pass better laws which will take into account to an even greater degree what must be done to have new views on success and power.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque-Trade; the hon. member for London West-Violence Against Women; the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm-Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the infamous day of December 6, 1989. The national horror is incomprehensible, for there are no simple answers, no easy inferences to be drawn. We have an atmosphere of our times which seems to reflect a violent society. It is seen that our crime rates reflect a national psychol-

ogy. At times listening to what is put forward as fact in the House reflects a mood that could kill the soul, for we are so adversarial both in the House and in the community.

As a former worker in the criminal justice system, I dealt too frequently with both the offender and the offended. Violence lessens us all in society. We as a society are all responsible for the permissiveness in general and our lack of courage as a community to denounce perpetrators.

I concur with what has been said in the House today but, with due respect for this day, we must also recognize community trends. In the past crime was far from being an equal opportunity employer between the sexes, but the gap appears to be closing. Although five men were charged with criminal offences last year for every woman charged, a decade ago the proportion was seven to one. A similar trend is apparent in the United States where statistics show that the male:female arrest ratio in 1992 had declined to just over four to one.

Nowhere is the change more pronounced than in violent crime. In 1981 the ratio of men to women charged with crimes in this category which runs the gamut from threatening violence to cold blooded murder was almost nine to one.

People who specialize in the study of crime say that statistics may also reflect a democratizing trend in the application of criminal justice. Maybe it is the end of chivalry. Studies have found differences in the way the criminal justice system historically has treated men and women. For instance, in the U.S. the death penalty has been much less likely to be imposed on a woman.

Another possible explanation is that women are more likely to be charged today because society's growing intolerance of violence means that more people in general are being charged with low level violent crimes such as threatening.

To the extent that women commit less serious violent crimes, there would be a bigger percentage increase. Statistics indicate that 62 per cent of women charged with violent offences involve assaults at the lowest level compared with 55 per cent of men charged.

The fascinating question then is whether women are in fact becoming more criminally active. It is possible the trend is now surfacing in the newer data since there have been indications that the gender gap in crime is closing faster for young women.

A definitive answer would require following the police around and seeing under what circumstances they lay charges. There has been an enormous amount of discretion in the criminal justice system that has tended to screen out charges against women at the street level.

We really do not know what it means until we start looking at specific categories of crime. Does this reflect a real increase in violence or in property crime, or does it reflect a difference in the way in which our legal system processes crime? It is probably a mix of the two: some real change in behaviour and some change about how we count the numbers.

It is important to look at the numbers because our beliefs and then perhaps our legislative responses are affected by what we think is true. The veracity of statistics is fundamental to our beliefs which then brings action.

On November 19 of last year the news media across Canada led with the shocking results of a major Statistics Canada survey. "Fifty per cent of women report assaults", read the headline. "Ground breaking StatsCan survey finds violence pervasive". The findings on wife assault were horrifying: 29 per cent of women who had ever been married reported being assaulted by a current or previous husband. That would mean a staggering 2.6 million Canadian women have been the victims of wife assault.

Other news sources reported the story in much the same way. Maclean's magazine quoted a woman who ``used to wake up with a knife at my throat. Maybe now people will believe it''.

Women's groups expressed outrage. Social services groups said the survey proved how endemic violence is in our society. A federal cabinet minister pledged to meet with women's groups to launch a national campaign to combat violence against women. Commentators, male and female, cited examples of the dangers that women routinely face in daily life. We have heard many of those sentiments today in the House, but I must give at least a murmur of dissent and provide balance so we may move forward more resolutely.

The national survey was delivered with all the credibility of StatsCan behind it. Officials billed it as the most comprehensive of its kind ever conducted in Canada. It cost $1.9 million. It included 12,300 women and, the clincher, its finding included only physical or sexual acts that could result in criminal charges.

No one in the mainstream media did a critical analysis of the StatsCan's findings or compared them with the most authoritative work on the subject undertaken in the United States.

Let us start with the Criminal Code. A StatsCan survey says:

Violence in this survey is defined as experiences of physical and sexual assault that are consistent with legal definitions of these offences and could be acted upon by a police officer.

This turns out to cast a very wide net indeed. It includes offences known in police jargon as level one. Examples could be a neighbour who yells a threat across the back fence or a stranger who makes a belligerent remark on the street. Any remark or

gesture perceived by the person on the receiving end as a threat can qualify as a level one offence.

The most common form of violence, the survey says, is wife assault. In calculating the rate of wife assault it classifies many domestic encounters as violent that most people would not. These include behaviours that do not involve physical contact such as threats and throwing things. Then comes minor contact: pushing, grabbing and shoving. The survey summary, which is as far as most reporters read, lumps all these things together with actions that anyone would agree are clearly violent: beating, hitting with an object, choking, sexual assault or using a knife or a gun to threaten or injure. Throwing a plate has the same weight as a knife attack.

How many women who are or have been married reported incidents that are clearly violent? The answers: 11 per cent say that they have been kicked or hit with a fist; 9 per cent say they have been beaten up; 7 per cent choked; 6 per cent hit with something; and 5 per cent threatened or attacked with a knife or a gun. Because multiple responses are allowed there is a heavy overlap among those answers. They also refer overwhelmingly to former, not current spouses.

StatsCan borrowed its questions on wife assault from extensive U.S. surveys conducted by Richard Gelles and Murray Straus for the National Institute of Mental Health. This work is regarded as a benchmark. Unlike the StatsCan survey, it breaks out the results in a way that distinguishes between minor violence, no injuries or little intimidation, and severe violence, kicking, hitting and worse.

Messrs. Gelles and Straus found that domestic violence, mostly grabbing, shoving and hitting, occurs 16 per cent in U.S. families and that between 3 and 4 per cent of women have suffered at least one act of severe violence by their partners.

Wife assault is a national problem and a deep social evil in Canada. We should do everything to stop it, but this does not afflict nearly one-third of Canadian wives as some news reports said, 29 per cent as StatsCan said, or 2.6 million women.

No one, neither the surveyors nor the media, that reported their conclusions had any intention of misleading the public. They were conscientiously doing their job of spotting and documenting social change. However, if they had drawn a more reasonable conclusion from the violence data-rates of spouse abuse probably have not changed much in the past 30 years and most wives with abusive husbands get a divorce-there would be no real headlines and not much justification for their existence.

Instead the sensational findings dug yet another deep trench between the sexes with their inescapable implication that not just tens of thousands but millions of Canadian men are domestic thugs. Do members of the House really believe this? I do not. Most men were socialized from childhood to defer to girls in play and boys hitting little girls is more severely denounced. That was the character of our social history.

Finally, if we do not have an accurate view of the problem, how can we hope to arrive at the best policies to address it? Surely we do not need to exaggerate the numbers in order to make the case that family violence and violence against anyone is a corrosive social ill?

Surely we do not need to induce national moral panic in order to get attention and action, but many women believe that we do and so they may be upset. Many women believe that the StatsCan survey captures some larger psychological truth about the myriad subtle ways in which women continue to be devalued in the world. The trouble is that there are many important things StatsCan just cannot measure, and it should not try.

We know that more women than men are responsible for child abuse. In domestic conflict more women than men are likely to resort to using a weapon against a spouse. The conclusion about what men or women are doing is not the point. The point is that there is just too much violence. We must all collectively share responsibility for the violence on TV, movies and magazines. The media reflects ratings of what sells. The media are not totally to blame, for they reflect the worst aspects of our society.

The Montreal tragedy, remembered today, will not be forgotten. We can find a vision of a new Canada where a rejection of violence both overt and implied is how we will live.

We must denounce violence and the excuses for it such as intoxication defences or freedom of expression in the performing arts and the mass media. We especially remember today the loved ones of the victims of violence. We must all commit to live to a higher standard where conflict resolution and frustrations are kept under self-control. We each must resolve to live a kinder and gentler life that makes pandering to violence uneconomic for its sellers.

We affirm the positive and resolve to pass on to our children a clear sense of values that preclude thoughts of violence. I have a vision of Canada that we can build, where we can live in peace, restore broken relationships, yet strongly defend our ideals.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I vowed I would never do this but I listened to the members across the way and I wondered if their lack of discomfort is really the issue.

I knew a young woman 25 years ago who was raped. She did not report it because 25 years ago women could run faster with their skirts up than men could with their pants down. I knew a woman 25 years ago who was beaten by her husband. She was sent to hospital. She did not report it because it was a shame that

she had chosen that poorly and obviously she was beaten because she deserved it; she must have irritated him.

Because of our actions, because of the noise and because of the circumstances of today, women can do that. This woman was not included in that survey. I was that woman. As much as I realize that we have to get a balance, it is also an issue we must address. We must stand together.

Does the hon. member think that today's incidents are perhaps recurring more frequently or that we have now lost our shame and are able to report them?

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are in a violent society. We must do everything we can within our own purview, within our own families, to make sure we do not act in a violent way. It begins in a small manner with even the frustration of being at a stoplight and thinking about the car next to you or the one that has cut you off.

I was trying to emphasize today that when we see statistics, let us make sure we have an accurate analysis of them so we can move forward resolutely with appropriate social policy.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I just heard is simply absurd. I think the hon. member of the Reform Party needs a good dose of real life.

He quoted statistics and figures, and meanwhile, some terrible things are happening, and the hon. member of the Reform Party does not see anything at all. I wonder whether people come and see him at his riding office and whether he ever had specific cases involving battered women and women who were unemployed and had children who did not get anything to eat for breakfast.

In my riding, I see this regularly. In my riding, we have two shelters for battered women and only 20 spaces altogether. We do not have enough locations to help these women.

I would appreciate it if the hon. member would tell me if in his own riding he sees these people and really tries to help them instead of trotting out figures and statistics like he is doing now, information that to me is absolutely irrelevant. I see what is going on in my riding, and I must say it is not a pretty picture.

When we have a recession like the one we have just been through, guess what happens? The crime rate goes up, and women and children pay the price. I cannot believe that everything is just fine in his riding because of these statistics. I hope that when he gets back to his riding on the weekend, his wife will forgive him for the speech he made here in the House.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here is another fine example of what I talked about, why we are so adversarial in this House, where someone's words are willingly twisted.

If it is an issue of personal credibility, I spent my career of 22 years in the criminal justice system dealing with those people most in need and in time of crisis when in conflict with one another, be it an offender or an offended.

I spent all Saturday night riding with the local police in my riding, looking at the difficulty of conflict resolution and the kinds of things they have to deal with.

If we in this House are going to deal properly with the issues of the day, the various studies that are bantered around by members of this House and as was mentioned today by so many speakers, the StatsCanada study, then we must look carefully and make sure we read and draw the appropriate conclusions from those studies.