Madam Speaker, as I enter the discussion regarding violence against members of society, particularly women, I begin by pointing out how human life seems to have been devalued in our society. When I look at the changes of attitude that have occurred in this regard, I look at such things as abortion, euthanasia and mercy killings. I see a greater and greater acceptance of these measures which suggests an insensitivity toward human life that has led to a devaluation of human life.
Today marks an anniversary I am sure most Canadians wish did not exist. However, not to remember invalidates the lives that were lost as a result of a violent and vicious attack perpetrated because one male took out his fear, hate and frustration on a group of innocent young defenceless women.
The cause of this crime is at the heart of the debate on violence against women and other members of our society. Why are men attacking women? Why are husbands beating wives? Why is violence against women occurring at such a high rate, certainly a higher rate than before.
These are the questions we must attempt to answer if we are ever to eradicate or at least reduce violence.
Until we can answer these questions and until we can determine the causes of violence, we will continue to have a problem in this country which defies logic and a problem which threatens to destroy the strongest foundation we have, the family.
From 1981 to 1990 almost one half, or 48 per cent, of the women killed were killed by spouses or ex-spouses. A further 27 per cent were killed by acquaintances. Over the past 10 years 67 per cent of the homicides involving women occurred in the victims' homes. Spousal homicides amount to one out of every six solved homicides. According to statistics, over the period 1974 to 1992 a married woman was nine times as likely to be killed by her spouse as by a stranger. The rates of spousal homicide have remained fairly constant over a 19-year period.
These statistics reveal a shocking situation. Repeatedly governments in this country have neglected to address the issue which is the cause of crime. They have failed to determine, understand and do something about the causes of domestic violence. Harsher penalties, stricter gun controls and statistics gathering have done nothing to eliminate the rate of spousal homicide in this country, nothing to decrease the growing violence on Canadian streets and nothing to eradicate violence against women.
Fifty-two per cent of the spousal homicides in 1991-92 were attributed by the police to an argument or quarrel and a further 24 per cent to jealousy. What the statistics and police failed to reveal is what the argument or quarrel was about, why it occurred in the first place. I believe that finances and financial stress are at the heart of most domestic difficulties and arguments. Canadian families are under tremendous stress these days, stresses that are directly imposed on them by the economic state of this country and indirectly imposed on them by the fiscal and monetary mismanagement of this and previous governments.
With an unemployment rate of 10.8 per cent, which I understand has dropped recently to below 10 per cent, many Canadians are without a job and for those who do have a job, the volatility and uncertainty of the current job market means that no one has job security.
Years ago men and women could count on their job always being there. Job security is a thing of the past. We have not helped Canadians adapt to that situation. We have not helped Canadians adapt to many of the economic and social situations that have been rapidly destroying their way of life.
While banks reveal record profits, many Canadians are declaring personal and business bankruptcy because their debt load has become unmanageable given the relatively high interest and tax rates in this country.
We witness every day the impact financial stress is having on Canadian families. In 1991-92 statistics show that alcohol was involved in 37 per cent of slain wives and 82 per cent of slain husbands. Among perpetrators, 55 per cent of men and 79 per cent of women were noted to have consumed alcohol and 18 per cent of men and 13 per cent of women had used drugs.
I pause here to emphasize that we do not address the cause of the problems. So often we are told not only in ads in newspapers but on television to ensure that when you are drinking that you have a designated driver so that you can get plastered if you want. The only concern those ad makers and those who are paying for them have is simply to ensure that a person is not impaired as he drives home. No care or concern is given to the family situation when that drunk is dropped off at his home where he may go in and abuse his wife or his children. There is no indication that there is any interest in reducing the consumption of alcohol in this country which police and statistics indicate clearly is a direct contributing factor to crime and violence in this country.
According to statistics, alcohol was consumed by both parties in 41 per cent of wife victim cases and in 78 per cent of husband victim cases.
Alcohol abuse is induced by stress. We do nothing to help the alcoholic or solve his problem if we do not determine the cause of that stress.
Why are Canadians assaulting and killing one another? That is the question which must be answered if we ever hope to reduce violence in our society. This is true whether we are dealing with young offenders, wife beaters, child molesters or murderers.
Governments in co-operation with community and service organizations, churches, schools and Canadian families must find the answer to these questions. It is a monumental task but it is a task we must undertake because our traditional response to the problem of violence is not working.
In response to public appeals for preventive action the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General unanimously agreed on May 6, 1992, exactly five months after the Tories' gun legislation, Bill C-17, received royal assent, to commence a national study of crime prevention. The committee concluded:
Traditional criminal justice responses while necessary are insufficient deterrents to acts that threaten public safety and security and the conventional crime control model fails to address the underlying factors associated with crime and criminality.
In other words the committee found that the gun control legislation, sentencing, additional police officers and law enforcement agencies, more prisons and an increasingly negative bureaucratic answer do not and will not solve the growing problem of crime within this country.
Presented to the committee were studies conducted in England, Canada and the United States. In relation to young offenders, these studies revealed that a minority of male offenders are responsible for the majority of all crimes committed.
The president of the Quebec Association of Police and the director of the Hull police force described to the committee research findings showing that 80 per cent of crimes are committed by approximately 20 per cent of the offenders.
Self reports and arrest records of offenders who have long criminal histories revealed to the committee that offending began when they were very young, that their offending became progressively more violent and that a significant proportion of persistent young offenders become the adult offenders of the future.
A criminology professor with the University of Ottawa told the committee that about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of incarcerated adults were persistent offenders in their youth. The committee heard that the level of crime in a society cannot be separated from the social, economic and political milieu in which it occurs. Social science research has identified many interrelated factors in the social environment of persistent offenders that contribute to crime.
Although the committee made a number of recommendations regarding crime prevention to the previous government based on its findings, the previous government did not introduce or even propose measures that demonstrated it was taking a leadership role in crime prevention.
We have a new government but the same approach to crime. We seem to be satisfied to deal with the symptoms of crime rather than to get at the cause of crime. Until the government of the day can identify the cause of crime, until it can identify the reasons for domestic violence and violence against women, we will continue to have this problem.