Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this debate regarding Bill C-72, introduced in the House by the Minister of Justice.
This bill is of particular interest to women and is part of the legislative process aimed at curbing violence against women and children. I will therefore analyze it in this context.
First of all I will try to resume the historical background of legislation regarding the defence of self-induced intoxication,
since it is the topic of this bill. Then I will establish the relationship between violence against women and the aggressor's intoxication. I will then look at the bill itself and I will conclude with its consequences for the problem of violence.
The authors Côté-Harper, Manganas et Turgeon define self-induced intoxication as follows: "There is self-induced intoxication when a person over-estimates his or her resistance to alcohol or drugs, with the result that, then, his or her actions cannot be considered intentional".
Therefore, if I consume more alcohol that my body can take I will be responsible for my actions. Self-induced intoxication was accepted as a defence by the courts in 1920, in the decision Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Beard . In that case, the court decided that a person whose self-induced state of intoxication was such that he could not form the intention of committing a crime could not be found guilty.
Therefore in the case of murder, the Crown must prove that the accused was seeking to cause the death of the victim. If the accused was intoxicated to such a degree that he could not gauge the consequences of his actions, he cannot be found guilty of murder. He will, however, be charged with manslaughter, with an included offence, because his intoxication did not prevent him from forming the desire to carry out the action which led to the death.
It is understandable that the courts have developed, uniquely for the defence of self-induced intoxication, two types of offences: those requiring specific intent-to cause death, in our example-and those requiring general intent-such as to beat a person, who then dies. In R. v. George , 1960, Mr. Justice Fauteux of the Supreme Court of Canada explained the distinction as follows: ``A distinction must be made between the intention to commit an act in terms of the intended purpose and the intention to commit an act independently of the intended purpose. In certain cases, the intention to commit an act is sufficient for there to have been an offence, while in other cases there must be, in addition to the general intention, a specific intention to commit the act''.
The courts had always maintained this distinction, when allowing the accused to use the defence of self-induced intoxication. It was reserved for crimes of specific intent.
On September 30, 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada set off in a new direction when it handed down its decision in the Daviault case. Very briefly, it allowed the accused, who had been charged with sexual assault, therefore general intent, to plead self-induced intoxication.
The court relied on the interpretation of sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter in concluding that it was unjust not to allow a seriously intoxicated accused the right to use this defence because a crime of general intent was involved. In an obiter dictum , the court recommended that Parliament resolve the issue through legislation. The decision raised a general outcry, both from groups defending women's rights and from police forces and some members of the legal profession.
I will not go into the details, but rather move on to certain aspects of the wife abuse problem and then come back to the Supreme Court decision.
Studies have shown time and time again the link between violence and intoxication, whether produced by alcohol or by drugs. This link is common in spousal abuse.
A Statistics Canada study conducted in March 1994 on spousal homicide revealed that, in 1991-92, thirty-seven per cent of the wives and 82 per cent of the husbands who were killed had been drinking. Based on statistics on murderers reported by police, 55 per cent of the men and 79 per cent of the women were under the influence of alcohol, and 18 per cent of the men and 13 per cent of the women were on other drugs.
A previous investigation by the same organization had revealed that alcohol played a major part, i.e. 40 per cent of abusing spouses were under the influence of alcohol.
It also indicated that the risk of becoming victims of violence was three times higher for women living with a man who drank regularly than for other women.
Alcohol is therefore a factor that should be considered when dealing with violence against women. We need to ask ourselves what impact a decision like the one rendered in the Daviault case, which allows a man who assaults a woman while under the influence of alcohol to plead drunkenness in defence, will have on the spousal abuse issue.
Let us start by looking at the general effect on the abusing spouse. Officials who work with violent men agree that the key to eliminating violent behaviour in men is to make them aware of their responsibilities by punishing them and making them aware of the fact that they could benefit from therapy.
Ginette Larouche is a social worker who has written three books on domestic violence. She also participated in the soon to be defunct Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In her opinion, by not sending abusers to jail or by doing so only for a ridiculously short time, which is often the case, society is trivializing the criminal act they have committed. Then, by having them join support groups, we are telling them they only have a little behaviour problem to deal with.
This analysis is supported by Steven Bélanger, a psychologist heading Pro-Gam, the first therapy group for violent men in Quebec, which was founded in 1982. Listen to what he says. "A long term solution must be sought at a more comprehensive
level. We must stop thinking that violence concerns only those who batter their spouse. Everybody is concerned. Having said that, I believe that the immediate solution lies in both court action and psychological assistance."
As we can see, both of these experts consider referral to the court as both a deterrent and a cure.
Women, even those not subjected to spousal abuse, live in fear. Why? Two professors at the School of Social Work of the University of Montreal published, in the International Review of Community Action , the results of a study on women's fear of crime and the various forms of violence to which they are subjected.
First of all, their report is a reminder that our published statistics on crimes committed against women are distorted. One of the reasons is that many women feel guilty for being assaulted, particularly if it happens while they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs or when they are in places that are "not nice".
I also mentioned previously the statistics on drinking in cases where one spouse murders the other, which is the ultimate form of spousal assault.
The authors also establish a link between spousal assault and society's attitudes in general. They blame the psycho-social approach used until very recently to deal with the issue.
The family being considered as a dynamic unit, responsibility for violent crimes committed within it had to be shared by all members. At that time, the expression "dysfunctional family" was used instead of referring to victims and assaults, in order to trivialize and decriminalize aggressions.
The authors also maintain that their study shows that women in general live in fear of being assaulted, that victimized women are also afraid of denouncing their assailants and finally that the women who have the courage to go to court must deal with the confrontational nature of our legal system. The traditional attitudes in our society are of no help to these women, especially since they are conveyed by men who do not have to face the same reality.
How does Bill C-72 help to somewhat improve the current situation of victims of assault?
First of all, it is important to remind people that this bill was introduced to neutralize the negative effect of the judgment made in the Daviault case and dealing with violent crimes. The bill makes it clear that a defendant will not be allowed to use intoxication as a defence when a crime of general intent was committed involving interference, or the threat to interfere, or any kind of assault vis-à-vis the integrity of another person.
So, the bill covers the majority of violent crimes, the others falling into the specific intent category, which can lead to a conviction for an included offence, as I said at the beginning of my speech.
To answer the question, we can say that the bill will facilitate the conviction of the aggressors. At the present time, a person charged with a general intent offence can plead voluntary intoxication. If this defence is allowed, the person will be cleared of all charges. So the bill takes us back to the situation that existed before the Supreme Court decision.
Such a move will send a message to society that aggressors must be punished because acts of aggression are serious and cannot be tolerated. At the same time, victims will feel encouraged to file a complaint. The cycle of spousal abuse can be broken only if violence is denounced, the aggressors punished and the victims helped.
Furthermore, like many other pieces of legislation, this bill will serve both as an educational and a dissuasive tool. It clearly states the zero-tolerance position of this Parliament against violence. We find the policy position of the House in the preamble to the Bill. Thus, the direct link between violence and the violation of women's rights to security of the person and to the equal protection and benefit of the law is mentioned. The principle of criminal accountability of the person who deliberately becomes intoxicated is also recognized, and that is very important. And, in addition, the victims' right to protection is recognized.
Finally, the bill refers to a standard of care defined in relation to the prohibition of violent behaviour towards another person.
This legislation is a step in the right direction and it meets the expectations of human rights groups, particularly those who are involved with women who are victims of domestic violence. Violence is a problem that must be eliminated, and we recognize that this bill is part of the solution. That is why we will support it.
However, other measures must be taken both in terms of legislation and government decisions. We have to make sure that groups who work with victims have all the support they need to reach their goals.
We can deplore the fact that the government has been withdrawing part of its funding for anti-violence support programs. In six years, financial assistance to these organizations has been reduced by 23 per cent. The number of grants has also been reduced by 47 per cent. The best intentions will never be more than intentions if they are not followed up with financial support.
The recommendations made by the various task forces and commissions will also have to be examined and implemented if we want to be able to say one day that gender equality really does exist in our society.
The government will also have to be consistent and adopt other pieces of legislation concerning other forms of violence towards women, including those involving genital mutilation.