Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this zero tolerance declaration is an area in which I support the intent and the principle. But, if we target certain groups only then we are not, as politicians, being fair to other groups. In this case, we look at violence against women and children. Men and elders are not included in the declaration.

One of the other things that came up was the whole issue about Members' conduct. We have a code of ethics passed during the last Assembly. But, how far can we go? Major McLean is one individual in the Nova Scotia Assembly who got booted out. They tried to pass a membership act relating to that. Due to section one and three of the constitution, it wasn't allowed, I believe. And section 33, clauses 2, 7 and 15 of the charter certainly don't allow it. I wish the government all the luck in coming out with something that would actually expel or prevent someone from running for office.

This government hasn't done much with regard to zero tolerance in the first place. By declaring something like this, do you think that all of a sudden it will make the world turn out right? What is happening with regard to legal aid right now and restraining orders? What is the policy on that? Are we allowing legal aid to assist women who wish to have restraining orders placed on their husbands? In the case of the husband beating the wife, the husband should be the one who gets booted out, not the other way around. I've already written to the Minister of Social Services about establishing a shelter in Fort Providence so we can address the zero tolerance issue. Those are all areas in which we can implement zero tolerance but we are not doing much in those areas.

everybody?

The police already have a policy on violence. Although most of the time, it is men who create violence, their policy right now is that anybody who causes violence against women is arrested and put in jail, sometimes until he goes to court. But, there are cases where even when the men didn't create violence, they are kept in jail, by virtue of this policy, until trial time. These cases are dismissed when it comes to trial. We have created a situation where we treat men as the only ones who create violence and we punish them.

In Manitoba, they have accepted zero tolerance. Right now, they go through 1,000 cases a month, I think it is. They are backlogged 3,000 cases. How many of them are actual and how many of them are bogus? We don't know. Perhaps a woman could phone the RCMP and say my husband assaulted me and he is in the bar right now. The RCMP don't have any choice but to arrest that individual, by virtue of that policy. Manitoba is the only one. I was trying to get some statistics in order to find out whether or not, based on all those cases...About 80 per cent of the cases in Manitoba, the men are found guilty. But now, with this zero tolerance, how much of a success rate are we having now? We don't know. It could be 50/50, it could be less.

I think it was a group of men that started because of a white women's campaign, based on the Montreal massacre, that are now expressing concern over the zero tolerance. A lot of it is just frivolous. There is no basis for it, but it is happening.

Mr. Chairman, many sexual assaults came out as a result of a documentary that was done on St. Vincent's, I believe. With regard to my own family, I wasn't brought up in a violent environment. My dad is deceased. But he wasn't a violent man and he has always provided for us. In 1958, after alcohol became legal for aboriginal people or status people, it didn't have any effect on aboriginal people. Aboriginal people weren't around to drink themselves to death. My parents never caused violence or even parents of this generation. But a lot of violence has been created by my own generation. It is a target group of people who are doing it. But it wasn't because of the aboriginal influence that this has happened. It is a white influence that has created the problems that now exist. It is our own doing that this situation exists.

I just thought I would mention that. If we are going to be equal in any way, then we shouldn't have any biases. Gender equality points in a certain direction in which we would like to see women paid the same for the same service. But, at the same time, let's not isolate the men. A week ago, I received a phone call from a woman who said she broke her husband's nose. What did the husband do? She said he didn't do anything.

If you refer to sexual assault, it could mean any kind of touching without intent, indirectly and directly. I am always in the shadow of what I was charged with. It was many years ago, ten years ago, when I was a Member. But maybe it was an indirect assault. I never attempted to beat up my wife. But we were living in an environment which didn't allow for much movement in the tent. For me to get out, I had to push her out of the way. I was charged. At the same time, if I kiss her, without her consent, I could be charged again. So, I have been dealing with that situation ever since it happened. I am not trying to redeem myself, by any means. As far as I am concerned, and as far as my wife is concerned, there was never guilt established. But by virtue of the interpretation of the law, you are guilty. I have accepted that broad definition. I didn't go through an expensive process of proving my innocence. I pleaded guilty because, as far as I was concerned, I did touch her. Therefore, I was guilty because she didn't consent. A lot of the aboriginal people who go into court, when it is interpreted like this, how can you be dishonest? I have never seen cases, in the western Arctic, people going to trial in order to get leniency from the jury. Every Thursday in Fort Providence I see cases coming up, and a lot of it is minor, but guilt is established right off the bat. They don't deny it. You have to give credit to the aboriginal people for their honesty. At the same time, we are victims of a criminal system that puts aboriginal people into a position that they cannot deny it.

So, Mr. Chairman, those are my difficulties. I cannot support or not support a declaration that specifically addresses only women and children. I think if there were some changes to it to include zero tolerance of violence against all people, I would agree with it. Then everyone is involved. I have no difficulty with that. But if we are only going to be looking at certain groups and we adopt policies in order to make it difficult for men, then I cannot accept something like this. You have to be a saint and a model citizen, but how about the other people? Thank you.