Debates of April 25th, 1995

Lobbyists Registration Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof (exempted crown corporations), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Financial Administration Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Hart at second reading stage of Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof (exempted crown corporations).

As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row, starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover. Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion lost.

It being 6.37 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Interpretation Act

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

moved that Bill C-254, an act to amend the Interpretation Act (convention on the rights of the child) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to bring forward this bill on behalf of all Canadian children. It amends the Interpretation Act to provide that every act of Parliament shall be construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe any of the rights recognized in the convention on the rights of the child. It is as close as a private member's bill can come to introducing a children's bill of rights.

At the World Summit for Children, held at the United Nations in 1990, 71 world leaders, the largest gathering of world leaders ever, discussed actions that could better the lives of children throughout the world. As a result of that summit, the United Nations developed the convention on the rights of the child which Canada ratified on December 13, 1991.

I am proud to say that Canada took an active role in the summit and in helping to develop the convention which provides us with a set of standards that confirms the respect our society

gives its youngest and most vulnerable and recognizes that they need special safeguards and care.

Responsibility for implementing the rights set out in the convention is shared by federal, provincial and territorial governments. International human rights conventions, even if ratified by Canada, do not automatically become part of domestic law. Canadian courts do, however, frequently refer to them in interpreting and applying domestic law and, in particular, in interpreting and applying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This private member's bill, if passed, would require the Government of Canada to interpret all legislation in harmony with the UN declaration on the rights of the child, which, as I say, Canada was instrumental in engineering. Essentially Canada's laws will comply with the convention.

Canada must continue to be a leading force in protecting children's rights both at home and around the world. In order to do that we must ensure that our international commitments are treated seriously and that federal legislation complies with the convention that the government signed on behalf of all Canadians.

The world summit and the convention were both predicated on the notion that children should have first call on the nation's resources in both good times and bad. In other words, Canada and the other countries that signed the convention should put children first at all times.

A year before the summit, in November 1989, the House debated a motion in the following words:

That this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.

The motion was unanimously passed by the members of the House of Commons.

At that time there were approximately 956,000 children under the age of 18 living in poverty. The subcommittee on poverty proceeded some time after that to address the problem, but did nothing very much to improve the situation of child poverty.

Looking at the shocking reality of what has happened since, the situation has worsened. Recently, Statistics Canada showed that in 1993 child poverty reached a 14-year high, despite the fact that the Canadian economy had made a modest recovery. In 1993 almost 1.5 million Canadian children, which is one in five, lived in some deprivation. Many of these children live not just in poverty, but are very poor. Clearly that is unacceptable. With only five years left until the year 2000 it is clear that the government must move quickly or the 1989 House of Commons resolution will be nothing more than empty words.

Last year I tried to move the same motion but was refused support from at least the Reform Party and possibly others. In other words, we have regressed in terms of our commitment to Canadian children since 1989.

The bill would go a long way to ensuring that the issue of child poverty and children's rights will be addressed. However, it will do more. It will ensure that the nation's children should always be put first, that they will be given the protection and assistance they need in order to grow to become happy, healthy and productive adults. It will enforce the concept that Canadian children be free from exploitation and abuse; that government action should be interpreted with regard to children in the best interests of the child; that children should have access to child care, health care and a standard of living that, at minimum, meets basic needs; and that disabled children should receive the same level of dignity and opportunity as other children.

If we are going to put words into action, if we are going to do anything other than spout empty words, it is vital that the commitments which Canada has made on behalf of its children to the world community are enforced by the government.

I would like to refer to some of the provisions and point out some of the problems that are faced in Canada with regard to the international commitment made when the UN convention was signed and when Canada committed itself to ensuring that children have the first call on resources.

A provision in article 6 says that Canada and other nations shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the survival and development of the child. Canada has 1.5 million children living in poverty. Clearly we are a long way from recognizing and enforcing the commitment which we made to our children and to the world economy. Article 17 of the convention talks about education, clearly a core element in the development of our children.

In that article there is provision that Canada and other nations encourage the production and dissemination of children's books. After many attempts in the last Parliament to remove the GST from children's books, which the last government recognized as being detrimental to educational expectations, that GST still remains on books and this government has done nothing to reduce it. There are measures we can take there to ensure that the commitment we made with regard to education and the dissemination of education can be met.

In article 18, Canada and all other nations agreed to take all appropriate measures "to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child care services and facilities for which they are able". We have seen the reneging of commitments with regard to child care, commitments that were in the red book. Over the years we have seen a clear derogation

on the part of the Government of Canada to respond in a critical way for the protection and benefit of children as well of course for those parents who need to work in order to maintain their families. With regard to child care, the government clearly is also not responding to the spirit and words of the convention.

Canada also agreed to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse. The cuts to social programs, which continue under this government in spite of the aggressive opposition to the same cuts when this government was in opposition, mean that we cannot effectively say that we are responding positively to this provision of the convention either. We are not taking all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, and educational measures to protect children in this way. Indeed, we are going backwards.

There are special provisions in article 23 to respond to the special needs of disabled children. In particular, it indicated that we commit ourselves to assistance that will be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receive education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development.

We all know from our own experiences across this country that we are far from responding positively to the needs of disabled children.

In article 24 we have a commitment to recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. This government once again follows the Tories in cutting funding to health care, clearly making it more and more difficult for children to receive access to the highest attainable standard of health care, which this country committed itself to providing. Again, we are in breach of this convention.

In regard to the pursuit of health care facilities for children, we agreed to combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care. Clearly, with 1.5 million children we have not addressed the concerns of malnutrition. Indeed, as those numbers increase we make it clear that we are going backwards rather than forward.

With regard to social programs, Canada and the other countries recognized for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and to take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right. Once again, we have not responded to that obligation. We have been cutting social programs at the federal level, and many provinces have also cut their social programs, I might add, although not the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, which are NDP provinces.

With regard to article 27, we agreed to recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral, and social development. Again, the fact that we have 1.5 million children living in poverty makes it clear that we have done nothing to deal with this question in the last budget. Again we saw the government renege on its commitment dealing with child poverty.

In article 28 we see a commitment on the part of Canada to recognize the right of a child's education and in particular to make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means. We again see cuts to post-secondary education funding in this budget of 10 per cent, the 10 per cent reduction on the health and social transfer. Again, how can we possibly be said to be responding to these international commitments when we make these cuts? Not only are we not responding to these commitments that we made, but of course we are undermining our ability to be competitive in the world economy in the future.

We also have agreed to take measures to encourage regular attendance in school and the reduction of drop-out rates. There is much we need to do in order to address this particular problem. Again, we need a concerted full effort to address our drop-out problem.

We have a commitment in article 23 to recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. We have yet to take effective measures to bar the importation of products made by child labour in countries where that child labour is also illegal. I only need to point out the issue of carpets to know that we have not done all we could do in that regard.

We also have committed ourselves under article 34 to undertake to protect the child from exploitive use in prostitution and other unlawful sexual practices. Anyone who spends any time in any of our inner cities will know that there are many children who are participating in the sex trade, again flowing from poverty, flowing from a loss of hope, things this government and this country should be able to do something about.

There are provisions dealing with some changes this House made, against the wishes of the New Democratic Party, with regard to the Young Offenders Act. Canada made commitments with regard to young offenders in the convention. Among other things, we committed ourselves to making imprisonment of a child a matter of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. In flagrant disregard for that commitment, this

House not very long ago increased sentences for young offenders.

Last, Canada recognized under article 40 the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the criminal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's integration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society.

Again, the changes this Parliament made, contrary to the wishes of the New Democratic Party and all those experts on children, flies in the face of this commitment too.

In closing, I would like to say that what is being asked for here in this bill and what I am asking on behalf of all Canadian children is that this House recognize the commitments Canada made on behalf of all Canadians among its international peers to commit resources to children, to put children at the first call of Canada's resources, and to respond to the specific provisions contained in the convention.

Canada has a long way to go. Indeed, I think we have gone in the opposite direction. It would be important if we made a change in direction, if we put children first and if we kept our word to the international community on behalf of our children.

Mr. Speaker, while this bill was not granted votable status in the committee, I wonder if I might ask for unanimous consent for it to be votable, in which case it could then be votable at some later stage.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. Is there unanimous consent to make his motion votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to consider Bill C-254, which the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing has introduced.

Bill C-254 proposes to amend the Interpretation Act to provide that every act of Parliament shall be construed and applied so as not to abrogate, abridge, or infringe any rights recognized in the convention on the rights of the child.

Bill C-254 also deems the reservations and statement of understanding Canada entered upon ratification not to be part of the convention.

Before commenting on Bill C-254, I will briefly examine the process that led to Canada's ratification of the convention.

Members are no doubt aware that Canada played an active role in the world summit for children held in September 1990. At that time world leaders spoke of the need for action to better the lives of the world's children. Canada's efforts at the world summit and its involvement in drafting the convention on the rights of the child served as a catalyst for increased federal efforts on behalf of children in Canada. These efforts, which included such initiatives as the action plan for Canada, entitled "Brighter Futures", began with the ratification of the convention on the rights of the child on December 13, 1991.

Canada's ratification of the convention on the rights of the child followed extensive consultations with the provinces and territories under the auspices of the continuing committee of federal, provincial, and territorial human rights officials. Since 1975 the continuing committee of officials on human rights examines questions concerning domestic implementation whenever Canada contemplates ratifying or acceding to another international human rights instrument. Consultations with national aboriginal representatives and organizations formed another important element of the consultations prior to ratifying the convention on the rights of the child.

These federal, provincial, and territorial consultations are held because while the federal government has the power to sign, ratify, or accede to international instruments, many human rights matters fall within spheres of provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution Act of 1867.

In Canada, international human rights conventions that Canada has ratified do not automatically become part of the domestic law so as to enable individuals to go to court when they are breached. Rather, each level of government is responsible for implementing in legislation or in practice those human rights obligations that arise within the constitutional powers it possesses. For this reason, Canada seeks provincial and territorial support before ratifying international human rights instruments.

Toward this end, legislation was reviewed at the federal level for consistency with the convention on the rights of the child. In particular, federal officials considered whether changes in legislation were required or whether Canada should consider entering a specific reservation or statement upon the standing to the convention. With respect to the latter, the law of treaties provides that in making a reservation a state or a nation indicates

that it is not bound by an obligation of the convention. In a statement of understanding the state explains how it interprets a particular convention obligation where the nature of the obligation is unclear.

Following the federal review of legislation and a similar review at the provincial and territorial level, Canada decided to enter two reservations and one statement of understanding to the convention on the rights of the child. I will speak to those two.

Canada entered a reservation to article 37(c) to ensure that in determining the custodial arrangements for a young offender, the well-being of other young offenders and the safety of the public may be taken into account.

Canada entered a reservation to article 21 and a statement of understanding to article 30 following consultations with national aboriginal organizations. Canada entered a reservation to article 21 to preserve customary forms of care among aboriginal peoples in Canada. By its statement of understanding to article 30, Canada seeks to ensure that in implementing the convention in relation to aboriginal children the child's right to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language are considered.

The Government of Canada takes seriously its obligation to implement the obligations of the convention on the rights of the child in Canada.

However, implementing these obligations without reference to the reservations and statement of understanding which Canada entered to the convention, as section 39.1(4) of Bill C-254 contemplates, would not reflect the manner in which Canada determines the custodial arrangements of young offenders and the concerns of aboriginal peoples of Canada. In this way Bill C-254 does not reflect the result of extensive consultations with provincial and territorial governments and with national aboriginal organizations. Therefore, I cannot support Bill C-254.

Bill C-254 also proposes to change fundamentally the relationship between domestic and international law in Canada. As I mentioned earlier, international human rights conventions that Canada has ratified do not automatically become part of domestic law so as to enable individuals to go to court when they are breached.

Bill C-254 would fundamentally change the existing relationship between domestic and international law for matters within federal jurisdiction. Bill C-254 would fundamentally change the precedent setting. To go along with Bill C-254 would set some important precedents.

In essence we would elevate some of Canada's obligations under the convention on the rights of the child, namely those obligations within federal jurisdictions, and make these directly enforceable before Canadian courts while other convention obligations, those within provincial jurisdictions as well as human rights obligations in other international human rights instruments, would not be so enforceable.

Not only would we be creating distinctions between different international human rights obligations but we would be fundamentally changing how international law is applied in our domestic legal system.

My difficulties with Bill C-254 do not, however, diminish the Government of Canada's support for implementing the convention in Canada. The Government of Canada in its first report to the UN on the convention on the rights of the child considers not only how Canada has implemented the convention to date but also discusses factors and difficulties we have encountered and sets out some goals for Canada in the future. The United Nations committee on the rights of the child will continue to supervise our government's performance, in particular our progress in meeting these goals.

Therefore, it is important the government respect its obligations under the convention when creating legislation or policies which may affect the rights of the child. For this reason the Department of Justice takes the convention obligations into account when providing legal advice. Parliamentarians should similarly take the convention into account when enacting legislation.

As well, Canadian courts have a role to play. Generally the courts presume legislation will be interpreted in a manner consistent with Canada's international obligations, including the convention on the rights of the child. Courts take international human rights instruments into consideration when they interpret the guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Finally, courts may turn to international human rights instruments like the convention on the rights of the child when interpreting legal concepts relating to children.

The speaker who proposes this motion had very good intentions. I cannot but agree with some of his expressions. Justice L'Hureaux-Dubé in the 1993 Supreme Court case Young v. Young addressed those questions of access and custody. The need to affirm the best interests of the child is a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, including legal proceedings.

In Justice L'Hureaux-Dubé's view, this reference to international law assisted in demonstrating the best interests of the child test is of enduring value in Canada. The court plays a very important part in ensuring Canada's international human rights obligations are respected.

As parliamentarians we have a similar responsibility; however, Bill C-254 is not the means by which this responsibility should be undertaken. Bill C-254 seeks to directly implement some convention obligations into domestic law but not others. Bill C-254 rejects the results of extensive consultations which

have been held with provincial and territorial governments and aboriginal organizations.

In government, in Parliament and in our courts Canadians must be vigilant and ensure the values and guarantees in the convention on the rights of the child are respected. The Government of Canada takes seriously its responsibilities to better the lives of Canadian children. Toward this end we will continue our efforts to meet the goals set out for us in Canada's first report on the convention on the rights of the child. In this way I hope to make the convention on the rights of the child a living, breathing document in Canada.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-254 deals with children's rights. I am glad to participate in this debate as the official opposition's critic for training and young people's issues to support the good intentions the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing expressed regarding children's rights in his private member's bill. I find it a little sad that there will only be a debate, and no vote, on his bill.

With issues such as sexual exploitation, child labour, health and education, social assistance, special care for handicapped children and especially when we consider that the bill is based on a convention signed by Canada and on a declaration of rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is a little surprising to see that the Liberal government, represented by its parliamentary secretary, has reservations about a bill of this kind. After all, it deals with rights which are, all told, quite basic.

The official opposition does have reservations, however, about certain rights falling under provincial jurisdiction. Take education and health, for example, over which the provinces have exclusive power, as you know. This does not stop us, of course, from agreeing in principle with the provisions of the bill, since the Bloc Quebecois is clearly very much in favour of giving children the best education and health care possible.

It is all well and good to wish to implement the principles of a bill based on a declaration of rights passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1959, as I said earlier. All well and good, but how does one go about really implementing such a measure?

I will now quote what the current Minister of Human Resources Development said on November 24, 1989, when he was an opposition member, regarding a private member's bill which also dealt with children's rights.

The Minister of Human Resources Development, the hon. member for Winnipeg, said the following: "I ask members to shed the speeches prepared by their departments. Open your eyes and your hearts a little, start looking at the reality of what is going on, and begin to talk about what is the real vocabulary in this country. A day does not go by in this House of Commons that we do not hear ministers or members of the Conservative regime talk about the deficit. That has become the icon of our times: the deficit. I never hear the Minister of Finance talk about the real deficit in this country-" and at the time, he said the real deficit was "-those one million kids in poverty". He went on to say: "That is where we should invest. That is where the real tragedy lies. Ten years from now, these children should be our teachers, business people, politicians and journalists. They will never get there because they will never be able to get started. When one million children live in poverty, that is a considerable loss. That is the big deficit we have to deal with. But nothing is being done to solve this serious problem". This was in 1989.

But what about children today, in 1995? How are they doing? I would like to quote the figures in the latest report from the National Council of Welfare for 1993, in Canada. What does it say? It says that in Canada 1,415,000 children live in poverty, which means that 20.8 per cent of Canadian children are living below the poverty line. There were one million in 1989, and now there are 1,415,000.

In Quebec, 348,000 children live below the poverty line, which means 20.9 per cent or slightly more than the national average. So the situation is getting worse instead of better. If we take the figures for 1981, we see that, since that time, the number of poor children has doubled. In 1981, Statistics Canada set this number at 700,000. This is incredible!

So if we have poor children in this country, it is because their parents are poor. There are no poor children without poor parents. So what has the Minister of Human Resources Development done since he was appointed a year and a half ago to remedy the situation, the same man who, in a speech in November 1989, condemned the Conservative government's failure to act in this respect? He said we should drop all our prepared speeches and start speaking from the heart and do something about the problem.

We saw the minister make cuts in unemployment insurance totalling $2.5 billion, so that the Minister of Finance could balance his latest budget, meaning that the budget would come in right on target. This was done by cutting unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, do you really think that by cutting unemployment insurance, by hitting the families of the unemployed, we have helped to reduce child poverty in Canada? Everyone knows the answer to that.

Was that the end of it? It was not just $2.5 billion. He also announced it would be $2.5 billion annually, in other words $7.5 billion over three years. That was just the first year. So what does the Minister of Finance have in store for this year?

Additional cuts which may get worse, starting with next year's budget. So we may be talking about a cut in social programs totalling $15 billion since the Liberal government came to power, in other words, the $7.5 billion that have already been announced and another $7.5 billion in the future.

Social programs include more than just unemployment insurance. There is also, of course, the federal contribution to welfare which may be as much as 50 per cent. Will cutting and freezing transfer payments to the provinces for social welfare financing help reduce child poverty in Canada?

I think the answer is obviously no. There are other serious situations. In the end, however, many children are poor because of the increasing number of single parent families here. In Canada, 453,000 children live below the poverty line because their mother is the head of a single parent household. Ninety per cent of children living with single mothers are living below the poverty line.

Worse yet, increasing numbers of couples with children are finding themselves living off only one salary. For those earning only minimum wage, the breadwinner would have to work 73 hours a week just to stay above the poverty line. Does this situation indicate an improvement in the child poverty situation? No, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, beyond the speeches and beyond the principles and good intentions of the hon. member presenting this motion, there is the matter of applicability and implementation and, in the end, of the government's political will to really work to reduce child poverty.

I would like to talk to you about a situation in Quebec. Particular efforts have been made in Quebec to protect young people. There are rehabilitation services. When I was a member of the committee on human resources development, I noted that, in many provinces, people asked us about services available in Quebec, which seemed to spark some jealousy in certain provinces. In a way, I say so much the better. True, Quebecers are very proud of their social programs in general.

Many people talk about the rights of children. Of course, I agree with them but I think that we should start right here in Canada and in our democratic societies to teach our children about their responsibilities with regard to the rights of others, particularly the people in their families, their communities and their schools, and their responsibilities to themselves. We should make every effort to ensure that our children can improve their knowledge while learning how to exercise their right to criticize, even at a young age, public policies in Canada and everywhere else.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-254 as chair of the Reform Party's task force on the family. I am pleased to do so.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Interpretation Act to provide that every act of Parliament shall be construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe any of the rights recognized in the convention on the rights of the child.

I would like to devote the majority of my time in reviewing the significance of the convention on the rights of the child to Canada and its families.

In May 1990 the Mulroney government signed the convention that was ratified by the House of Commons in December 1991. It officially came into force in January 1992. The intent of the convention is to provide a set of standards that confirms the respect our society gives to its youngest and most vulnerable members.

The convention is nobly phrased and seems well intended in attempting to address the needs of children from all corners of the globe. But does it or is it even wise to attempt such a task? There are some very real inherent problems with the convention that I wish to address today. First, the convention creates a new international bureaucracy, the committee on the rights of the child.

Under the convention each signatory state is required to submit reports to this committee through the UN Secretary-General every five years and it is: "to provide that Canadians become better informed of the obligations undertaken by Canada, to apprise them of measures taken by the various levels of government and to enlist their support and co-operation in efforts being made to promote the rights of the child".

The committee is made up of 10 experts elected for a four-year term from nationals of the signatory governments. It reviews the reports, makes suggestions and recommendations to the signatory governments and the Secretary-General as to what they think should be done. These reports and suggestions are passed through our internal guardian of family affairs-it has been known as the children's bureau-that then wields its interpretation on Canadian families.

The process of representation is at best flawed. Who represents Canada at international conferences? Or for that matter, how can we know whose agenda is being put forward? How do they know whether grassroots Canadians agree to the principles that they endorse? Who are the elite that interpret the ongoing directives that come back?

The record shows that Canada automatically signs many international conventions and treaties without really allowing for input or even the time to consider the long term implications

of the agreements. Then too, I would guess that our representatives are likely the very special interest groups or experts that determine our often flawed domestic policy direction.

Children in this country face numerous problems. We have heard a few from members already; abuse, poverty and others. The solutions implemented, let us face it, have been an abysmal failure. Now this UN convention seeks to expand those very same solutions on even a grander scale.

Presently a very real conflict is forming between international obligations and domestic policy as supported by Canadians. I would like to address this for a moment.

Section 43 of the Criminal Code provides legal protection for parents and teachers who use reasonable physical discipline of children. The current justice minister has stated that the government is reviewing this section of the Criminal Code "to determine that it meets the international obligations to which we now subscribe". He refers, as have other vocal groups, to Canada's obligation under article 19.1 of the UN convention of the rights of the child.

This is the agenda being pursued by the government, even though an overwhelming majority of Canadians support the use of reasonable physical force by parents in disciplining and correcting their children's behaviour. In March 1994, as reported in the Toronto Star , 70 per cent of those surveyed supported this view.

Canadian parents are being threatened by a movement to repeal section 43. For example, a triple amputee Calgary mother has recently been charged with assault for spanking her 11-year old daughter. Today an American visitor to our country is in court answering charges for disciplining his five-year old.

I support section 43 of the Criminal Code along with a majority of Canadians. I believe that parents and teachers should have legal protection to physically discipline children if they deem it necessary. A distinction has to be made between reasonable physical force in disciplining children and physical violence that constitutes abuse. In no way do I condone abuse against children. But if this section were to be repealed, parents and teachers would be powerless to impose authority by way of physical discipline on children even if circumstances warranted it.

The bill being debated today advocates that every act of Parliament be interpreted within the context of the UN convention on the rights of the child. As with section 43, my main concern is the impact that these externally imposed duties and responsibilities of a foreign UN convention would have on parental responsibilities now and in the future.

Article 3 of the convention would empower: "public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies" the responsibility to safeguard "the best interest of the child". No mention is made of parents or families safeguarding the best interests of the child. All of these bodies will be able to interfere in family matters, driving a deepening wedge between parents and children. In this way parental authority is undermined and usurped by government and bureaucrats. Excessive and unjustified government interference already is at the source of many problems and difficulties Canadian families face.

Let me conclude with an anecdote. Last week I had the opportunity to meet with some of my constituents. They came from all walks of life and wanted me to hear them out and carry their concerns to Ottawa. One request relates to our discussion today.

Two parents came to meet me with four of their seven children. The oldest of the seven is nine. While they shared with me their concern about this very issue their four boys waited patiently at the next table. Those boys' politeness and good behaviour were a testimony to the millions of families that do know better than the government or any bureaucrat will ever know how best to care for the best interests of their children.

I believe the duties and responsibilities for the rearing and safeguarding of children rests within the family unit, specifically the parents, the mother and father and extended family members if that is the case. It not the responsibility of an international committee of experts to suggest or recommend what our governments, families and parents should be doing to assist or protect children. Parents can do that independently without the interference of an international organization or committee of experts.

Government authorities should only be recognized when there is absence or real abuse of that parental authority. When will the government recognize it is our families that should be at the heart of every public policy debate? The best interests of our children are met by those healthy families.

Governments must not replace families. Disaster is at the end of that path. Governments must strengthen families so that they can do what they do best: nurture future generations that will build a strong Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), since there are no more speakers and since the motion was not selected as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on April 3, I rose in the Chamber to put a question to the government relating to Canada's participation at the Berlin meeting on climate change. It was the second time in a week that I had raised the issue, hoping the federal government would announce a real action plan aimed at establishing and stabilizing our levels of greenhouse gases. I was not to be satisfied.

The Berlin talks were the result of the June 1992 meeting of 106 of the world's nations held in Rio de Janeiro. At that meeting Canada made commitments which sadly we have not kept.

At the time of my last intervention in the House of Commons I reminded members that when we look at what has happened since the Rio meeting we do not have to look too far to see that nearly nine billion more tonnes of carbon have accumulated in the atmosphere and the evidence of climate change is mounting.

In response to the crisis the Minister of the Environment even went so far as to say that if Canada and the other nations emitting greenhouse gases do not do something about this, climate change and global warming will create a situation in which floods will occur off the east coast of Canada and the tiny and beautiful province of Prince Edward Island will be all but submerged.

It is hard for me to imagine that the Minister of the Environment knows about the possibility of this catastrophic event occurring but is not prepared to take immediate and dramatic actions to combat it.

In Berlin the Minister of the Environment pushed the plan for trading technology between industrialized and developing countries, but she put forward few details on measures to reduce greenhouse gases. She was criticized and continues to be criticized because this is not an action plan at all. The minister is said to have blocked progress on an agreement that would contain specific goals and deadlines for further reductions. The minister seems to have loss sight of the fact that Canada is committed to cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

It appears Canada will likely be up by 13 per cent above 1990 levels by the year 2000. As a result there is no question a real action plan which contains timetables and targets is an absolute necessity if this critical world problem is ever to be properly addressed.

For all intents and purposes the United Nations climate change conference wrapped up by accomplishing very little. Despite the urgent need for world action and despite the opportunity that Canada had to play a leadership role, the problem remains. More talks are needed to reach agreements for specific reductions.

The minister has put on a brave face, claiming the agreement to set new objectives by 1997 is a step forward-to quote her properly, a big win for everybody. Surely she cannot really believe this, especially if she wants to avoid moving the entire population of the province of Prince Edward Island.

When I read the news reports of the Berlin conference I cannot help but see the April 8 editorial that appeared in the Vancouver Sun which called the conference's conclusion a national humiliation. The Sierra Club indicated the results of the conference showed from Canada a shocking abdication of leadership.

Canada did, however, show leadership recently in the turbot war. Canada was prepared to take drastic action in the name of conservation of the fish stock off the continental shelf. Where is this same leadership in the name of conservation of the earth itself?

At the time of my question in early April there was media speculation that the federal government had lost its interest in the environment and had cut back federal spending in this regard to the point at which Environment Canada was no longer effective. This week we discovered that the much touted green plan was among those cuts and no longer exists.

In this regard, when will the Minister of the Environment and the federal government take up the political will necessary to strengthen the federal role on domestic environmental issues so that we will once again have true and meaningful credibility at the international level?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake and give the perspective of the Minister of the Environment. I want to assure the member the accomplishments of the Government of Canada at the recent climate change negotiations in Berlin are proof that Canada has an essential role to play in finding solid solutions to environmental challenges both at home and on the international scene.

The government and the environment have come out of that conference a clear winner in what is considered a significant step forward. Countries agreed in Berlin that current commitments contained in the framework convention on climate change are inadequate.

All developed countries that signed the convention will be required to begin negotiations on the protocol concerning future commitments. Countries will be required to report on the emission reduction policy and measures as well as set quantified limitations and reduction objectives.

Also, countries have agreed on a pilot phase for projects which can be undertaken jointly between developed and developing countries. This concept, known as joint implementation, is an important opportunity for Canadian business. We now have the green light to pursue commercial emission reduction projects in other countries. This is good for global climate change objectives and good for business here at home.

Canada's national action program on climate change tabled in Berlin sets out strategic directions which Canada will follow to meet our own commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.34 p.m.)