Gordon Earle

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today being the first day of environment week, I am very pleased to discuss Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and, in particular, Group No. 6 motions.

The bill is a very significant piece of legislation. It consists of 227 pages, 12 parts, 8 divisions and a total of 253 clauses that include regulations on toxic substances, exports and imports of hazardous waste, biotechnology, ocean dumping, vehicle emissions, fuels and fuel additives, international air pollution, enforcement and other environmentally related matters. It has undergone one of the lengthiest reviews in recent parliamentary history and has set several records.

I understand the committee held 59 meetings, 37 of which were on clause by clause review. More than 560 amendments were drafted for consideration. With today's proposed motions, Bill C-32 has now exceeded 800 amendments for consideration. The NDP has submitted over 100 amendments at committee, surpassing all opposition party amendments combined. I am very pleased to speak to the bill, which is perhaps the cornerstone of environmental protection in Canada.

I will turn now to the Group No. 6 motions. I will outline some of the points we would like to bring to the attention of the House concerning this group. It is very unfortunate that the Liberal government has imposed time restrictions to limit debate on this important bill which decides the level of environmental protection for Canadians.

Given the time restrictions I will begin to outline our efforts to provide a safer environment for children, the main theme behind the Group No. 6 motions. Children are especially vulnerable, as we heard earlier today, to environmental contaminants and pollution. A child's environment is affected even before birth.

If we look at such things as fetal alcohol syndrome, we know that what a mother takes into her body can affect the well-being of a child and have permanent and lasting effects throughout that child's life. Environment is very important for children.

People have concerns about lawns being sprayed with chemicals and pesticides. I recall receiving a letter from a person who had visited the town of Bedford. He said he was very impressed with this wonderful town in eastern Canada. He loved the place but he was concerned about the spraying of lawns that was taking place.

Environment is a very important issue. The Canadian Institute of Child Health presented a series of recommendations to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development during the review of Bill C-32. The purpose of the motions in Group No. 6 are to acknowledge the special protection that our children expect and deserve.

We have followed the child institute's suggestion to investigate the specific legislation which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has in place entitled “A Safer Environment for Children”. The President of the United States referred to the specific request of the Environmental Protection Agency to acknowledge the special vulnerability and susceptibility of children to environmental contaminants and pollution. Congress agreed with the president and backed this historic initiative.

The basis of the amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act recognizes that current public health and environmental standards require specific recommendations as related to children. This requirement should carry into the establishment of regulations which govern the exposure to contaminants children may face.

The EPA instructions are mirrored in our New Democratic Party Motion No. 41. We chose to place this motion in part 3, the information gathering section, to ensure ministers and legislators take children into consideration whenever decisions are being made on environmental matters. This is very important.

Sometimes children are forgotten members of society. We do not consider them when we are making decisions. It is very important that we consider children. This can include toxic substance reviews where the process to quantify or regulate substances are concerned. The specific requirements are to assure that ministers conduct research or studies with respect to the increased susceptibility children face.

The motion requires that alternate substances or products “safer for children” be identified. Information on the potential health effects to children is also addressed. This should be acceptable to members of the House. It is important to recognize this is a precautionary measure. This is a principle we must look at.

While we are discussing the importance of the environment to children in Canada and while we are looking today at legislation that is outlined to try to protect the Canadian environment, we cannot look at it in isolation. We must recognize environment is an issue that should be of concern to us worldwide.

I find it quite ironic that we can be looking at protecting our environment while at the same time we as Canadians and as partners to NATO are taking part in the destruction of the environment in another part of the world. We are dropping bombs that are polluting water resources. We are destroying chemical factories and so forth, sending pollution adrift into the air. We as partners are condoning the use of weapons by the Americans which involve depleted uranium.

I will tell the House a bit about depleted uranium. We are told that it is a highly toxic substance to humans both chemically as a heavy metal and radiologically as an alpha particle emitter which is very dangerous when taken internally. Upon impact depleted uranium bursts into flames. It produces a toxic and radioactive ceramic aerosol that is much lighter than uranium dust. It can travel in the air tens of kilometres from the point of release and settle, waiting to be stirred up in dust and suspended in the air from human or animal movement. It is very small and can be breathed in by anyone from babies and pregnant women to the elderly and the sick.

This radioactive and toxic ceramic can stay in the lungs for years, irradiating the surrounding tissue with powerful alpha particles. It can affect the lungs, the gastrointestinal system, the liver, the kidneys, bone and other tissue, and the renal system.

We understand that in the current conflict taking place in Kosovo, the A-10 Warthog is capable of firing 4,200 rounds of this abomination every minute. The U.S. government has suggested that almost one million rounds of this radioactive toxin casing were fired in Iraq during the gulf war. Iraq has witnessed explosive rates of stillbirths, children born with defects, childhood leukemia and other cancers, particularly in the region where these shells were fired.

When we talk about protecting the environment we must not take it in isolation. We must not think only about our Canadian environment. The air knows no boundaries. Water knows no boundaries. Certainly, if we are talking about protecting children, we must be cognizant of children across the world and throughout the entire universe.

I urge that we consider very strongly this group of motions which strives to take precautionary measures to protect our children and our future.

[Water Quality, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to issue statements about multiculturalism and racial equality. At the same time, a small, predominately black community in my riding does not even have a safe and healthy water supply.

The families of Hammonds Plains do not have adequate water, which is abominable in our country in this day and age. What makes it even more striking is the fact that this community borders the lake that supplies fresh water to Halifax and Dartmouth.

The people are drinking from wells where the water has been deemed to be unsafe and unsuitable. People have wells that run dry in the summertime. Quite often they have to call upon the local fire department to deliver water to them.

I trust that with new discussions about funding an infrastructure program this government is fully committed to ensuring it will do whatever is necessary to provide fresh water to the residents of Hammonds Plains.

It comes down to a matter of priorities. I have been pursuing this issue on the federal level. I have tried to seek whatever funds might be available from any of the programs that the federal government might have in the area of health, the environment, heritage and so forth. However, to date I have been unable to secure any meaningful funding from the federal government to assist in this project going ahead. Where does the government put its priorities?

[Competition Act, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, military personnel who live on bases in single quarters or in permanent married quarters must contend with old and deteriorating accommodations that are among the worst to be found in this country. Those are not my words but those of the report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

The quarters in some regions were called dilapidated by the committee and that was being very generous. From leaking roofs to cramped, old deteriorating spaces, Canada's forces personnel deserve much better from the country that they so admirably serve, and in particular from the Liberal government responsible for these decisions.

In one letter written to the forces publication The Maple Leaf we find the words “In the last 40-plus years some things never change. Morale seems to be every bit as low as it was then, and housing hasn't changed since the 1950s”.

Just listen to the Ottawa jargon with which the minister responded to these Canadians in need, “developing long range plans” and “we have long term plans”. The Liberal government's response to the report is equally unclear and noncommittal. It said “Over time, access to accommodation that meets these requirements will be realized”. Over time anything is possible but what is impossible is accepting this so-called response.

Canadian forces accommodation policy cites the need for well maintained quarters respecting dignity, privacy, safety and security. The Liberal government's policy is tough luck, you lose.

The Minister of National Defence announced last October that his Liberal government had cash on hand to spend $15 million building a brand spanking new armoury in Shawinigan which by great coincidence happens to be in the Prime Minister's own riding. A brand new armoury when Canadian forces troops live in unacceptable conditions.

I wonder if there is any money whatsoever in the $4 billion the government plans to spend on equipment over the next four years. This is money which may be better suited to meet the immediate needs of Canadian forces personnel condemned by the Liberal government to unsafe and rundown housing. The government has responded to a real crisis in Canada's forces with the words “long term plans”, “accepts the intent of their recommendations” and “over time, access to accommodation that meets these requirements will be realized”. Fancy words but empty words. Jargon at a bargain.

For married troops quarters, $40 million will be used to repair and maintain existing rundown housing. The Liberal government has decided to say to the families of Canadian troops, “Yes, we heard how bad it is. We even spent taxpayers' dollars to tour the country and find out just how bad it is, but we will not build one single new residence for you as a result, not one”.

I expect the government will respond to my comments touting this $40 billion band-aid and once again spouting jargon about how it supports in principle the needs and is working toward a long term plan.

I would like the government to respond to these comments with a step by step plan as to what quarters will be replaced this year, next year and the year after. By what month, in what year, will all forces personnel be able to live in acceptable conditions? I await the response to this challenge. The issue has been studied to death. Now is the time for action.

An annual report of the Canadian Forces Housing Agency from years ago said, “Without access to capital funding, little real progress can be made toward improving the quality of the crown housing portfolio”. Capital funding, not empty promises and more studies.

[Division No. 454, May 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to raise the issue of the desperate shape of our Canadian forces helicopters.

Let us listen to this litany of shame: February 1993, Sea King ditched in Gulf of Mexico due to electrical systems failure; April 1994, Sea King crashed in New Brunswick killing two crew and injuring others; August 1994, Sea King fleet grounded following emergency landing; May 1995, Labrador had emergency landing due to mechanical problems; September 1995, Sea King had emergency landing due to mechanical problems; August 1996, three Sea Kings grounded due to cracks in tail section; January 1997, Labrador crashed in Georgia Strait; October 1998, Labrador crash killed six; February 1999, Sea King in trouble due to bad main rotorhead; March 1999, Labrador adrift on lake due to losing both engines; March 1999, Sea King had emergency landing due to electrical systems; May 1999, Sea King makes forced landing due to leak in hydraulic system.

There is one more date of note. On June 26, 1986 the Treasury Board began the process of replacing the Sea Kings. Almost 13 years have passed since then, 13 years.

The Liberal government turned our forces helicopters into hell-copters when in June or July of 1995 the cabinet chose to delay the purchase of the replacement helicopters. It was a cheap political decision at the time but has become costly and poses serious issues in terms of the safety of Canadian lives.

These mechanical albatrosses may have led to the unnecessary deaths of Canadians and continue to present safety hazards and risk to life. I say unnecessary because the Liberal government made a very specific decision to delay the purchase of the helicopters.

It is not as if the minister and his government did not know of the problems. Headlines have screamed out the following news to Canadians for some time: Labradors unable to join rescue; helicopters grounded again; aging helicopters risk lives; faulty chopper delays recovery of 11-year old; helicopter malfunctioned days before crash; helicopter kills two veteran firefighters; the Liberals' chopper whopper; Sea Kings a threat; Sea King makes emergency landing.

The government may respond with platitudes about taking time to make sure the right choice is made, care for fiscal responsibility, that plans are proceeding well and the need to ensure the finished product is safe. Canadians are sick and tired of excuses.

The government must answer three questions. First, what specific short term alternatives has the government explored, including short term leases until the new helicopters are operational? Second, what specific efforts has the government made to speed up the procurement process and why exactly have these efforts failed? Third, what month will the replacement helicopters be operational?

A failure on behalf of the Liberal government to openly, honestly and completely answer these three questions is a gross betrayal not of me but of the families and communities who have lost loved ones, a betrayal of Canadian forces personnel who have no alternative but to continue to use these aging helicopters, a betrayal of all Canadians and a betrayal of good government.

I express my gratitude for all Canadian forces personnel who will bear the brunt of the Liberal government's mismanagement of the issue. They are the heroes in this tragedy of errors wrought by the government.

[Shipbuilding Industry, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while in opposition the Prime Minister wrote the following to the Marine Workers Federation in 1990:

It is safe to say that most people recognize that something has to be done to create a much more competitive shipbuilding industry. The government should now, as they should have done long ago and indeed as they promised to do, take steps to alleviate the problem.

Almost nine years have passed since that letter was written and for six of those years he has been the Prime Minister.

Our shipbuilding industry is foundering on the shoals of government neglect and this Prime Minister refuses to act. The United States, Italy, France, Spain, Britain, Korea and China have shipbuilding strategies, but Canada does not.

We have the technology and we have the skilled workers. What we do not have is a federal government that is committed to the future of a Canadian shipbuilding industry. The Port of Halifax recently lost its bid for post-Panamax shipping business because of a lack of strong support and commitment by the federal government.

I call on the Liberal government to meet and work with the shipbuilding workers, unions and businesses to craft a strategy.

[Young Offenders Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on March 5, I raised the issue of charges pending against Mike Kipling and the pursuit of these charges against this man.

There are many issues surrounding the government's administration of the anthrax vaccine to Canadian forces personnel last spring in the Persian Gulf. A vaccine researcher corresponded with my office earlier this year and raised some very interesting issues.

This researcher was informed by the Department of National Defence that it was a matter of military policy that forces personnel were to be provided with specific written disclosure of contraindications and possible adverse effects associated with immunization. As well, prior to immunization, forces personnel should be briefed as to the risks of the diseases the vaccination is supposed to prevent.

Sergeant Kipling was left with serious and unanswered questions after reading the acknowledgement form. This vaccine researcher claims that there is no data addressing how carcinogenic this vaccine may be nor about any possible reproductive effects.

The Nuremberg Code of 1947 clearly states that in terms of following orders:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

Is the government able to say without a doubt that voluntary consent was given? I think not.

I would like to hear from the government, in response to my comments, why the Liberal administration supports people losing their right to decide what goes into their bodies simply by virtue of the fact that they have joined the Canadian forces?

It appears, from the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, that the company which provided the anthrax vaccine in question may have re-labelled a lot of outdated drugs. Furthermore, the government did no independent testing of the chemical package it wanted so desperately to inject into the body of Sergeant Kipling and other Canadian forces personnel.

Will the government commit here and now that it will review policies concerning vaccinations to allow for individual choice and the possibility of waiving vaccinations and whether some quarantine during testing might suffice to meet the goal of protecting the population at large?

[Kosovo, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, media reports indicate that the Yugoslav army may be withdrawing from Kosovo and there is concern that large movements of troops in convoy may attract bombing by NATO.

If the Yugoslav army is in fact leaving Kosovo, what is the government doing to ensure that these troops can withdraw without being bombed? I would also like to know what the government is currently doing to bring us closer to a diplomatic solution for peace?

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

A hand in the cookie jar, that is exactly what is happening.

Who is protecting the interests of the public servants, the people who work faithfully day in and day out trying to give effect to the laws and programs that parliament decides upon? It is certainly not their employer, which is the government.

We have a lot of concerns about this particular legislation.

Does the government recognize that the bill represents a shift in the way pension surpluses will be dealt with? It is setting a precedent not just for the public sector but for the private sector as well. Employers right across the country will soon be looking at the surpluses in the pension plans of their employees and deciding that they can perhaps take those to accommodate for business losses. Why not? The government has set the precedent by doing exactly that.

Does the government consider an individual's pension to be part of the wage packet? This again draws our attention to pay equity. What has the government done there? It is withholding money that is due to its employees, money that has been ruled on by a human right tribunal and money that has been determined to be rightfully that of the employees. The government is again failing to come to an agreement to settle those issues. This is just a continuation of that pattern. We have very great concerns about the approach that is being used by the government in this issue.

Let us look at some of the people who are suffering the most from this: widows, survivors and people in the low income bracket. The government talks about needing this money or wanting to take this money to improve things. Why not improve the pension benefits for those who are receiving benefits?

Currently the average pension for a woman with 20 years service is $9,600 a year. We know that $9,600 goes nowhere today. What is the government doing? Instead of saying “We've got a surplus and we should try to improve those benefits”, it is saying “Let's take these benefits away, put it in our general coffers and pay down the debt”.

Does the government not agree that much of the surplus was accumulated because of the wage freeze for the public sector employees and the delays in paying pay equity? Does it not agree that this meant that many people received lower than expected pensions? Does the government not agree that allowing the federal government to take the surplus means that employees must pay twice?

In conclusion, I would like to say a theme that I constantly say in the House. When we are dealing with matters of this importance, we should always be asking ourselves how we would want to be treated if we were in the same situation. We should ask ourselves if we are treating people with respect and dignity when we do things that take away their right to have a say over their lives.

If we guide ourselves by the principle that we should not do something to others that we would not want done to ourselves, I am sure that we would have a much better approach in terms of governing the country.

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to address the concerns we have regarding Bill C-78. These concerns are being brought forward as we discuss the amendments to the bill.

The important principle that we must first look at before we discuss the amendments is how the process is being abused on this particular issue. The government has chosen to move closure after only a few hours of debate on a bill that is important to all of us. The Liberals are also trying to shift the debate by suggesting that the unions want the entire $30 billion surplus in the pension fund. We know this is not the case. The facts of the case are quite simple.

This fund belongs to the members of the plan. Any surplus should be used for the benefit of the members and others affiliated with the plan such as retirees and widows. This would be a very desirable use for the surplus. However, the government wants to grab the money, put it in its coffers and say it has wrestled down the debt, but it will have been done on the backs of those who need the plan, those who have contributed and worked hard. It will be done in the same way the EI fund was grabbed and taken away from those who are unemployed.

The unions are not trying to stuff their pockets, but the government is certainly trying to stuff its pockets. The unions want to improve benefits for their members, for the start-up costs in the future and for any changes to the plan.

We realize there are 670,000 members of the plans affected. The allocation of the surplus needs to address the contributions of these members who have contributed to the plan. We often hear the government say that the taxpayers own this money and that it is the taxpayers it must protect. The people who contributed to these plans are also taxpayers and we must look at their benefits and their rights.

Another important point that is being missed is that a very established principle is being undermined by this action. Under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, a principle was established that the use of a surplus should be determined by two-thirds of the plan members.

Bill C-78 and the Liberal's time allocation contradicts this principle. It takes away the principle of ownership of surplus of funds which is inherent in both public and private pension plans. It takes away the right of the pension plan members to determine what should be done with their surpluses. This is a shift in the way pension surpluses would be dealt with and it should be of great concern to all Canadians in both the private and public service pension plans.

The fundamental principle of agreement of all plan members is a principle that must be upheld. This is really a democratic principle. People should have the right to say what they feel should be done with the surpluses in their pension plans.

There are certainly some questions that need to be answered as we look at this whole issue. What possible justification can Liberals claim for shutting down democratic debate in parliament on a bill of this magnitude? We have seen it happen over and over again. We come to the House with an issue of very great importance to all of us and before we have a chance to debate it thoroughly and go into detail about it, the government calls for closure.

Why has parliament not had adequate opportunity to consider the effects on the economy or the effects on the public programs by taking the action it is taking?

This action is being taken at a time when our country is engaged in a war overseas in Kosovo, when matters of the highest order are consuming the public's attention and parliament's attention. It is at this time that the government seems to be trying to slip this complex legislation through. The government is trying to get this legislation slipped through the House while Canadians' attention is diverted elsewhere.

Who are we affecting with this legislation? We are affecting the Canadian military, the people who are fighting over in Kosovo. While they are away fighting, the government is back here grabbing the surplus from their pension funds.

We are also affecting the RCMP, the people who we entrust to keep law and order, to put their lives on the line fighting crime and to do all kinds of things to protect society. While they are protecting society, who is protecting their pension fund? It is certainly not the government.

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Motion No. 528, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should defend section 43 of the Criminal Code in the courts and should invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if necessary.

What exactly does Section 43 of the Criminal Code state? It deals with the correction of a child by force. It states:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

Therein lies the rub, “what is reasonable under the circumstances”. We know that what may appear reasonable to one person may certainly be unreasonable to others.

We oppose this motion. We feel that, if anything, section 43 should be repealed, whereas this motion talks about maintaining section 43. We feel that it should be repealed because it is a 19th century law that was first codified in 1892 which legally sanctions physical violence against children. It should be repealed, not preserved.

Section 43 has been used as a successful criminal defence by parents who have hit their children with straps, belts, sticks and extension cords, causing bruises, welts and abrasions. People have used this defence in court to justify that behaviour toward children.

Children are the only class of Canadian citizens who can legally be assaulted for their correction. We do not hit adults to correct them. We gave up years ago using the whip to correct adults, but for some reason we feel that we can assault children to correct them.

People have argued that this does not have any adverse effect upon children. We agree that it is obvious children have to be taught and socialized, but the legal right to hit them as a method of training is wrong because it is contrary to basic human rights. It promotes violence as a legitimate response to conflict and it leads to physical and emotional harm to thousands of children each year.

They can talk about all the studies they want. People can pick the studies they want to support their point of view. I am going to give a very real example of how such physical activity, allegedly to correct a child and probably done by the people involved thinking it was reasonable under the circumstances, affected one individual in Canada, and I am sure he is only one among many.

A constituent wrote to me. I checked with him before coming here tonight to ask if I could talk a bit about his case. He said “By all means. Use my name if necessary”, but I will not use his name. This young fellow was adopted in 1956 and lived in a small village in Nova Scotia. He talks about his early childhood when he had a very severe bed wetting problem. What was his parents' response to this bed wetting problem? They would spank him to try to cure him of it. That was their strategy. Instead of curing it, it got worse.

At the age of five he began school. He talks about the principal as being a huge, six-foot, four-inch tall monster, with a stern face and a very cold personality. He tells us that this person would discipline him. He had only been in school a couple of weeks when he received his first strapping. He said: “Boy did it hurt. It made my father's spanking feel like child's play. I stood there with my hand out and I was given 15 straps on each hand. I was bawling my eyes out and screaming at the top of my lungs. The louder I screamed, the harder this person strapped”.

Finally it got so bad he said “I pissed my pants. After the strapping I was sent back to class in my wet pants until it was time to go home”. When he got home his mother said “Well, you must have done something to deserve it”. He was then given a spanking for wetting his pants. This was all sanctioned under the code. He was spanked. The mother was enraged and said “He is not only bed wetting now but he is also wetting his pants”.

This continued until the end of grade one. Then he moved into grade two. In grade two his principal was a bulky man, about 230 pounds and five feet eight inches tall and made his previous principal look like a boy scout by comparison. The same thing happened. He was strapped almost daily. He said “I was strapped approximately 60 to 70 times in that year and my spirit was definitely broken”. To make matters worse, the bullies in his class would chase him home and beat him up.

He said “At eight years old I was a tortured, scared little boy, very quickly filling with hatred and anxiety and wishing I was dead”. He talks further about how this kind of abuse continued in the school system, condoned by the law the Reform Party would like to maintain and buttress up.

He said “Life had become unbearable and I remember praying to God on many occasions to let me die and end this insanity. It had come to the point where every day after school I would run out of school as soon as the bell rang and head straight for the woods behind the school and work my way through the woods in order not to be seen by people and to be beat up by these bullies. Every morning as the class sang O Canada I would be strapped for running home through the woods rather than walking home in an orderly fashion”.

It is a matter of interpretation when people talk about what is reasonable and unreasonable. I am sure the school authorities of the day would argue that they were using reasonable means to train these children and to bring them up in a proper way so that they would behave properly. We see this activity as far from reasonable, but people want to maintain this kind of activity.

Over the period of four years he was strapped 300 to 400 times. When he turned 13 years old, in order to gain acceptance from his fellow classmates, he turned to alcohol and smoking pot. It became an addiction. This was the effect of this kind of discipline and activity in his life. I am sure there are many people out there who find themselves in similar circumstances and who over the years have experienced what has been correction by force.

There are contemporary parenting courses and publications on child rearing and discipline that give effective and practical advice on non-violent alternatives to spanking and hitting. Sure it takes a little bit more work.

My hon. friend from the Conservative Party said that it was necessary sometimes to have to discipline a child in this way. We have to find other ways to discipline our children so we are not hitting them. When we hit a child it in turn teaches them to hit others and we see it accelerating.

Look at some of the activities taking place today in the school system and some of the actions of children right across the country where they have no respect for other people. Part of it is probably because they have not been respected as a person. We do not respect a person when we are so much larger than they are and we grab them when they have no defence and physically shake or spank them.

The bottom line is we must always ask ourselves how would we like to be treated? Would we appreciate someone grabbing us and spanking us? Perhaps some people would. In all honesty no one wants to be overpowered by someone bigger than themselves. They do not want to feel helpless and defenceless while they are physically struck. This is what we are talking about.

We have to look at other means of disciplining our children. Give them guidance, give them love, give them direction. Set an example that they would want to follow rather than show them that it is okay for someone bigger than they are to hit them in order to correct them. We must ask ourselves are we treating people in the way we want to be treated?

The Reform Party pays great lip service to family values and the importance of children, but it does not appear to care about protecting children from the physical and emotional pain of violent abuse which is currently safeguarded by section 43. In advocating the preservation of this section that justifies and rationalizes corporal punishment, the Reform Party is ignoring the fact that current conditions are intolerable.

There were 4,229 substantiated cases of physical abuse investigated in Ontario alone in 1993. Attempts to discipline by corporal punishment were suspected in 85% of the substantiated cases. People oftentimes start out lightly disciplining but as the child gets a little more stubborn, all of a sudden the parent gets a little more forceful and what started out perhaps as a gentle spanking ends up being much worse.

I urge all members of the House to look realistically at this. They should not try to justify it because of what may have happened to them in the past, and say “Well, I was spanked and I am okay”. They should look realistically at what it is doing to children and be honest with themselves and decide to oppose the motion and all forms of physical violence to children.