Libby Davies

[Housing, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is an affordable housing crisis in the country and close to five million Canadians are at risk.

While the housing ministers' meeting in Quebec City tomorrow is a good step, the question is, will anything of substance happen? Canadians who desperately need affordable housing cannot live on principles. They need an agreement now to get non-profit housing built ASAP.

Does the minister have the provinces on board and is there a federal commitment for a fully funded national housing strategy? Does he have that commitment and does he have the agreement of the provinces?

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of Motion No. 6 put forward by the member for Lanark--Carleton, I want to put on the record that members of the NDP will be supporting the motion as we have the previous amendments. We think these amendments are an attempt to make the bill more palatable.

I want to echo the comments of my hon. colleague who spoke before me and question the kind of direction we are taking, not only as a parliament but as a Canadian society. It is very surprising to me. I think a lot of people wonder whether this place, we as parliamentarians and the work we do, are relevant. We have to question that as well when we see legislation which has come forward and on which the government now has made clear it intends to bring in closure or time allocation.

This is probably the most important piece of legislation to come before the House in decades, maybe in the history of our country, and yet the debate is being forced and pushed because the government is so intent on shutting down public debate. As I said earlier when debating other amendments, I have never had so much feedback from Canadians across the country than on this legislation.

When we look at this particular amendment, which would limit the secrecy provisions on individuals who work for security agencies to a maximum of 15 years, it is yet another proposal to deal with the fundamental issue of what is in the public realm and what is deemed to be held by the government or by government agencies. Rather than codifying practices and procedures that remove the rights of Canadians to information, to due process and to understanding what it is that is being said about them or against them, we should be examining the kinds of processes we have now.

It was probably surprising to some people to read stories in the press recently about someone like David Lewis, a former leader of the New Democratic Party, who was under surveillance by law enforcement agencies. These practices have gone on for years and years yet as Canadians we know very little about them.

Frankly I find it quite shocking. It seems to me that rather than pushing the bill through, we should be opening up some of these processes that now exist in examining what has gone on in previous years that we are only now just beginning to find out about.

I would hope, based on his comments today, that the hon. member, who spoke so eloquently in his opposition to the bill, would agree with members of the New Democratic Party and vote against the bill. We should be putting forward amendments but at the end of the day we should recognize that the bill is flawed and anti-democratic and it jeopardizes the civil liberties and rights of all Canadians.

While we have been told repeatedly by the Minister of Justice and other government officials that the bill is targeted toward terrorist activities and organizations that support those activities, there are still huge questions about how far the bill will go, how wide the net will be cast and that there will be people who will be targeted.

The case of Mohammed Attiah is a very good example of what can happen even before the bill is approved. It should serve as a significant warning as to what will take place if the bill goes through and there is further targeting. This was a situation where a Canadian citizen who worked as an engineer in an atomic energy plant was questioned because his name happened to be on some list. I am sure his ability to respond and call in someone who could advocate for him was non-existent. He was placed in an incredibly vulnerable position and as a result lost his job. Just being under suspicion caused him to lose his job, his credibility and the professionalism he had built up in his work in that area.

When I read about that case I was outraged and, as I said, it happened before the bill even becomes law.

I would rather that as a parliament we actually examine what is now taking place. We should examine those procedures to make sure the practices we currently have are not being abused and that the human, civil and political rights of Canadians to dissent, to access information and to a fair hearing are being upheld.

I strongly believe that it is incumbent upon all of us in the House, particularly among the opposition parties, to work as hard as we can to make improvements to the bill. However, we in the NDP have come to the conclusion that the bill must be defeated. It is bad legislation. It does not serve the public interest nor does it serve the democratic interest of our country.

We will be supporting the amendment and I thank the member for Lanark--Carleton for bringing it forward. Obviously a lot of work has taken place in the committee. We want to make sure there is a full debate, not just around this amendment but other amendments that are yet to come forward. We want to make sure that there is a full debate about the bill and that it is not just rammed through by the government. It is probably the most significant piece of legislation to come before the House and we need to make sure it does not go through.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak at report stage of Bill C-36 and to deal with the amendments that are before us.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous work done by the NDP member for Winnipeg--Transcona, both in the House and at the justice committee, on behalf of the NDP. He has very clearly articulated the grave reservations many Canadians have about the bill. I want to acknowledge his work at committee in putting forward suggestions for amendments. Unfortunately they have not been accepted and I think that is deeply regrettable.

As the member of parliament representing Vancouver East, where there are many organizations involved in international solidarity work and in anti-globalization and peace and justice work, I have never received so much e-mail and so many letters, faxes and phone calls as I have on this bill. I have never received so much feedback from people, feedback on their fundamental concerns about where the bill will take Canadian society. I really appreciate the fact that people have taken the time to analyze what is in the bill and to think about it in a very thoughtful and reflective way, not just as it applies today but as it will apply five years from now or even further down the road.

The response I have had from people in east Vancouver, Vancouver in general and indeed right across the country is that they are very fearful. They are fearful that the federal government has embarked on a very narrow agenda that has focused so much emphasis on security measures, really symbolized by what the bill represents, that the bill would fundamentally undermine and forever change the character of what we believe our Canadian democracy to be.

I have attended numerous peace rallies, forums and demonstrations in Vancouver where people have come together because they are so concerned about the impact of the bill. The Group No. 1 amendments before us today are supported by our caucus because they are attempts by all opposition parties to bring forward some suggestions and amendments that will mitigate some of the really offensive pieces of this legislation. We in the NDP will be supporting those amendments when they come up for a vote. As the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona said earlier, however, even with those amendments we are still fundamentally opposed to Bill C-36.

When the debate first started a number of weeks ago, I remember the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice saying that they wanted to hear from Canadians and have a genuine debate. I really wonder whether that has taken place. I know that many witnesses appeared before committee who were almost unanimous in their appeal to the government to bring in meaningful sunset clauses and to bring in a definition that would clearly narrow the definition of a terrorist activity. I feel that the response from the government has really been quite pathetic and quite alarming in that it seems the government has refused to hear legitimate concerns, whether they are from the Canadian Bar Association, the civil liberties association or from organizations that could be caught in the net and listed as entities and possibly have their assets and so on frozen. The government has not provided a response in terms of listening to those concerns and as a result amending this legislation.

I do want to speak to one other concern. Today I attended a very important photographic session at the National Arts Centre down the street. It was put together in recognition of national child poverty day. It consists of a series of photographs put together by photojournalists from leading newspapers and magazines in Canada in order to give a face to poverty in our country.

I bring this up because to me this provides the kind of contrast and debate in which we really need to be involved. On the one hand we have Bill C-36 and some amendments before us that may slightly mitigate the very drastic measures in the bill.

There is a great fear from a lot of the groups that I have spoken with across the country that we cannot bring about security at the point of a gun. We cannot bring about security through cluster bombs. We cannot bring about security in the long term through a bill such as this. Real security, common security, comes about by dealing with our global environment, our geopolitical environment, in a way that does remove the economic and social conditions that lead people into a space where they feel hopeless about their future. This was really brought home to me today in looking at these photographs of Canadian children who basically face a life where there is not much hope and there is not a sense of a future that has good opportunity.

I know there is great concern that the bill and what will flow from it in terms of the upcoming budget is something that will detract from dealing with pressing social issues in Canada, so theoretically and in fact in a very strong legislative way we will have acted upon what are for sure people's legitimate security concerns about the world that they live in. However, I think there is a great danger that in doing that and in focusing so much energy and resources on that agenda, we will have completely lost sight of and again turned a deaf ear to the other kinds of security issues that face us in terms of social inequality, in terms of a lack of housing and what happens to kids who grow up in poverty. That was something that became very clear to me today as I looked at those photographs.

Like many people, I have watched the debate at the justice committee hearings on Bill C-36. We have had many debates in the House about the need to have amendments, particularly the sunset clause. I feel really disappointed and I wish that there had been a different response from the government in terms of the Minister of Justice coming forward with more significant amendments. The most basic one would have been a real sunset clause, because I think one of the concerns a lot of people have is that the legislation, even with the so-called sunset clause, will in effect be with us for a decade.

We have to examine the legislation under a microscope that looks at the balance of civil rights versus security. It has to be a microscope that looks at the bill in terms of the resources that will be required now to implement the bill. We need to have a proper accounting about whether or not we have moved in a direction that is taking us toward a society in which all of our liberties are being infringed upon, in which people can be targeted, organizations can be targeted, people can be wiretapped, people can be compelled to give evidence and people can be defined as possibly engaging in terrorist activities when they are basically exercising their democratic rights.

Having come to this point now in the House where we are dealing with the amendments, I want to say that I and other members of the New Democratic Party cannot support the bill. We do support the amendments before us today because they are just small measures that try to improve the bill, but fundamentally this is a bad piece of legislation. Fundamentally, this is a piece of legislation that many people see as the thin edge of the wedge. It will move us into a society where, while we say in the name of democracy we bring this forward, we are at the same time undermining our democratic institutions and our democratic principles.

I would certainly urge members of the House to support these amendments as far as they go, but at the end of the day I believe we have to oppose the bill.

[Housing, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for housing says that he is going to honour his commitment in the red book on housing. He should turn the page because those commitments will not come even close to the 30,000 units that are needed each year. One critical need is with respect to the conditions in housing facing aboriginal people in the country.

Will the minister commit to a fully funded and reactivated urban aboriginal housing program and a self-management proposal that has been requested repeatedly by aboriginal organizations?

[Housing, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today municipalities across the country joined thousands of people in more than 20 communities in a national day of action on Canada's urgent housing needs.

There is a desperate call from the FCM and from housing groups as yet another winter approaches because it is clear that the funds being considered by the federal government for housing are not good enough. They are not even an adequate downpayment. It is time for a fully funded national housing strategy.

Will the minister commit to this or will he fail homeless Canadians again?

[Carriage By Air Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. He recognizes that there is great insecurity among Canadians that goes far beyond the bill.

We in the NDP want to see the government take much firmer action in terms of providing security to Canadians. The whole issue of airline security and the fact that there is a lack of confidence in it is one indication of where the government needs to step in.

We have heard the minister say he is introducing measures to bring this about, but it is unclear whether the measures would ensure a uniform system across the country that would increase the level of safety for the travelling public. It is unclear whether they would ensure high standards of work and training for the people involved. All these measures are important.

While the bill deals with matters of liability and compensation we must all work to make sure the airline industry is as safe as possible so we can minimize accidents and compensation.

These are some aspects of the bill we believe need to be followed up. I would encourage the hon. member as part of the government caucus to make sure the issues are addressed and brought forward so that members representing different parties in the House have some common goals in that regard.

[Carriage By Air Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House today on behalf of the New Democratic Party and on behalf of my constituents in Vancouver East on the second reading of Bill S-33, an act to amend the Carriage By Air Act.

Bill S-33 is largely technical legislation. The main purpose of the bill is to allow Canada to ratify the Montreal convention. The Montreal convention was developed in 1999 at a meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization. The Montreal convention establishes a comprehensive and up to date set of international rules defining and governing the liability of air carriers in the event of loss of baggage or cargo, delay of international flights, or the death or injury of a passenger. Those are certainly important aspects to be covered and the NDP is pleased to be supporting the bill as a result of the Montreal convention.

I listened with interest to my colleague from the Bloc. It is ironic that we have this legislation before the House today because it represents one tiny piece of a much bigger picture of what the aviation industry in Canada is facing today, which concerns us all. It is a crisis. The bill before us today in no way addresses the fundamental consequences and issues facing both airlines, airline workers and the travelling public.

I also want to add my comments on the bankruptcy of Canada 3000, Canada's second largest airline. Thousands and thousands have been laid off which has caused huge insecurity for the workers, their families and local communities. In terms of the ripple effect and the impact this has had on people's lives, we can only begin to understand. Even beyond Canada 3000, the layoffs in Air Canada since September 11 have also caused enormous distress.

The bill only deals with a very small piece of what we are facing and yet all these other things are going unattended. I certainly add my voice to others in the House and those of my party who have called on the government to be much more proactive in its approach to dealing with our airline industry in Canada.

My colleague, the member for Churchill, our transportation critic, has done an outstanding job in questioning the minister and government members on exactly what it is the government intends to do to not just rescue in an immediate sense Canada's aviation industry but its long term plan. I think that is a question that is still unanswered. I think there is a lot of concern and anxiety in the travelling public who now have a lack of confidence about what it is they face in terms of safety, security, affordability and a certainty that Canada's airline industry and the various carriers that exist will be able to continue to operate.

The one thing we know, in this vast country of ours from east to west and north to south, is that we depend on airlines to move people and goods around. We also recognize the demise of our transportation industry in terms of rail, but there is no question that airline travel across Canada is very important to business and local communities that would otherwise be very fragmented and isolated.

Having dependable service and knowing there is a vision and a plan for Canada's aviation industry, is clearly within the mandate, the responsibility and the duty of the federal government.

While we are debating the bill today I absolutely want to add my voice to the others who are calling on the government to take a much stronger position on the question of the future of our airlines. There is no doubt we are now seeing the consequences not only of September 11 but of years and years of deregulation and privatization.

The Minister of Transport, as my colleague from Regina--Qu'Appelle pointed out so well in the House, has presided over the demise of six airlines. It makes me wonder whether anyone on the government side is in the driver's seat. Are they one step ahead of the game in figuring out what needs to be done or are they just watching what is going on?

We point these things out today even though we are dealing with a bill that is limited in scope. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We want to say loud and clear that the government must provide a sense of confidence not just to the House but to the Canadian public. It must assure Canadians that our airline industry has a promising and secure future and that people will not be dinged and find out their airline tickets do not mean anything any more.

People go to the airport and find that suddenly the pieces of paper that cost them $300, $500 or more do not mean anything. They must tear them up and figure out how they will get home. This is hardly what one would expect to see in Canada. This is a pretty serious situation.

We call on the government to be much more proactive in its response and planning. We call on it to articulate a vision which will secure the public interest after so many years of deregulation and privatization. It must come forward with an expression that our transportation industry and our airline industry is of national interest. There must be involvement by the federal government to uphold the public interest.

In terms of Bill S-33, the new set of rules governing the liability of carriers would modernize the Warsaw convention system. The convention dates back many years to 1929. Although it has been amended and supplemented over the years the convention still sets levels of liability for damage or loss of cargo and baggage. It also sets compensation levels for victims of air accidents, obviously something that very much concerns people these days.

The Montreal convention would be of considerable benefit to Canadian air travellers. Those who have lost luggage or had it damaged would benefit. Current levels of liability are low, resulting in a significant limitation of compensation. It is important that the new convention upgrade and update levels of compensation. The new limit would allow most passengers whose luggage is lost or damaged to receive full compensation. That is something that is important in the bill.

The major feature of the Montreal convention is the concept of unlimited liability. This is an important feature. The Warsaw convention, the earlier convention under which we operated, had set a limit of approximately $8,300 U.S. in the case of death or injury of a passenger. Clearly these kinds of liability limits are completely out of date and out of line in today's world.

The new Montreal convention would introduce a two tier system. In the first tier there would be strict liability up to a level of $135,000 U.S. irrespective of a carrier's fault. The second tier would be based on the presumption of fault by a carrier and would have no limit of liability. That is important in terms of the ability of the travelling public to know the second tier exists and that there is no limit of liability.

The convention would provide a mechanism for the periodic review of liability limits. This is an important element since one of the reasons a new set of rules is needed is the fact that earlier liability limits are completely out of date and have no provision for renewal.

The Montreal convention includes other important elements. Air carriers would need adequate insurance to cover their potential liability. This would ensure carriers would have the financial resources to pay in cases of automatic payment or litigation. In the case of an accident air carriers would need to provide advance payment to entitled persons to meet their economic needs. This would provide some financial protection for Canadian air travellers.

The new convention would provide another area of jurisdiction that is of benefit to claimants. It would allow a claim to be made in the country of the passenger concerned provided the carrier involved operated services to and conducted business in that country.

This would mean legal action for damages could be initiated in Canada for Canadians involved in accidents outside Canada as long as the air carrier was active in Canada. That is an important protection for the public. It would give air passengers an easier and more straightforward route through which to apply for compensation.

We are pleased to see this included in the convention. I have never experienced it myself but one reads about what happens when accidents occur. It is hard to imagine the horrific wrangling, bureaucratic paperwork and mess people must go through to make compensation claims. It is something none of us would want to experience. The fact that the convention would provide a more accessible route to apply for compensation is important.

The Montreal convention seeks to establish uniform rules governing the liability of airlines. It would help achieve equality and fairness in compensation arrangements.

Canada signed the Montreal convention in 1999 so it is fairly recent. It was done with a view to ratification. We in the NDP believe Canada should enact the legislation and facilitate that ratification. It is the sensible and right thing to do. The convention cannot come into force until it has been ratified by at least 30 of the ICAO's 185 member states. As such, the NDP is prepared to support the bill at second reading.

However our support for the bill in no way changes our significant concerns about the future of Canada's airlines. We will continue to stand in the House and urge the government to engage in an open debate. In question period, in committees and in debating legislation we will urge the government to come forward with a plan to provide a better sense of security for Canada's airline industry into the future.

We in the NDP believe that must involve an active role for the federal government. Moving down the road of further privatization, loading it all on to Air Canada and having a monopoly system that does not allow other carriers to exist would not be healthy for the aviation industry.

I remember the days when Air Canada was a public interest. It was a corporation that had public ownership. There was a lot more security in those days. There was a sense of accountability in terms of what we could expect to see from Air Canada in the way of performance. All that has gone. It is tragic that so many people's livelihoods have been affected by the massive layoffs and the fact that the government has not had a vision for the future of our airlines.

We in my party support the bill although we know it is limited. We reiterate our call for the government to be more proactive and come forward with a national plan to provide greater security for the aviation industry and the travelling public.

[National Child Day, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Child Day.

In 1989 members of the House unanimously resolved to eliminate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000 but, tragically, 1.4 million children still live in poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor just keeps growing. That means more children joining parents in the queue at homeless shelters, more children being fed from food banks and more aboriginal children seeking suicide as a way out.

The government's response to children's needs is nothing short of a crime. Adopting the UN convention on the rights of the child means little when we drop to 11th on the international poverty index with barely a whimper.

Canada's poverty today is avoidable, unnecessary and unfair. Government policies, dismantled social safety nets, jobs lost to unfair trade agreements and lucrative breaks to the wealthy are to blame.

We call on the government to set clear targets to eliminate poverty in the upcoming budget. Nothing less will do for Canada's children on this National Child Day and every day of the year.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank members of the House who have participated in the debate. I think we would all agree it was actually a very interesting debate. Certainly diverse viewpoints were put forward. I welcome that because as other members have pointed out it is important that we debate the issue even if there is disagreement. The debate in public is important.

I have listened carefully to the points that have been made. Beginning with those of the member for Elk Island, I think it is really somewhat misrepresentative to suggest that if section 43 were repealed it would mean that every parent who then strikes or slaps a child would be criminally charged. I am not sure if he was present for the beginning of the debate, but that is just simply not the case.

The problem with section 43 is that, first, in an overall sense it condones the use of force as a means of correction and discipline and I think that is a negative message to send out. Second, and more critically, it has successfully been used as a defence, as was so well pointed out by my colleague, the member for Windsor--St. Clair, when clearly physical correction has gone too far. Removing the section would make sure that does not take place in the future. In fact, I note that the member for South Shore who spoke for the PC/DRC admitted himself that there have been abuses of children through physical correction. However, he then went on to say that is okay because somehow the courts will protect children.

Again, this gets at one of the contradictions we are dealing with. Some of the organizations I have been working with, in particular the National Youth In Care Network, are made up of young people who actually have been placed in foster care under our child protection agencies. The network is clearly opposed to section 43 and wants to see it repealed. It has pointed out that the use of physical force as a discipline method can lead to abuse.

The network states:

It is a common report of youth in care who are child abuse survivors that serious physical abuse escalated out of “discipline” methods such as spanking.

Further, states the network, and again this is where I feel there is a contradiction in terms of what we believe is really taking place here, in actual fact section 43 can impede the work of child protection agencies. It states:

The “discipline excuse” that is created by Section 43 obscures child abuse investigations, making it very difficult for police and child protection workers to make a legal distinction between abuse and discipline.

In regard to what remains in the criminal code, I think we have to be very careful about what we are advocating.

I have to say in response to the comments from the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre that this debate is not about being politically correct. To suggest that this is about political correctness to trumpet the rights of children is really quite offensive and does not do justice to the seriousness of what is before us. Nor is it about bleeding heart social workers. I think this kind of rhetoric really divides people. This debate is about the well-being and health of children. I absolutely agree and acknowledge that there is a right and a responsibility of parents to raise their children and to discipline their children. What we are talking about today, though, is whether or not this section has allowed an environment to be created which allows physical abuse to take place.

The government member said it was important that we have a balance. I guess life is about a lot of balances, but I do believe that in our society there is one very important balance and that is the right to protect our children, both as parents and as society as a whole. I think there is growing evidence to show that this section has actually harmed children. I believe we should continue the debate. There are important things to look at and consider.

In closing, I would like to thank those who participated and the groups who have done so much work to repeal section 43. I know that their work will continue. I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this go forward to committee for further debate.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2001]

moved that Bill C-329, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the second reading for my bill, Bill C-329.

The bill seeks to repeal section 43 of the criminal code. This section of the criminal code that is not very well known to many Canadians, but it allows the use of force as a means of correcting or disciplining a child. I believe very strongly that this section flies in the face and is contrary to everything else about which we speak. We have policies which we promote in terms of upholding the rights and the well-being of children.

This morning I was very pleased to be joined at a press conference by a number of organizations that came to support the bill. There has been a very significant campaign across the country, and even a legal challenge, to repeal this section. This morning I was very pleased to be joined by Corinne Robertshaw of the repeal 43 committee, Mathew Geigen-Miller of the National Youth in Care Network, Michèle Matte of the Canadian Institute of Child Health and Victoria Norgaard of the Child Welfare League of Canada.

Many other people have not only supported the bill but have really taken up the issue of raising public consciousness about why the section needs to be repealed. In fact one of the people I especially want to mention is a very active parenting advocate, Kathy Lynn from Vancouver, who has a program on positive parenting . She has been a real leading light and strong advocate about the choices we have as parents and what we need to do to promote the health and well-being of children.

I am very pleased to join with these organizations to move along and to urge the government to consider the issue seriously and the impact that section 43 has had.

I believe that it is contrary to basic human rights. I believe it is contrary to the rights of children that Canada is a signatory to through international convention.

It is worth noting that this section of the criminal code is actually very old. It has been in our criminal code since 1892. It is based on English common law that did allow corporal punishment of wives, servants, apprentices and children.

I think everyone in the House and every Canadian would agree, that absolutely it is unacceptable that people would beat their wife or their spouse, their servant or their apprentice. Those aspects of our criminal code have long since gone. They have been done away with. However in 2001, the section that pertains to the use of force for correcting or disciplining a child still remains.

It is really an anomaly. It is an archaic part of the criminal code that sanctions violence rather than penalizing the use of violence. Not only does it violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it also violates the UN convention on the rights of the child in denying children the fundamental freedom of protection from acts of violence.

One reason the section must be removed is that it is not just sitting there silently in the criminal code and somehow has no visible impact on what takes place in our society. The reality is section 43 has been used successfully as a defence in our court system by parents who have hit children with straps, belts, sticks and extension cords, causing bruises, welts and abrasions.

To put this in context, research completed through the Canadian incidents study that showed that in 1998 there were 44,000 investigations of child physical abuse in Canada. Sixty-eight per cent of physical abuse investigations were deemed to be inappropriate physical punishment. That is an absolutely serious issue.

When we see that the section creates an environment of sanctioning violence rather than prohibiting it, then hopefully we will begin to see why the section must be removed.

When I first came across the section and understood what was going on, one of my concerns was that it really put the government in a very conflicting position.

On the one hand, the government has defended the maintenance of this section in the criminal code. On the other hand, there have been numerous studies, some of them funded by the federal government, that show that corporal punishment is not effective in raising children.

In 1995 a review funded by federal departments of health and justice found that corporal punishment was associated with increased levels of aggression, that it was a predicator of delinquency and violence and crime in later life and that it was a risk factor for child abuse.

It seems one hand of government, in terms of studying the cause and effect of allowing physical violence against children, understands that the impacts and the consequences for children are severe both individually and for the interest of society as a whole. However the other hand of the government has not been prepared to move on the issue.

Fifteen federal government sponsored reports over the past 20 years have recommended the repeal or reconsideration of section 43, yet the government has refused to act on those recommendations. I find that astonishing,

On the other side of the question, the major argument is that somehow the state does not have a right to intervene in how parents raise or discipline their children. Making decisions about discipline, how we teach our children a right from a wrong and how we help them develop self control, is certainly one of our greatest challenges as parents and as a society.

The intent in the bill before us today is not to deny parents the right to discipline their children. That is absolutely not the intent. The purpose and the point of the bill is to say that this particular section does not belong in the criminal code. There have been arguments to suggest that, if the section is repealed, somehow there will be a flood of criminal investigations and prosecutions and parents will be charged. Again, as Corinne Robertshaw said this morning, this is something of a red herring. It is a smokescreen. Police and prosecutors have discretion in laying and prosecuting charges. It is very rare for minor breaches to be prosecuted.

The other argument I have heard against repealing section 43 is that sometimes educators or other persons, who are in positions of authority or substituting parents, say they then will not have the ability to defend themselves or that they will not be able to use reasonable force to defend themselves. Clearly sections 34 to 41 of the criminal code allow the use of reasonable force for self-defence, defence of others, defence of property and prevention of trespass. If there are concerns that the repeal of this section will somehow mean that teachers cannot properly defend themselves or use reasonable force, there are other aspects of the criminal code that would allow that to happen.

As I said earlier, the section has been the subject of legal challenge. This past September a case went before the Ontario court of appeal. Basically, the case was to have this aspect of the criminal code declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it was a legalized form of child abuse and therefore a violation of children's equality under the charter of rights and freedoms.

Although the decision was not positive in terms of repealing section 43, the justice who came down with the decision found evidence that spanking and corporal punishment was bad and that it was not a good thing to do. In fact he urged parliament to consider amending or changing section 43 to provide parents, police and teachers with specific criteria of what sort of force was reasonable. Clearly the courts, in considering this issue, have said it really belongs back within parliament and within government policy to sort this out.

The origin of the legal case is very interesting. Ailsa Watkinson, a social work professor at the University of Regina, began the court challenge in 1997 after a man who administered a spanking to his child in an Ontario parking lot was acquitted under section 43. That is really the clear evidence of how this section has been used in a way that undermines the health and well-being of children.

In the minutes remaining I want to look at the international situation, because it is not just within Canada that we are dealing with this issue. There is a debate going on. There is information available to show that corporal punishment both in the home and at school is banned in nine European countries, including Austria, Croatia, Norway, Italy, Latvia, Denmark, Finland, Cyprus and Sweden. Further, the countries of Italy, Germany, Bulgaria, Belgium and the Republic of Ireland are in the process of bringing forward legislation against the physical or corporal punishment of children. Clearly there are a number of national jurisdictions considering this issue and recognizing that they need to be proactive and positive in terms of upholding the rights of children.

As a result of being at the press conference today and having worked on this issue for a number of years now, I really believe that this is an issue on which the federal government must show some leadership. There have been a lot of studies done. There has been a lot of public debate. There have been legal challenges. I firmly believe that if the government is of the opinion that the international covenants on the rights of the child that have been signed by the government are to mean anything, then we must come to terms with the contradiction that exists in terms of section 43 and these other international conventions and all the studies that have been done.

I believe that in the interests of upholding protection for children and the well-being of children we should actually have a more fulsome debate on this matter. It should go to committee, and today I certainly welcome hearing from other members of the House their opinions about this important issue.

In closing, while I recognize that there are concerns from people about whether or not this is an interference in parenting rights, I believe there is an interest in society as a whole in making sure that we support families, that we support the health and well-being of children.

It is just hard to believe that this section in the criminal code is left over from 1892 when it was legally sanctioned that a man could beat his wife or servant or apprentice. It is left over from that period. We now have to come to terms with the contradictions that exist and we have to say that section 43 has no place in the criminal code.

What we should focus on is providing support, information and help to parents who are facing challenges. We should tell parents that there are many alternative forms of corrective discipline, which do not have to involve physical harm and physical force, and there are many programs and supports. In fact, it is very important to get the information out there. Parents do not have to rely on beating their child or hitting their child to change behaviour in the long run or to somehow improve what that child is doing. Most parents who engage in that kind of discipline often regret it. They often wish they had not done it. We have to reinforce that. We have to work positively with parents. That is a very important message that must come from the federal government.

I ask the government to consider the bill and to consider that it needs to have further debate and discussion. I ask the government to back up its own studies, to come through with the recommendations from its own studies and to make it clear that we should be removing section 43 of the criminal code.