Mr. Speaker, the government, the NDP and the Conservatives objected to this motion being supported. The government said it did not want to discuss it any further because the examples I gave were exceptional.
It is our job in this parliament to make laws to prohibit and discourage undesirable behaviour in Canada. Armed robbery is an exceptional act. The vast majority of people do not need a law against it, but we pass laws against it nonetheless.
There is abuse by bureaucrats and the state of their power. The argument that the government makes holds no validity because we need to be protected from them. There needs to be this balance and that is what I have been arguing.
The government also complained that this would result in a logjam in the courts, but look what is happening now. Parents have to go to great lengths to get back their children after having done absolutely nothing wrong.
This motion is designed to protect children. People are missing the point. Children need our protection and this motion would give them precisely that. Those who are objecting to this just need to look at what is happening in Canada today.
I could give many other examples. I wish that the government members, New Democrats and Conservatives who have tried to twist what I have been saying would look at these more closely.
In summary, I quote from Mrs. Silver's paper:
These cases illustrate the margin for error in Canada's child protection laws place families in a vulnerable position. This is not to say that the state has no role in protecting children. Society has a vested interest in ensuring that a child's best interests are served. There are times when the state's power to intervene in cases of genuine physical or sexual abuse or neglect is crucial. A parent's rights do not trump the rights of the child. Neither are the two necessarily opposed. The rights of the child must be paramount; however, where the parent and the state disagree is on the child's best interests. The law must begin with the presumption that the parent and not the state is right.
Beginning at this point places the onus on the state to rebut the presumption according to the principles of fundamental justice.
Kari Simpson, executive director of the Citizen's Research Institute in Surrey, B.C., sent me documentation on dozens of horror stories of kids being scooped by government officials under the authority of the child family and community services act. People would have to contact my offices. Obviously, I do not have time to go through them.
If this parental rights and responsibility motion were approved by parliament today the resolution would then be sent to the legislatures of the 10 provinces to debate and vote on. The people of this country should be allowed to debate this issue. We are sweeping it under the rug in this House at this moment and that is wrong. Having parental rights, responsibilities and liberty in the charter would ensure an appropriate balance between the fundamental freedom of parents to raise their kids and government's role to protect children when parents fail to properly discharge their responsibilities.
My motion would institute that proper balance between children's rights, parental rights and the rights of the state, and that is why I requested very respectfully that we unanimously approve that this motion be made votable.