Mr. Speaker, in my wrap-up comments I will refer to some remarks made by colleagues on different sides of the House.
I will first remind members that section 43 has not been in place many years. My colleague to my immediate right, or to the left on the political spectrum, does not appear to be aware of when section 43 came into being.
Physical abuse by an individual some 30 years ago is the very reason that section 43 was brought in, because there was no protection for children. There were no agencies in place and this was the kind of thing that was put in place by well intentioned lawmakers so there would be protection for children.
It would also seem that some of the members around the House are not aware of the agenda of the United Nations, and specifically the convention on the rights of the child. It would appear from the comments of the last speaker that he certainly is supportive of that.
Canada sends delegates to the convention on the rights of the child posturing that they represent the Canadian position but without having any debate in the House. After having tried to smooth, sneak or stealth their views by individuals overseas, they come back to try to browbeat us by saying that the position of Canada ought to be a small select group of NGOs trying to get this through at United Nations meetings.
Contrary to what the Progressive Conservative Party member said, that there was no threat at present, I remind him of a case coming up in the general division of the Ontario courts.
The government, through the court challenges program, has given money to this group to challenge section 43. This is not something in some distant era but something of concern before us right now, which is being funded by the government.
The member cited a number of different cases being investigated in Ontario. However, at the end of the day it was found that only a couple of allegations could be substantiated. It was decided that what had been alleged by individuals in Ontario had not occurred.
Studies that found negative outcomes did not take into account the original frequency or severity of the child's behaviour that required some discipline in the first place. In other words, if a child had a severe behavioural problem, and discipline or punishment was not having any positive results, it did little good to later blame bad behaviour on the physical punishment when in many cases the bad behaviour was there to begin with. That would be like blaming cancer on radiation treatment. It is true that radiation may not have cured the cancer but that does not mean it causes it. The cancer was already there.
I referred to the recent confirmation of the very extensive studies by Dr. Larzelere, or at least his review of the studies. I also referred to the study done by Marjorie Gunnoe that provides important confirmation of those findings. On the basis of her work she has stated that positive or negative outcomes do not result from physical correction per se but rather from the meaning a child ascribes to the discipline.
She suggests two plausible ways that children interpret spanking. First, it is a legitimate expression of parental authority. Second, it can be an act of interpersonal aggression.
If children perceive discipline as an expression of parental authority, there will not be, I state again there will not be, negative outcomes. However, if they perceive discipline as an act of aggression, then there may be negative results.
Marjorie Gunnoe's scholarly and very thorough work underscores the fact that there are no dangers in loving homes in which the child knows that mom and dad are disciplining in a careful, responsible, loving manner and purely out of a desire to shape character.
It has been a privilege to speak to this motion. At this point I again seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the motion before us deemed adopted and passed.