Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I have done a lot of work in this area and have formulated a declaration of parental rights and responsibilities, which, if time allows, I will go into a little bit.
I want to say several things in the short time I am allowed. I want to show the necessity of the resolution we are debating. I also want to point out clearly that the government says one thing but does another. It talks the talk but it does not walk the walk. That is why this resolution is necessary. I will give a couple of very good examples of that. That is why this should have been voted on in the House but the government would not allow that.
Before I go into this, I will point out my view and the views of many of my constituents on this. Parental discipline is quite different from child abuse and neglect. Child abuse and neglect should not be tolerated but section 43 strikes a balance by protecting children from abuse while still allowing parents to correct their children, within the limits that are acceptable to Canadian society.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation states:
Section 43 of the Criminal Code does not sanction or condone child abuse.... There is no evidence to indicate that the existence of Section 43 is a root cause of child abuse or that it encourages abuse of children.
I also point out that responsible, loving parents sometimes have to correct their children to keep them from harm. Removing section 43 of the criminal code may make criminals out of parents who use reasonable corrective action with their kids.
Parents, not the government, are best suited to determine the needs, including disciplinary measures, of their own children. Removing a means for parents to discipline their children will result in more state intrusion into family life.
Maintaining section 43 of the criminal code shows respect for Canadian parents. It shows respect for the democratic process. It is through debate in parliament, not in the court chambers, where important public policy decisions like this should be made.
If there are concerns about what is deemed reasonable in parental discipline, it would be better to develop guidelines rather than potentially criminalizing all parents by a court decision. Using tax dollars to fund a lobby group to make an end run around the democratic process and push social policy through the courts is inappropriate.
Those are my views and that is where I am coming from when I make my comments.
We have laws that address abuse. The government has done a terrible job on family issues and should not interfere with parental rights.
I am a former teacher. I want to read what the Canadian Teachers' Federation had to say about section 43 of the criminal code, because this section does not just deal with parents, it also deals with teachers.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation appeared in court in December to argue in favour of keeping section 43 in the criminal code. The federation believes that the removal of section 43 would be detrimental to maintaining a safe and secure school environment for all students. Removing section 43 would encourage some students to engage in insubordinate or disruptive behaviour.
As an aside, I was a teacher for 24 and a half years and I think that is a very key point. We should not tie the hands of our teachers in this regard.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation points to a number of day to day school situations in which the safety of students in the learning environment would be adversely affected if section 43 were to be repealed. Such situations are more likely to occur in a school setting than in the home given the large number of children and youth who attend school.
Here are some examples that the Canadian Teachers' Federation puts forth. There is a need to protect students or teachers when a fight occurs at school, including the need to restrain students if necessary. Another example is the need to escort an unco-operative student to the principal's office. A third situation would involve ejecting a student who refuses to leave the classroom or the school itself. A fourth situation would be placing a young student on the bus in a situation where the student has been on a field trip and refuses to return on the bus. The last example would be restraining a cognitively impaired student.
These are all examples I can relate to because I had similar concerns and incidents when I was teaching.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation is concerned that if section 43 were removed from the criminal code, the result would be a dramatic increase in the number of assault charges. As a precaution, teachers would be advised or choose not to intervene in school situations, since their stepping in to resolve the situation might lead to their being charged with assault. We would accomplish the very opposite of what we want, which is the protection of our children. That is why we should not change this.
I also want to point out that since the state has discouraged the use of physical correction in schools, violence has increased, which is the opposite of what many of these groups have argued.
I said I would give a couple of examples in the few minutes remaining. I do not have time to read the entire response to a petition I had submitted in the House. The response comes from the government and indicates quite clearly that the government says one thing to the public but it does not walk the walk.
This document states:
This government fully recognizes the indispensable role of parents in the upbringing of their children and the need for governments at all levels to support parents and families in the exercise of this role.
It then goes on to say that section 43 of the criminal code is consistent with these principles and that it will protect them. There is no indication on the part of government that it is going to withdraw this.
It goes on to say “and is not funding any research on its removal from the criminal code”. The government said this on July 22, 1998. Guess what we found out in November of that year? We found out that it was funding the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, a loyal lobby group purchased with $365,000 of taxpayers' money. We also found out that the government was only funding one side of the issue, and this was the only organization it was funding.
I wish I had more time because I think this is a key point. The government says that it is defending parents, that it is defending their rights, that it will not touch section 43 and that it will not fund any of these things, but a few months later we find out that it was in fact pouring big bucks into that.
When my colleague from Calgary Centre pointed this out, he sent an inquiry to the bureaucracy about the parliamentary review of Canada's report that it was sending, and we found out that the government funded only one side of the issue.
The second example is the court challenges program. Here we have the government again funding only one side of the issue. I have evidence on this but I do not have time to give it. This is yet another example of the government saying one thing but doing another. The funding of the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law is clear on this issue.
I wish I had time to quote from my declaration of parental rights and responsibilities but I will refer people to my website on the Internet if they want to know what I proposed in this regard.