Debates of May 2nd, 2000

Supply

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's proposal with great interest because it goes even further than what I have suggested.

He talks about the traceability of foods and, there again, we have a lot of catching up to do with Europe. I think that what he is proposing is ideal.

I was only involved in one aspect of this great project, but it would really be great if we went all the way, because we would be protecting both consumers and farmers.

What worries me is the fact GMOs have been on the market for five years. We started talking about this a year or so ago and, in the meantime, things have continued to happen.

I see the Minister of Industry. There is the biotechnology advisory committee, which was set up in September 1999, and there is also a committee on the future of biotechnology made up of scientific experts who will look at what is going to happen in the next ten years.

I want it to be very clear that I am not against setting up such committees because looking at the future is already something. What really bothers me, however, is the present. I have a problem with the present.

I reviewed a study by Ann Clark, a professor at Guelph University. She carried out tests on toxicity levels or loads and found that 70% of the 42 MGO crops in Canada had not been tested for toxicity. She adds that allergenicity was not assessed in laboratory or through feeding experiments for any of the 42 crops.

I am not an alarmist, but a scientific approach requires that we have scientific answers to our questions.

Today, I have this question for my colleague: Does he think that a collective effort is in order to move ahead faster in answering these questions? We are eating these foods; they are already on the market. That is what worries me.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe passionately that we should deal with this issue in a comprehensive way, and I think we should have done it yesterday.

We have a health care challenge in this country and one of the ways we will repair, rebuild, renew our health care system is by making sure that we focus on diet and nutrition. At the basis of that is food production. If we do not have our heads around the quality of food production and the impact of certain types of genetically modified foods it may have a disastrous effect on our capacity to renew our health care system. I see food and health as being inextricably intertwined.

I know that the Minister of Industry, who is in the House today, feels passionately about this issue. But as the member for Louis-Hébert mentioned, this is not just a health issue and it is not just an industry issue; it is everybody working together. I am confident that all of us in the House will deal with this. I think I can say on behalf of everyone in the House that we are all pretty sensitive about the food we eat.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a bit about labelling products that are produced on Canadian farms so that Canadian consumers would know that. He feels there would be a willingness by the Canadian public to pay a little extra for that.

One reason our farm community is in trouble is low commodity prices, and those prices are being driven by subsidized products from around the world. It seems that every time the agriculture community wakes up in the morning there is a new challenge facing it. Fuel costs are up. The government announced that transportation rates are up for shipping grain off the prairies. The issue of species at risk legislation could affect agriculture producers, as well as the idea of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. These are all issues of concern to the agriculture community. To say that we would label food produced in Canada so that the consumer would pay a little more might come up against some opposition. There are a lot of consumers who cannot afford to pay any more for food. We would somehow have to do it in a way that would benefit all of society, the farmer at one end and the consumer at the other.

I want to be get back to the labelling. A lot of products are labelled “made in Canada” now. How in the member's mind would something like that be structured to ensure that the benefit of such a program would return to the producer?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to suggest the real specifics, the process or the technique. I do not have that in my mind, nor do I believe anyone else would today. We are debating today. However, I think that the concept of designing a system whereby Canadian family farm products would be identified in a way that the consumer would realize that a percentage of the product they purchase would return in a royalty format to the farm community has merit.

By the way, I would exclude from that those farmers who are part of supply management. As we know, most of those farmers are very well protected. I am not suggesting that we enhance that sector, I am thinking more of those farmers who are outside that realm.

I think we have to sit down to figure out a way to have a royalty system. We do it in other sectors of the economy. We do it with artists who perform. They get royalties for their work on top of their basic wage. They get a royalty, a bonus or a dividend. We do it in many other sectors. We do it in business. I do not see why we could not design a Canadian family farm dividend, which would really be nothing more than the consumer recognizing and realizing that they want to keep a secure, high quality farm system in this country.

We have a huge problem in urban Canada waking up certain consumers to the fact that the food supply which they see when they go into a Loblaws, a Knob Hill, a Sobeys or a Dominion might be in short supply a year from now from a Canadian source point of view. They have a difficult time imagining that.

I do not want the House to think this would be an easy sell, but our duty as members is not just to take the easy sells. Our duty is to take hold of an issue that we know is going to hit us between the eyes in 14 to 15 months, and we may have to go against the wind of certain consumers who may resist. We may have to tell them that they will have to do this in order to maintain that security of Canadian family farm supply. I for one would be happy to take up that challenge. Once we educate and inform them of what the long term benefits would be, in terms of health and everything else, most Canadians would buy in.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the motion that this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat. It is an excellent motion which the Progressive Conservative Party definitely supports. We support the idea of much greater consumer awareness of genetically modified foods.

An estimated 60% of processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients. An Angus Reid poll recently found that Canadians would be less likely to buy food that they know is genetically modified. They get very nervous about it, which is understandable.

Much of what I will say has been said already today, but I think it bears repeating.

During the 1980s the PC government identified biotechnology as a key and strategic area of future economic prosperity and promise for Canada. During its mandate our government encouraged the creation of a strong biotechnology sector and provided funding for research and development that would allow every region to benefit. My region benefits from the Lennoxville research station, which does a lot of work on biotechnological products, particularly for the farming industry.

The challenge we must face in creating a solid and dynamic biotechnology industry is twofold. First, we must create a climate in which industry sectors can flourish both here and internationally. Second, we must meet the public's concern for a healthy environment and the safety of GMOs.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act defines biotechnology as the application of science and engineering in the direct use of living organisms or products of living organisms in their natural or modified form.

Although much of the focus in the media has been on food products derived from biotechnology, there are also pharmaceutical, health and pest control issues. I should say in passing that we have seen many problems from these other products. Pest control products have been a big item as of late. People have been treating their lawns with them. That type of situation has caused many problems.

With respect to food products, biotechnology has the potential to increase the competitiveness of the Canadian agri-food industry by increasing individual competitiveness and by exporting high value agri-food products. It could also increase yields to compensate for the increase in world population. It could develop more sustainable agricultural practices by reducing the need for chemical weed and pest controls and by enabling the environmentally beneficial practice of no-till agriculture, reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It could create new markets by introducing value added products. It could improve nutrition and remove allergens from food crops.

Value passed on from the producer to the consumer can and is being done. It is possible to immunize a population by placing medications known as nutraceuticals or output traits, for example, in foods to lower cholesterol levels. It was reported recently that scientists in the U.S. have created a strain of genetically altered rice to combat vitamin A deficiency, the world's leading cause of blindness.

Canada is a world leader in biotechnology. If the government fails to give support in fostering this emerging technology, Canada's competitive advantage as a leader risks becoming a lost opportunity.

There are concerns. The principal concern is with the use of biotechnology in food products as a question of food security. There have been numerous reports mostly in Europe that have negatively impacted consumer confidence in Canada as a result of the claims made about food safety. There are concerns that there is not enough risk assessment work being done on consumer products derived from biotechnology in Canada. Most of these concerns have been raised by lobby groups such as Greenpeace, the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Health Coalition.

The federal government announced its support for a voluntary labelling project of foods derived from biotechnology on September 17, 1999. The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board launched a project to help develop the standards for voluntary labelling that are meaningful and enforceable. There already exists a mandatory labelling policy for nutritional changes or safety concerns on food products.

On December 17, 1999 the ministers of health, agriculture and environment announced their intention to establish an independent expert panel, the Blue Ribbon Scientific Panel, to examine future scientific developments in biotechnology. The panel is expected to file a preliminary report in June and a final report by the end of the summer 2000. The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee is also involved in the recommendation process.

In January the Government of Canada agreed to an international biosafety protocol that will allow countries to assess and regulate shipments of living modified organisms. A living modified organism is any living biological entity that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology that is capable of transferring or replicating genetic material. Examples of products containing LMOs are pharmaceuticals, seeds for sowing, saplings, fish, seed for food, feed and processes.

The protocol is designed to ensure that the trade of LMOs do not have a negative impact on biodiversity and the world's ecosystems. The impacts of the protocol on agricultural exports are not fully known.

I can give an interesting example not in the food itself but in what I talked about before, in pest control for lawns and the dangers involved because things are not properly labelled. We have heard recently of many cases of people who are worried about having lawns sprayed and what happens to the neighbours. I have a personal example. Lawns in my area had been sprayed and then cut. The cuttings gathered onto the street. After that small dogs in the neighbourhood which love to eat grass ate the grass. There ends up being a very heavy concentration and many animals have died as a result.

Consumers have clearly indicated they want to be informed through labelling about foods that have been altered. They favour foods that provide tangible benefits. An Angus Reid survey conducted in November and December last year found that two-thirds of the Canadian population would be less likely to buy food they know has been genetically modified. A study done for the governments of Australia and New Zealand in October 1999 suggests that mandatory labelling would raise food costs by 5% to 15%. The study states the requirements to label all foods which may contain GMOs is a very major undertaking for both industry and regulators. The simple part is the change of labels. A far more extensive process is needed to determine both GMO status for food ingredients and monitor their continuing status.

Mandatory labelling could also mean labelling 95% of all food in this country which is considered genetically modified in some way. This could provide unquestionable value to the customer.

Developing national guidelines and labelling must be done in conjunction with the development of standards at the international level, for example the Codex Alimentarius Commission which is the international standards setting body for food.

I want to encourage the member for Louis-Hébert to continue on her quest to get the government to follow through on this and take on the project of making sure that we get things labelled so that Canadian consumers can trust what they are picking up and what they eating.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, it is a pleasure to say a few words on this very important topic.

Canada has an enviable reputation around the world for the safety of its food and the rigour of its food inspection system, including foods derived through biotechnology. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Canada's food safety system is certainly one of the best in the world.

Regulation through sound science is an essential step in the continued safe production of biotechnology derived foods. The federal budget confirms this priority in Canada's regulatory system. The $90 million investment in the regulatory system for biotechnology products will allow Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, and other regulatory departments to continue to enhance and involve its safety first regulatory approach to keep pace with the next generation of scientific discoveries.

There are a number of science based organizations within the Canadian government that rely on leading edge science to carry out regulatory and other science based mandates. One of these is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Budget 2000 targets regulation of biotechnology products as well as upgrading federal laboratory facilities. This funding includes approximately $30 million directly to the CFIA for biotech regulation. What is this funding for? This funding will help the CFIA to increase its capacity for monitoring, for inspection, for testing and for enforcement; to meet human resource and technical needs to ensure CFIA staff have up to date expertise; to generate research and knowledge that will underpin regulation; and to strengthen international co-operation and harmonization on regulations.

Canada's science based regulatory system for agricultural products has been a major factor in contributing to the reputation of the safety and the quality of Canadian goods around the world. In order to maintain that reputation the government is dedicated to upholding the regulations that protect the health and safety of Canadians, of animals and of the environment. This is the government's first priority and to achieve that we must have regulation through sound science.

I am pleased to say that the budget confirms the priority of health and safety for Canada's regulatory system. The government believes that biotechnology derived products must go through the same stringent regulatory and approval processes as all other new foods.

The budget 2000 investment in the regulatory system for biotechnology products will allow Canada to continue to enhance and evolve the safety first regulatory approach. The continued dedication to supporting this regulatory system will mean the continued reputation of the safety of Canada's food supply.

Canada is committed to protecting human health, animal health and the environment. Our regulatory system is dedicated to maintaining the highest scientific standards. We continually strive to ensure that scientific advice is broadly based and that our assessments will keep pace with new scientific discoveries.

This commitment is reflected in the establishment of two important groups. An expert panel and an advisory committee have been set up at the request of the government. The Royal Society of Canada at the request of the government has appointed an expert panel to examine future scientific developments in food biotechnology and to provide advice to the federal government accordingly. This proactive, forward thinking body will advise Health Canada, the CFIA and Environment Canada on the science capacity the federal government will need to maintain the safety of our new foods derived through biotechnology into the 21st century.

In examining the leading edge of this technology, the panel will identify the possibility of new or different issues related to the safety of products of food biotechnology. It will suggest what new research, policies and regulatory capacity if any may be needed by the federal government to keep our standards of safety as high for the next generation of biotechnology derived foods as for what we have for the products approved today.

The Royal Society's panel consists of people who have widely recognized expertise in specific areas of knowledge. The panel is carefully balanced with respect to the various points of view on biotechnology issues.

Royal Society panels operate entirely independently of the agencies which request their reports, in this case the government. They also operate independent of the Royal Society itself. In short, Canadians can be assured that the Royal Society's expert panel will be balanced, fair and completely impartial.

There are a number of challenges and opportunities associated with biotechnology that require detailed consideration and public discussion. Food biotechnology presents Canadians with unprecedented challenges but also unprecedented opportunities.

The recently formed Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, CBAC, will bring stakeholders and interested parties together to advise the government, to raise public awareness and to engage Canadians in an open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology issues. The CBAC will deal with tasks such as the issues surrounding regulation and stewardship of emerging applications of biotechnology with public education about biotechnology and the social, economic, environmental, legal and ethical issues related to food biotechnology. It will monitor scientific developments that underpin new developments in the field of biotechnology and the application of these new developments.

Canadians want to take part in the dialogue on food biotechnology. The CBAC will actively create opportunities for Canadians to participate in its activities and discussions. This will include an interactive website for interested Canadians to review, consult and provide input into the issue.

When this work is completed and the CBAC has also received the work of the Royal Society's expert panel, the CBAC will create an overarching report with recommendations to the government that will be informed by the work of the panel. The work of the Royal Society's expert panel and the CBAC will contribute to a balanced and consultative process where all concerns can be thoroughly considered. The government looks forward to the contributions that the expert panel and the CBAC will make to further the dialogue on biotechnology issues. This is an example of the government's commitment to the exchange of ideas and the issues surrounding biotechnology.

In addition to the expert panel and the CBAC, the scientists and specialists at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as well as those at Health Canada all contribute to maintaining the safety of the food supply of Canada. They help to ensure that Canada's regulatory system remains science based, that the regulatory system is fair and transparent, and that Canada's food supply remains one of the safest in the world. That is money and effort well allocated and well spent.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member talk about the regulatory process. I wish the members could understand that we are somehow questioning the regulatory process because we would like to go beyond what exists at present, beyond the equivalence principle. Of course, what we want is the security of our food.

While we are not alarmists, we are quite happy when committees are struck to advise the government. I do not wish, however, for too many committees, because things would get bogged down and everything would be put off.

Yes, we want our food to be safe, and we will go beyond what the regulatory process offers today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are going to do things a little differently because I made a mistake. Debate does not end until 5.30 because this is a non-votable motion. Therefore, the hon. member for Egmont who is on his feet, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, has nine minutes in which to continue his dissertation. I had instructed that there was only two minutes.

If not, the hon. parliamentary secretary can take as long as he wants in responding to these questions, and then we will get to the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière if there is time.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond briefly to the hon. member's question. She says that she is not an alarmist and that is good news. There are a lot of alarmists around the world who are upsetting people unnecessarily when it comes to their comments on foods derived from biotechnology.

That is why the government is striking these panels, striking these advisory boards, getting as much information as possible and going through rigorous testing to make sure that any new foods are subjected to rigorous regulation and investigation before we ever put them before the Canadian public as food.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Hébert for having presented this motion to the House, which reads as follows:

That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

I have read this text over many times, particularly the first words “That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness—”

Why does the member for Louis-Hébert have to urge the government to demonstrate openness? We have all followed the debate that took place in the first few months of the year and that was orchestrated by the so-called Miami group, to which Canada and the United States belong and which is opposed to the food labelling.

Why all this opposition when European and Asian countries like Japan and Korea have already adopted such measures. If it is good for the Japanese and the Europeans, why would it not be good for Canadians and Quebecers to know what is in the products that they consume?

I commend the member for Louis-Hébert for bringing forward this debate in the House and also for having toured the province. She invited the members to accompany her. I was unable to attend the meeting held in my riding because of a death in the family, but I inquired about what had happened. I also listened to colleagues who talked about the various consultations that took place.

The member for Louis-Hébert did not only consult consumers. She also talked with producers and people from the industry. She held a balanced consultation process without bias or witch hunts.

Of course she has proposed food labelling and in a way was rather innovative in putting this issue up for debate in the House of Commons. However, it is a matter that concerned a lot of people in the country, at least in Quebec.

A while ago I asked her to how many signatures had been collected for the petitions on the labelling, not the banning of GMOs, and she said that between 45,000 and 50,000 signatures had been collected so far, only in Quebec. This means that a lot of people are worried. The issue is not necessarily being discussed every day, but occasionally, at the Montreal debate for example. It is therefore a public concern.

She probably gave out information when she was touring Quebec, because people came unsolicited to my riding office and said “I want to sign the petition”. They were well informed. Eight out of ten were mothers. They are more concerned about the food their children and their family eat. They probably care more than men, but I know that some men are also concerned.

We have seen that the majority of Liberal members have spoken out in opposition, although there were what I might call some heartening exceptions. The Liberal member who spoke before the last speaker went even further, asking that all products be labelled. We cannot object to this principle, but there are some natural products the contents of which we do not need to know because they have been around for so long, for hundreds of years, and they never made anyone sick. But GMO technology is rather new.

My father was a farmer. I am 52 years old today, and when I was a kid, I used to help him spray DDT on potato crops. It was not illegal then, and we did not use any protection or protective masks. DDT was used to protect the crop from insects, especially those called potato bugs.

Some time later, it was realized that DDT is extremely dangerous. As soon as they were made aware of this, farmers immediately discontinued this practice. Most farmers are responsible people. They do not want to harm people's health or their own.

This morning, I sat on the environment committee for my colleague from Jonquière. The committee had a discussion on pesticides. We can see their impact and the concerns they raise. Members in the party opposite are deeply concerned about this.

There are many kinds of pesticides, of course. There is a certain analogy to be made with GMOs. Members from all parties were asking whether we have made all the studies we need.

To those who have described the hon. member for Louis-Hébert as a scaremonger, I would say that she is just being cautious. In matters of food and human health, caution should prevail. We should not scare people but we must show them that we need to be cautious. The principle of openness underpins democracy and we have a right to information. That is what the charter says.

If a principle is guaranteed in the charter, it must mean something. It must be adhered to. We cannot say, as the Liberal government does, that it would be too costly or that we would need more human resources.

In this regard, 200 food quality experts from the federal government wrote to the Minister of Health to let him know that because of a lack of personnel they could not make all of the required analyses. This is the reality now, but, because of a lack of personnel, are we going to close our eyes, ignore the risks and prevent any check? This would be absurd.

I do not want to go too far, because I know that this is a word that is almost taboo in this House, but regarding hepatitis C and all the problems caused by the HIV tainted blood and so on, who would have thought at that time that such a thing could happen? The problem was acknowledged, because caution is always the best way to go. Of course, here, we are not talking about these kinds of issues, but there are people who are concerned.

The member for Louis-Hébert is not being alarmist, because I know that she is a great specialist in this area. She was the first woman to become an agrologist in Quebec. This is quite something. That dates her, but it is true. She was an assistant deputy minister in Quebec's Department of Agriculture. She was a member of the Commission de la protection du territoire agricole. Her father was a searcher in this area. So, I do not see how she can be embarrassed of my reminding her of it.

I have full confidence in her and I have known her for many years. When the hon. member for Louis-Hébert immerses herself in an issue like this, she takes it seriously and is very thorough. Indeed, she became some kind of an expert on GMOs for many people.

Personally, I am in favour of progress and I think that we must not necessarily reject GMOs because they have tremendous possibilities and many benefits.

If I rise today to speak to the issue, it is to protect the right to information of the public and to promote transparency. I think that those principles command that we put the efforts, the money, the resources, the research and the studies needed. We know that knowledge is important. For that reason, it is important to know all that needs to be known and not to let something as fundamental as food subject to arbitrary or hasty decisions.

We talked about food, but we could also talk about the risks for the environment. I am a farmer's son and I know that in some parts of the United States and elsewhere in the world, the soil has been overexploited. In the end, if proper care is not taken, the farming potential of the land can be affected. We cannot ask too much too rapidly from farm land without dire consequences. That applies to the use of fertilizers and other things. That is the risk I saw when I read the documentation on the issue.

At first sight we could think that it would be better to have bigger and faster growing fruits and vegetables. Of course there are clearly economic benefits, but I ask myself some questions. When the same companies, the same corporations, that extol the virtues of genetically modified organisms are selling pesticides, insecticides or chemical fertilizers, it is almost as if the doctor owned the drugstore.

In Quebec, there was a time when it was like that, but it is not allowed anymore. We are trying to avoid integration, because we do not want to put people in a conflict of interest because they are promoting one industry and trying to offset the effects of a phenomenon that they are benefiting from at the same time.

I congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hébert who is speaking only of labelling, only of information. The public must know what they are eating.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that the time allowed for debate on the motion has now expired.

The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-223, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a related and consequential amendment to another act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Witness Protection Program Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, April 12, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-223 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 1278

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. It being 6.06 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Criminal Code

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should defend the constitutionality of Section 43 of the Criminal Code in the Courts and, if necessary, should take legislative action to reinstate Section 43 in the event that it is struck down, including invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982).

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour for me to rise to speak to Motion No. 341, a motion which would protect teachers, parents and their children from unwarranted and heavy handed state intrusion. I will read the motion again:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should defend the constitutionality of Section 43 of the Criminal Code in the Courts and, if necessary, should take legislative action to reinstate Section 43 in the event that it is struck down, including invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The reason I brought the motion forward is that some children rights advocates want to see section 43 declared by the courts to be in violation of the charter of rights and freedoms.

In December 1999 a group calling itself the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law asked the Ontario superior court to declare section 43 to be in violation of the charter and therefore unconstitutional. My motion opposes such efforts. I understand from other colleagues in the House today that there is a fair bit of support for the nature of the motion before us, and I am grateful.

Under section 43 of the criminal code today parents are allowed to use physical force to restrain or correct their children as long as it is not abusive, is by way of correction and is reasonable under the circumstances. The relevant statute is section 43 of the criminal code which reads as follows:

Every school teacher, parent or person standing in the 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.

This section of the code limits the way force can be used on a child in two ways. First, a parent is justified in using force only if the force is intended and used for a specific purpose, namely by way of correction.

That requirement has existed in Canadian law since 1864 in a decision in which the court stated that the power of correction can only be used in the interest of instruction. It cannot be for some arbitrariness, anger or bad humour. That would be an offence punishable like other ordinary offences.

In other words, force is only justifiable if it is used in the best interest of a child to correct a child from engaging in improper conduct. The section does not justify a parent using force to vent anger. An instructional purpose with respect to the child's interest must motivate the use of force.

Second, a parent's use of force is limited also in that it must be reasonable under the circumstances. In assessing whether the force used by the parent was reasonable, the courts have formulated a test which considers the following factors, and I think they are good factors.

The court takes into account the nature of the child's offence calling for punishment and whether such conduct merits punishment. It takes into account the age and the character of that child; the likely effect of punishment on the child; the degree and gravity of the punishment; the manner in which the punishment was inflicted; the injuries that resulted, if any; the parts of the body where the force was applied; and whether punishment was motivated by arbitrariness, caprice, anger or bad temper.

While judges sometimes apply these criteria differently it is safe to say that the successful application of such criteria demonstrates the effectiveness and the value of section 43.

In court hearings in December last year the Coalition for Family Autonomy noted that a database search of the weekly criminal bulletin showed that there were 99 cases in which parental discipline was the issue. In these cases we see the criteria of reasonableness at work. For example, since 1965 there have been five cases where acquittals were entered when bruising occurred but 16 cases involving bruising where the accused was convicted. The court took this into account and convicted 16 of these individuals.

In cases involving objects used to strike a child, the case survey indicates that there were twice as many convictions as acquittals. Of the 47 cases which reported the use of some object in striking or the “discipline”, there were 31 convictions and just 13 acquittals. In every case involving children under two a conviction was entered. The case law survey also indicated that courts are mindful of the manner in which the discipline is administered.

The point is simply that section 43 has operated in practice in a manner where the jurisprudence has developed a detailed set of factors which the courts have used to interpret section 43 and its demand for reasonableness. All this points to the fact that this section in the criminal code is both workable and is working.

In the 34 year period from 1965 to 1999 in only 24 of the 99 cases found in the database search was there an acquittal of a parent charged of assaulting his or her child. That very low number hardly suggests that adults are routinely using section 43 to get away with abusing their children. In fact the more numerous convictions indicate otherwise. In the 24 acquittals there may have been instances in which the judge made a error and should not have acquitted the parent. That is a problem with the judge. The appeals should happen and it should be pursued to the full extent of the law.

Section 43 of the criminal code is doing its job. Prior to the enactment of this section of the code there was no legislation placing limits on the use of physical correction and there were no government agencies designed to protect children from abuse. When section 43 of the code came into law, children had for the first time legal protection from physical abuse. Thanks to section 43 parents cannot physically abuse their children in the name of discipline. They cannot exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances. As long as the police and the courts do their jobs, child abusers will be prosecuted under the law.

It is somewhat ironic that the very same people who are arguing for the removal of section 43, argue that it protects only parental rights. That is clearly not the case. The irony is that the whole reason section 43 came into existence in the first place was to balance the right of parents to correct the behaviour of their children and the rights of children not to be abused.

It is a good law. It was well conceived at the time. It has served its purpose well and continues to serve us well today. For that reason section 43 strikes that necessary balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children. On one hand, parents must have the freedom to fulfil their responsibility to their children and to society and to raise their children to be moral, decent people who respect others. On the other hand, we believe that children have the right to be free from physical abuse and bodily harm. Section 43 strikes that proper balance.

That is why it is disconcerting that some children rights advocates, specifically the group calling itself the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, are trying to have this section of the criminal code removed or declared unconstitutional. If this group succeeds in having section 43 struck down, the results would be absurd and totally unacceptable. Many good and loving parents from that point on would be made criminals overnight.

The statistics indicate that some 70% of parents spank their child from time to time as a reasonable corrective discipline in respect to their children. Removing section 43 would mean that many of them would become criminals overnight. It would simply not be true of parents who swat little Johnny on the bottom from time to time. It would be true of parents who do not even spank their children. When a parent tries to restrain a child, that could be treated as an assault subject to criminal prosecution.

I am going to talk about why there is a real chill for teachers if section 43 is removed. If section 43 is removed, a parent could be charged with criminal assault for forcibly removing a misbehaving child from a shopping mall, for picking up a misbehaving child and putting him or her out of the way of harm or for putting him or her to bed against his or her will. Teachers share this exact same concern.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation appeared as an intervenor in last December's court case in Ontario and argued in favour of retaining section 43 of the criminal code. The federation believed that removing the section would be detrimental to maintaining a safe and secure school environment. The federation pointed to a number of day to day school situations in which the safety of students and the learning environment could be adversely affected.

I am sure there are teachers here who could tell us of specific instances where restraint is required in a school situation for the safety of a student and the protection of others as well. The teachers in their intervention cited instances where there is the need to protect students or teachers when a fight occurs at school, including the need to restrain those students if necessary. Also there are situations where there is a need to escort an uncooperative student to the principal's office, to bring him or her along by the arm. In that instance lo and behold an assault charge may be laid for that type of escort down the hall.

The teachers referred to a situation involving ejecting a student who refuses to leave the classroom or the school itself. The teachers' federation also referred in its intervention to situations such as during a field trip when they have to place a young student on the bus who has refused to return to the bus. There are also situations where teachers may have to restrain a cognitively impaired student.

The teachers' federation is concerned that if section 43 were removed from the criminal code, the result would be widespread fear among teachers of being charged with assault. As a precaution teachers would be advised or would choose not to intervene in school situations since stepping in to resolve the difficult situation might lead to their being charged with assault. That reticence of teachers to step into the gap could result in more serious injuries to students as well as in a deterioration of the school learning environment.

Removing section 43 for our schools and Canadian families would be a disgrace to our judicial system. If it were struck down, it would be a massive intrusion of the state into the educational and family environments of our nation. Former Prime Minister Trudeau said that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Anyone who removes section 43 of the criminal code will be moving the state into the nation's family rooms. That would be tragic. The state makes a lousy parent and should not presume to tell parents how best to shape the moral character of their children as long as abuse is not involved.

That is why I have introduced this motion, to defend section 43 of the criminal code, even to the extent of going into court situations and invoking the notwithstanding clause if necessary. The aim of the motion is to enable caring non-abusive parents to do the best job possible of raising their children to be responsible, well adjusted individuals and members of society. It protects the rights of parents to raise their children in accordance with their moral and religious beliefs about the effect of child rearing, their personal knowledge of the unique characteristics of their own children and their own understanding of how best to discipline children which has been gained from their parents and their own experiences during childhood.

The motion accomplishes this goal in two ways. First, it requires that the government defend section 43 of the criminal code in the courts. In the event that one or more rulings were to strike down section 43, the motion would permit the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the charter of rights and freedoms. Notwithstanding a court's decision to strike down the law, section 43 would remain the law of the land. After the Sharpe decision relating to child pornography, more and more parliamentarians are realizing that parliament has an obligation to protect Canadians from judicial rulings which we cannot understand and which do not make a lot of sense.

Parenting has always been a challenge. Raising children to be responsible and law-abiding members of society is more of a challenge than ever before. The surge in teen violence during the past decade testifies to that fact. The shootings a year ago in high schools in the U.S. and Canada have horrified all of us. Now is not the time to handicap parents in their role as moral guides. It is for these reasons that I brought forward this initiative.

In my wrap-up in the last five minutes I will refer to some of the effects of physical discipline on children.

At this time I want to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have the motion before us deemed adopted and passed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Wanuskewin has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to have his motion passed. Does the hon. member for Wanuskewin have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the member's motion in support of the general thrust of the motion. The tone of my support is somewhat different from that of the member who moved the motion. He tended to configure his support for the motion in the context of being anti-state or keeping the state out of how the family is run. I would suggest to him that section 43 is already a manifestation of the state having a right to set limits on what parents are able to do in terms of disciplining their children.

There was somewhat of a contradiction in the member's argument. Either the state has this right or it does not. I would suggest that it does and that section 43 is an appropriate reflection of that right of the state. The member himself pointed to the fact that the origin of this section was an intention to protect children and to limit and to eliminate physical abuse of children. It was not designed to condone, to permit or to promote, but rather to set the appropriate context where physical discipline can be used by parents on children and by teachers on students.

I would call the attention of the House to the fact that this is not just a matter of individual members of parliament having this concern, it is also a concern that teachers have. It has been expressed as the member noted by the Canadian Teachers' Federation.

The federation argued quite persuasively that with the elimination of section 43, if it were to be removed from the criminal code, there would be a dramatic increase in the number of assault charges on teachers. As a precaution teachers would be advised or would choose not to intervene in school situations since their stepping in to resolve the situation might lead to their being charged with assault. The reticence of teachers to step in would result in more serious injuries to students as well as a deterioration of the classroom and school learning environment.

What we are talking about here is not the premeditated corporal punishment of strapping that used to occur in schools. We are talking about those situations in which teachers want to have the freedom to intervene in the moment to protect students when there is a fight, to escort uncooperative students, to eject a student who refuses to leave a classroom, to place a young student on a bus who refuses to leave after a field trip or who refuses to go and needs to go, or to restrain certain students.

All these things do not have to do with the old fashioned premeditated corporal punishment that took the form of strapping, the efficacy of which I always doubted very much. I think schools are better without it. I do not see any evidence that schools perform worse in any significant respect given the absence of strapping or the absence of premeditated corporal punishment.

To suggest that teachers would not be able to do anything would be a mistake, just as it would be a mistake to suggest that parents cannot do anything. Whenever we get into a zero tolerance situation we create a culture of fear and intimidation. We already see this now with the whole notion of physical contact. Teachers and other people who deal with children are afraid to put their arms around anybody. They are afraid to hug a child who needs emotional support. They are afraid to do all kinds of things for fear they might be accused of child abuse or sexual harassment.

We are trying to eliminate judgment from our society. When anything can possibly be used in a negative way we say let us not have it at all. That is a mistake. We are human beings. We are given a certain amount of freedom and we have to exercise judgment. The motion says that we do not want parents or teachers to be able to exercise judgment and to be held accountable for the kind of judgments they make. We want to eliminate that capacity for judgment. That is a mistake.

I can think of obvious examples. When toddlers or kids want to put their hands on a hot stove, are we to be criminalized for tapping the tops of their hands and telling them not to put their hands on the hot element or in the fire? Are we to be criminalized for patting them on the bottom if they persist in running out into traffic? These kinds of little things can create an atmosphere for various kinds of witch hunts. There is also the example of siblings harming each other who need to be kept from doing so even if it is by physical restraint or physical discipline.

I think section 43 at the present time is sufficient. I have received a lot of mail from constituents who seem to feel that the elimination of section 43 is imminent and they want me to stop it. There is a bit of political campaigning here. Some people are trying to exploit this issue for political purposes, creating a sense that something is about to happen which is not about to happen.

I have always made it clear to constituents who have written to me that I would not be in favour of repealing section 43 for the reasons I have just outlined, and I think the majority of members of parliament would not either. If there is a way we can put this to rest both for the sake of the substance of the matter and to eliminate some of the politics that have surrounded the issue, that would serve everybody very well.

I come from a family which for at least two generations the use of corporal punishment was something that was exceedingly rare so my comments are not out of defence of anything I have found in my own experience. I think all of us, at least those in my generation, would attest that many of our parents come from a generation where corporal punishment was the rule of the day. Family stories are replete with what happened if a child talked back to his or her father or misbehaved. There has been all kinds corporal punishment.

I am not making an argument for corporal punishment. I am just saying that some of the connections we often simplistically make do not always hold up sociologically and historically. I think one of the best generations that ever existed in this country, my parents' generation, was a generation that was raised in a context where parents dished out a lot more physical discipline than any of us here would regard as acceptable. I am not saying that was a good thing; in fact in many respects I think it was a bad thing, but to draw any quick and easy psychological or sociological conclusions about when people are on the receiving end of corporal punishment, if it happens in an appropriate context it is not always for the worst.

We should leave section 43 as it stands. I hope other members feel likewise.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I seconded this motion because I support section 43. I want to discuss this motion and take the approach of a lawyer as opposed to a teacher.

I want to say for those who are following the debate either in Hansard or on television or in other reported media that this is a motion, not a bill. This motion was not deemed to be votable by the subcommittee on private members' business so there will be no vote. Indeed, the speeches this evening will end after one hour of debate and the subject matter will be dropped from the order of debate. Having said that, I think the subject matter is important. I commend the hon. member who is the mover of the motion for bringing it forward, particularly in view of the current legal history.

The motion calls for the federal government to defend the section. As I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice will point out when he gets a chance to speak, the federal government is defending section 43 and did defend section 43 before the Supreme Court of Canada. I want to take a look at the section specifically. We are talking about section 43, but perhaps people do not truly know what it says. It is really very short, so I propose to read it.

I am referring to Martin's Criminal Code , which refers to section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It states:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the 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.

It is important to note exactly to whom this section applies. It applies to schoolteachers. It applies to parents. It applies to persons standing in the place of a parent. It applies to child and pupil. It does not apply, let us say, to police, coaches or others who might come in contact with children. It applies to those individuals named.

I want to read a brief synopsis of section 43 contained in Martin's Criminal Code .

This section justifies the use of force by certain persons to correct a child or pupil.

Of course “force” is not defined. Some people call this the spanking section, but there are many other kinds of force that may be used in varying degrees that are not spanking. It is important to note that we are talking about the use of force.

It continues:

The persons who may rely upon this section are schoolteachers, parents or those standing in the place of a parent. The child or pupil must be under the care of the person using the force, and the force must be applied for the purpose of correcting the child.

That is critically important. The force must be applied for the purpose of correcting the child. It continues:

Thus, if the child is too young to learn from the correction or is incapable due to mental disability, the use of force will not be justified by s. 43. The force applied cannot exceed what is reasonable in the circumstances...

In determining whether the force used has exceeded what is reasonable under the circumstances, the court must consider both from an objective and subjective standpoint such matters as the nature of the offence calling for correction, the age and character of the child and the likely effect of the punishment on the particular child, the degree of gravity of the punishment, the circumstances under which it is inflicted and the injuries, if any, suffered.

These two citations I have made specifically because to me they indicate how this section is to work. It is a very specific section, designed for very specific people in very specific circumstances. It is designed to be examined on a fact by fact situational basis. To me that is what is important. What may be reasonable use of force by a teacher in one circumstance may not be reasonable use of force by a teacher in another circumstance. It is very important that there be a combination of the objective and subjective tests.

It is also very important for the reasons we heard from the two members who spoke previously, that the use of force in appropriate circumstances in a reasonable manner be continued to be permitted. We heard a couple of the more obvious examples given by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, in particular where the immediate safety of the child is of concern.

The people who have opposed section 43, in my opinion, have taken worst case fact situations and applied them to tar section 43 with an unnecessarily black brush. The court system is adequately designed to deal with each individual fact situation. If there is an aberrant decision by an aberrant judge, the court of appeal is there to provide guidance in a particular circumstance.

The use of appropriate force in appropriate circumstances has been part of human history since the first child was produced. It seems eminently reasonable that section 43 is there not only for the protection of the child, but also for the protection of those who apply force in reasonable circumstances for the purpose of correction.

Having said that, I really do not want to go on ad infinitum. The section is reasonable. There is no reasonable argument that I can see or accept for the abolition of the section. I think it should be maintained.

I want to say one thing, however, about the use of section 33. I think that the motion stated that if the section were to be found unconstitutional, then we should use section 33. With that I agree. That is a nuclear option that parliament has to control the courts. It should be used very sparingly and very carefully, but it can be used and should be used in appropriate circumstances to demonstrate the supremacy of parliament.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting and timely debate that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Wanuskewin. Private member's motion No. 341 talks about defending the constitutionality of section 43 of our criminal code and, if necessary, taking the legislative action to reinstate section 43, including invoking the notwithstanding clause of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am very supportive of the upholding and the reinforcement, if necessary, of section 43 of our criminal code. I think the member opposite and previous speakers have spoken quite eloquently and have set out before the House the necessity and the background with respect to why we have section 43 in the criminal code. It is there essentially to set very much a standard for the reasonable force that can be used to take corrective measures or to take action when necessary to discipline a child in a situation, whether it be at home or at school.

That section of the criminal code has been in place for a number of years. It has been tested in the courts. It has been examined extensively by courts and by litigators across the country.

I want to thank the hon. member for Wanuskewin for bringing this motion forward.

Unfortunately, I have some difficulty with respect to invoking the notwithstanding clause with respect to this type of criminal code section. That is not to diminish the importance of what the hon. member is seeking to accomplish. I think it is a productive opportunity here in the House to examine the situation, to flesh out this issue further and to look at the issue of discipline, in particular with respect to parents, teachers and community workers, those who are in regular contact with children. It is a very trying time.

It goes without saying that adults are very much in a situation at times where they are forced to make the judgment call to decide whether to take the appropriate physical action, which they must measure, and somehow try to apply a standard of restraint when it comes to physical coercion or restraint of a child. It becomes a very dicey and grey issue. This type of debate is helpful in that regard.

Parents are in a unique position because they know their children best and they know when they have to take that type of extraordinary measure in terms of controlling a child in certain instances. Children, obviously, at times need discipline and parents need the power to invoke this type of reasonable corrective action. Parents know best. They know the unique characteristics of their children and they know the most effective way, for the most part, to raise their child, including discipline in that process.

There is obviously a need to protect the bodily integrity of everyone, and our criminal code does so. It goes without saying that children are more informed about their rights than they have ever been at any time in our history. That is a good thing. The education system teaches children and teaches our citizens generally more about the law than in previous generations. It is very important that Canadians know and understand their legal rights and the obligations which flow from those rights.

Section 43 would help to defend the right of a parent or an adult to intervene in certain circumstances and apply measured, reasonable, restrained physical force. Thus, the issue becomes, is there a necessity to protect that right? Yes, there is. That is what is at the very root of this motion. It is a genuine, sincere attempt to protect and uphold a section of the criminal code that has a very important and productive background and necessity in this country.

That is not to say that there should ever be any indication that this section should be misused or that this section should be construed in some way as to condone or encourage any sort of excessive physical force.

There have been some high profile cases before the courts. The one that comes to mind is a recent case in which an American citizen, in this country, was seen to be using what was perceived, in a parking lot area, to be excessive force in disciplining his daughter. That case resulted in the police intervening and has become somewhat of a cause célèbre in this country.

The courts have been quite measured in examining these situations. They have, in their discretion, looked at the factual circumstances of each and every case. Again, as referred to by the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, it is very much an individualized situation. In every case before a court of law there is an ample opportunity to flesh out the circumstances, the factual evidence. The crown prosecutor, in conjunction with the police, is to present evidence that would support a charge of assault or a like charge that involved the use of force. Section 43 is very much there as a filter and a sword to protect the person who has been accused of exercising this type of physical intervention.

It is understandable that there is some trepidation. We have all received calls both in our constituency offices and here in Ottawa from concerned citizens every time there is a case before the courts. Every time this situation arises there is a concern that parents and adults, likewise, feel that they will not be permitted to use reasonable force.

The only trepidation I have in the wording of this particular motion is with the reference to the notwithstanding clause.

I have had discussions with the mover of this motion, who gives assurance, and I think it is implicit when we read it carefully, that it is very much not a pre-emptive strike, but it is there in its wording to suggest that if things proceed in the fashion that the hon. member anticipates, there may be the need for the government to intervene.

For that reason I find it difficult to justify the way in which it is presented. That is to say, at this time there is not an epidemic of abuse, where individuals are relying on this section to justify abuse. We are not faced with a situation where there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what type of force is appropriate.

Obviously, when physical injury results or when force is used in a very inappropriate way, sometimes it is not just the physical abuse that needs to be examined. We obviously know of occasions where a child can be berated, verbally abused, intimidated and scared, and that type of abuse also has to be examined when looking at like situations.

There is an important quote by Morris Manning that I want to put on the record. In his legal commentary, he said:

If our freedom of conscience or religion can be taken away by a law which operates notwithstanding the Charter, if our right to life or liberty can be taken not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, what freedom do we have.

He is obviously suggesting that we must tread very lightly when using the notwithstanding clause. Much akin to the idea behind this motion and behind section 43 of the criminal code, we must be very measured and careful before invoking such an extreme measure. It was referred to as the nuclear bomb of our legal system.

To use the notwithstanding clause essentially annihilates precedent. It annihilates the use of the courts to do their job and to exercise discretion and judgment over our laws. It suspends discussion on a legal principle and on a law. We have to be extremely cautious before going down that road. I know the hon. member who moved this motion is aware of that.

This is a very subjective and objective debate when it comes to the appropriateness of physical intervention. I suspect all members in the House feel very strongly about upholding the importance and integrity of section 43 of the criminal code.

For those reasons, I feel it is appropriate that we exhaust all avenues currently within our system and that judicial discretion be respected in each and every case. One would hope that this particular factual circumstance under section 43 will not be struck down by our courts. That is not to anticipate what any superior court or supreme court in the country will do, but at this time I do not feel it is necessary to invoke or at least threaten to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

I again congratulate the hon. member on his initiative in bringing this forward. It is a useful debate and one that may have to be revisited at some time in the near future.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

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.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this motion calls on the federal government to, first and foremost, defend the constitutionality of section 43 in the courts. I want to indicate at the outset that the federal government is doing exactly that. We are defending the constitutionality of section 43 in the courts. This matter is in fact still before the courts and, accordingly, it would be inappropriate for me to provide further comment on this specific case.

There has been a general misunderstanding of the purpose and the ambit of section 43. Section 43 provides that a parent, teacher or a person standing in the place of a parent may use force to correct a child, provided that the force used is reasonable in all circumstances. This is what sections 43 says.

Section 43 does not, however, condone or authorize the physical abuse of children. Equally important, it does not shield parents, teachers or caregivers from interference by the state or guarantee their freedom to discipline or correct children in any manner they see fit.

How does section 43 operate? A person who has been charged with the assault of a child under his or her care can raise section 43 as a defence. In other words, section 43 provides a defence to a criminal charge of assault for a limited category of persons in a limited set of circumstances.

Section 43 is a limited defence to a criminal charge because it is only available to an accused who is a parent, teacher or person acting in the place of a parent, and only with respect to a child or pupil under the person's care. It is a limited defence because the force in question must have been administered for the purpose of correction. Force exerted in a fit of rage or in a deliberate attempt to hurt a child will not be justified under section 43.

Finally, it is a limited defence because the force used must have been reasonable in all of the circumstances.

Canadian courts are very accustomed to applying a standard of reasonableness. Courts that are asked to consider a section 43 defence generally assess the reasonableness of the force by considering a number of factors. For example, they consider the nature and severity of the force in question, including any injuries suffered by the child, the child's behaviour or action calling for correction, the age of the child and the history of disciplinary action by the parent, vis-à-vis that child. Further, when determining whether the force used was reasonable, the standard that the courts apply is that of the Canadian community and not the standard or practice of the individual family or school.

To return to the specific issue raised by the motion, the federal government is defending the constitutionality of section 43 on the basis that it reflects a constitutional balance of the interests of children, parents and of Canadian society. However, section 43, interpreted and applied in conformity with the charter, does not condone or authorize child abuse.

It is also important to note that the protection of children from child abuse is not only a priority for the federal government in terms of criminal law reform. Provincial and territorial child protection legislation authorizes state intervention to protect children in need of protection, including to protect children from child abuse. As a result, even if the charges are not laid under the criminal code, child protection authorities can and do intervene under provincial or territorial legislation where parental discipline is inappropriate or excessive.

The motion also calls on the federal government to invoke section 33 of the charter or the notwithstanding clause in the event that section 43 of the criminal code is struck down. In my view, it is inappropriate to consider the invocation of the notwithstanding clause of the charter at this point in time. Invoking section 33 is a serious step that we must not take easily or casually.

If section 43 is ultimately struck down as unconstitutional, I would caution us to allow for a considered review of all of the options open to us to deal with both the criminal law system and the child protection laws before ever contemplating using section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Invoking section 33 of the charter is a serious matter which should only be considered in exceptional cases and only after all other legal avenues have been exhausted. This is the only responsible choice open to us as members of parliament.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think it was the understanding of all members in the House, including the Liberal member opposite, that the use of section 33, the notwithstanding clause, was only “if necessary”. We would first use the full extent of the law and the appeals process. Because of the importance of this whole issue, once that was exhausted only then would section 33 kick in. The record has to be clear. We are not talking about using section 33 pre-emptively or prematurely.

I note with some sadness though, and members of the House may be aware of the fact, that the government has defended section 43.

On the other hand it is with sadness that I say it has also funded the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, the very group that brought this challenge into the Ontario superior court to declare section 43 in violation of the charter. It is a bit sad that tax dollars are used by the government to erode or undermine section 43 by way of the funding dollars given to such a group through the court challenges program.

In the remaining moments I want to talk about what the research says about the effects of physical discipline on children. A number of studies have been done over the years. Some studies have found negative outcomes while others have found positive ones. I would like to describe why the conclusions have varied so much by referring to the work of Dr. Robert Larzelere of the University of Nebraska Medical Centre.

In 1996 he published in the journal “Pediatrics” one of the most important resources we have for understanding the debate among current researchers. He undertook a literary review of all the empirical studies published in scholarly journals over the last 30 years. He studied 35 relevant articles on this topic and found conflicting results among them.

In reviewing the literature he discovered that the different results could largely be explained by the different methods and approaches used by the researchers. His key finding was that studies which show that physical punishment had negative results did not distinguish abusive from non-abusive physical discipline. They sought families in which physical discipline was used but failed to inquire about the nature of the physical discipline. Some of these methodologically flawed studies then included family situations where unreasonably harsh or abusive measures of physical punishment were used. On the other hand, studies which showed positive results from physical punishment or discipline, the word I would prefer to use, were the ones that excluded abusive family situations.

Here is a breakdown of the results from those 35 studies done by Dr. Larzelere. Only 11 of the 35 studies excluded abusive family situations. Those are the ones within the parameters, the ones to consider. The others in effect could be set aside because they had a methodologically flawed approach. Six of these eleven studies showed beneficial outcomes, four showed neutral outcomes, and only one showed any negative outcome. That suggests that when used properly by parents who truly love their children, mild, moderate physical correction when kids are young can have positive results and no negative results.

These observations are relevant to the debate over section 43 of the criminal code. Both sides in the debate agree that abusive physical punishment is harmful to children. We should not allow it or tolerate it. Where we disagree is on the effects of non-abusive physical punishment.

The studies that saw negative results from physical correction, which included abusive family situations, have to be disregarded in the interest of fairness and in the interest of truth for the situation here if we want to learn about the outcomes of non-abusive physical discipline by loving parents.

I can cite from my own family situation. I have a son who is 21 years old, a daughter who is 18 years old, a son who is 6 years old, and a little one who is five months old. The six year old has had one little spank on the bottom in his some six years of life. Considering his personality and so on, I suspect that he will not ever require more than a glance sideways or some other method of discipline. However I do believe that the backup, the fact that he knew it happened once in the far distant past, is a good thing. It is also helpful that we use all other alternative methods of discipline.

I think we cannot confuse apples and oranges here by talking about clearly abusive family situations where there is all kinds of dysfunction and balanced and proper functioning family situations.

There have actually been more recent studies since the 1996 publication of Dr. Larzelere's article, but all those studies do not challenge the finding of his literary review that in non-abusive situations physical correction can in fact be positive and beneficial to the child. The most recent study by Marjorie Gunnoe in Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , August 1997, provides important confirmation of those findings.

At this point I very humbly and straightforwardly seek unanimous consent of the House to have the motion before us deemed adopted and passed.