Maurice Vellacott

[Mennonites, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the 125th anniversary of Mennonites coming to Canada from Russia. One would be hard pressed to imagine what the province of Saskatchewan would be like if not for the hardworking, God-fearing Mennonites who chose to come to our country so many years ago.

Mennonites moved to the Saskatchewan River Valley from the east and west reserves of Manitoba in the 1890s. These pioneers have left us a rich heritage of faith and strong family values. The positive influence of these men and women remains with us today.

The contribution of the Mennonites to our present way of life is almost too difficult to enumerate. Agriculture, cuisine, churches, enterprise and innovation are all areas that were influenced as this group settled and took root in the valley area north of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

It is a testimony to God's enduring goodness that these Mennonite farmers, teachers, preachers and entrepreneurs flourished in this new land with harsh climate extremes and political uncertainties.

I am pleased to be a descendant of the Neufeld clan and wish to extend my congratulations to all my constituents of Mennonite heritage on the occasion of this special anniversary.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member want to put forward a motion to the effect of affirming polygamy in our country? I am not exactly sure of his intent. However, as our law presently states, a marriage is between one man and one woman. It has been long held in our Judeo-Christian setting.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of our debate today, we are of course debating the marriage definition itself.

The member raised a very valid question. Her party may put it forward on a future day that it should not be based on sexual involvement or a conjugal relationship, but we would also need to know the cost. The public would then have to be engaged in the debate to determine if that were in the greater societal interest. There would also have to be a full debate the House of Commons, and I would encourage that.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the member, as he is obviously aware, that within Canada, this great Dominion of ours from sea to sea to sea, monogamy between one man and one woman is the law. That is the rule.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the affirmation of the member across the way. The whole intent and point of the debate is to make it very clear to the public and have it on the record that we are defending, affirming, strongly avowing and supporting the institution of marriage and the traditional view of it.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that we should even be debating this in the House of Commons today but I take real delight in addressing the motion that has been put forward and I gladly affirm it.

When one thinks of the glue that holds societies together, one cannot help but think of the institution of marriage and the family unit which is the fundamental building block of society.

The motion the Reform Party put forward today speaks to the current legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. In putting forward this motion the Reform Party is simply affirming or echoing its longstanding policy that marriage is the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state.

Why are we debating such a topic? Why are we spending time discussing something that would seem to be so self-evident? There has been a chronology of events over the last number of months.

Some people believe that the institution of marriage is in danger of being radically changed in law due to recent court rulings. As we all know, a series of court decisions have been made in which various kinds of benefits previously restricted to heterosexual couples have now been extended to gay partners.

A year ago in the Rosenberg decision the Ontario Court of Appeal changed the Income Tax Act to extend pension benefits to gay partners. Just last month the supreme court declared in its M. v H. ruling that gay partners are subject to the alimony provisions of Ontario's Family Law Act. Some people believe that marriage will be the next to fall and that gay marriages may be just on the horizon or just around the corner. This does not need to be the case and should not be the case in my view.

We are here today to affirm both in debate and by means of a vote that there is no necessary connection between extending benefits to gay partners and legalizing same sex marriage. Some people will want to see a connection between them but there does not have to be and there ought not to be.

Let me quote the justice minister on this point. In an April 24, 1998 letter she stated:

I continue to believe that it is not necessary to change well-understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals may find.

That statement clearly distinguishes between the extension of benefits, which is what the courts have been ruling on, and the definition of marriage, which is what they have not been ruling on. The conclusion drawn by the justice minister is that homosexual individuals can be treated fairly without having to alter the definition of marriage.

The Prime Minister of the land made the same point in a May 21, 1999 press release which responded to the M. v H. decision. He said:

We believe that it is not necessary to redefine concepts like marriage in order to ensure access to benefits and obligations for people in committed relationships in a way that is fair to all Canadians.

Clearly the government and the Reform Party are in agreement that gay marriage is not a logical progression from recent court rulings on questions of benefits. They are different issues that belong in different categories.

I want to address the question of why it is that marriage is a unique institution that deserves to be guarded and strengthened in our nation. The institution of marriage has brought great benefits to our society. In the vast majority of marriages, children are brought into the world providing our country with its future citizens, workers, leaders, mothers and fathers, and so it goes.

Marriages provide the most stable, enduring context for the development of individuals during the formative years of childhood and thereafter on through their teenage years. A mom and a dad have an influence on a son or a daughter well on into their adult life.

It has been proven statistically that families in which the parents are married are the most stable families. That is a documented fact. In this way marital relationships contribute to the dignity, the stability, the peace and prosperity of the family and of the greater society.

Why does a marriage bring these benefits, we ask. When a man and a woman enter into the marriage relationship, it is almost always for the express purpose of making a lifelong commitment which will form the basis of family life and the environment in which children will be reared.

I have had the privilege over a decade and a half in a previous life of officiating at marriage ceremonies, as the one solemnizing that marriage. It has been a awesome privilege to watch the groom and the bride stare into each other's eyes as their emotions well up. On those many occasions I found myself being caught up in the significance of that very momentous occasion when a man and a woman come together to commit their lives together. I would say in all of those cases and in the premarital counselling that preceded, although marriages do break down, it was the intent of the two coming together that it be a lifelong commitment to one another, a loving relationship in richness and in poverty, in sickness and in health and so on as the marriage vows go.

Even though regrettably marriages sometimes break down, the fact that marriage relationships are much more stable than common law relationships makes one thing very clear: very few people enter into the marriage relationship flippantly. It has been my experience and the experience of many others whom I have talked to, colleagues and numerous other people, that most have carefully thought about that commitment, some more than others. They thought about the commitment they were making and they said those vows sincerely and solemnly. They realized that they were participating in something much larger than themselves, something that most Canadians from various religious backgrounds believe is designed by God.

My point here is simply that people are serious when they get married. This seriousness and depth of commitment to the marriage is what benefits the children who are born and raised in that context in those stable families. That is of great benefit to all of society.

Because of the way in which the institution of marriage benefits society, we need to guard it, we need to protect it and we need to promote it. The institution of marriage as a union of one man and one woman must be preserved, protected and promoted in both the private and the public realms. It would be foolish to undermine the uniqueness of the marriage relationship. Any society that does so risks losing the benefits that have come to society from marriage and from the high regard in which it has always been held.

Of course some people are not thinking about the health of the larger society when they are willing to sacrifice the societal benefits that come from marriage in order to engage in a form of social experimentation. Such people may regard marriage as little more than a form of self-expression, but marriage must not, marriage cannot be reduced to that level. It is much more than a form of self-expression. It is the glue, some would say the crazy glue that holds society together today and lays the groundwork for the society of tomorrow.

The institution of marriage is not something to be toyed with. Were we to abandon the uniqueness of marriage, I am convinced that we would pay a heavy price for such social experimentation. We would be killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Down the road, two decades from now or whatever number of years down the road, we would be looking back and we would rue the day that the slide began and that decisive moment of change occurred. We must not go down that road and have to pick up the pieces later.

To tinker with the institution of marriage would send the wrong message. First, it would send the wrong message to our young people. Surveys have shown that young people are actually more optimistic about relationships and starting a family some day than even many of their parents were. This optimism is good. It needs to be encouraged.

Second, were the institution of marriage to be changed, we would be sending a wrong message to common law couples who have children and are contemplating making a lifelong commitment to each other in marriage, that formal commitment, that celebration and that actual ceremony before the public.

Obviously many couples who are married today were formally living together in common law relationships and at some point decided to commit themselves to each other in marriage, which is something to be encouraged and welcomed. The children in such relationships can only benefit and society in turn benefits.

The motion we have considered today is an important one. It seeks to defend the current legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. In putting forth the motion, the Reform Party is simply echoing its long-standing policy that marriage is the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state. It is monogamous. It is one man and one woman for life. Opposite sex, is defined as well.

We look forward to the vote tonight and to see the House affirm that long-standing, age old, historic definition of marriage.

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in my wrap-up comments I will refer to some remarks made by colleagues on different sides of the House.

I will first remind members that section 43 has not been in place many years. My colleague to my immediate right, or to the left on the political spectrum, does not appear to be aware of when section 43 came into being.

Physical abuse by an individual some 30 years ago is the very reason that section 43 was brought in, because there was no protection for children. There were no agencies in place and this was the kind of thing that was put in place by well intentioned lawmakers so there would be protection for children.

It would also seem that some of the members around the House are not aware of the agenda of the United Nations, and specifically the convention on the rights of the child. It would appear from the comments of the last speaker that he certainly is supportive of that.

Canada sends delegates to the convention on the rights of the child posturing that they represent the Canadian position but without having any debate in the House. After having tried to smooth, sneak or stealth their views by individuals overseas, they come back to try to browbeat us by saying that the position of Canada ought to be a small select group of NGOs trying to get this through at United Nations meetings.

Contrary to what the Progressive Conservative Party member said, that there was no threat at present, I remind him of a case coming up in the general division of the Ontario courts.

The government, through the court challenges program, has given money to this group to challenge section 43. This is not something in some distant era but something of concern before us right now, which is being funded by the government.

The member cited a number of different cases being investigated in Ontario. However, at the end of the day it was found that only a couple of allegations could be substantiated. It was decided that what had been alleged by individuals in Ontario had not occurred.

Studies that found negative outcomes did not take into account the original frequency or severity of the child's behaviour that required some discipline in the first place. In other words, if a child had a severe behavioural problem, and discipline or punishment was not having any positive results, it did little good to later blame bad behaviour on the physical punishment when in many cases the bad behaviour was there to begin with. That would be like blaming cancer on radiation treatment. It is true that radiation may not have cured the cancer but that does not mean it causes it. The cancer was already there.

I referred to the recent confirmation of the very extensive studies by Dr. Larzelere, or at least his review of the studies. I also referred to the study done by Marjorie Gunnoe that provides important confirmation of those findings. On the basis of her work she has stated that positive or negative outcomes do not result from physical correction per se but rather from the meaning a child ascribes to the discipline.

She suggests two plausible ways that children interpret spanking. First, it is a legitimate expression of parental authority. Second, it can be an act of interpersonal aggression.

If children perceive discipline as an expression of parental authority, there will not be, I state again there will not be, negative outcomes. However, if they perceive discipline as an act of aggression, then there may be negative results.

Marjorie Gunnoe's scholarly and very thorough work underscores the fact that there are no dangers in loving homes in which the child knows that mom and dad are disciplining in a careful, responsible, loving manner and purely out of a desire to shape character.

It has been a privilege to speak to this motion. At this point I again seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the motion before us deemed adopted and passed.

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 1999]

I would like to take the rest of my time to address some of the arguments that are used by those who oppose any form of physical correction. We might hear some of those arguments today from different members.

For example, how will this group, Justice for Children and Youth, argue in court against section 43? Maybe some of the very statements we will find in a somewhat empty way coming from the other side of the House today.

First, Justice for Children and Youth will argue that section 43 violates the charter of rights and freedoms because it discriminates on the basis of age. It will point out that because adults are protected by the law from assault, children should be protected from physical discipline.

The problem with that argument is that a swat on the bottom that gets a toddler's attention but which does not bruise or do physical harm is hardly analogous to an assault by one adult against another. In the case of adults, the intent is to do harm and the victim often winds up in the hospital. In the case of discipline by loving parents, the intention is simply to offer a negative consequence or, we might say, feedback for persistent misbehaviour and the child is in no way physically harmed by the discipline.

Second, when it gets to court this advocacy group is going to argue that physical discipline instead of changing a child's behaviour for the better causes aggressive tendencies in children. The assumption is that the child will imitate mom and dad. If mom and dad use physical discipline, the child who receives that discipline will start hitting others. When this argument gets made, we are going to see the absurd in the court system.

Academics who do research in the field of pediatrics are currently engaged in a debate over the effects of physical discipline on children. Does it improve compliance among children or does it increase aggressiveness? That is the question being asked by academic people. The debate can be highly technical. It is clear there is no scholarly consensus that has emerged in all the issues. In fact, many scholars agree that there is a woeful lack of research being done in this area, prompting some of them to call for greater attention and research.

The point is that this debate in academic halls is still very much in its infancy. Yet in the near future that debate is going to shift from the academic journals into the courts. A judge with no study and no academic background in this area is going to be hearing conflicting interpretations of research results and will have to make a decision. This shows just how absurd the situation with our courts has become under the charter.

Any interest group citing supposed research studies can walk into a courtroom and try to convince a judge that research shows that this or that is the case and that the charter is being violated. It is really an abuse of the court system, something the court system was never intended for, with judges being asked to settle academic research questions. That is the role of parliament. That is the role of this place. That is the role of committees in calling expert witnesses before committees when there is time for that kind of thing. Judges are not to make laws; they are simply to rule on the laws that are in place.

What does the research say about the effects of physical discipline on children? Does physical correction have positive outcomes or negative outcomes? Has it led to improved behaviour in children or has the misbehaviour continued accompanied by new aggressive tendencies? In one sense the researchers have come to contradictory conclusions, as I have indicated. Some studies have found negative outcomes, others positive.

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 school. He published in the Journal of Pediatrics , one of the most important resources on this very topic. He undertook a literature review of studies published in scholarly journals in the last 30 years. He studied 35 relevant articles.

Something rather important for us to note is that many of those studies, in fact the sum total of 24 of them, did not leave abusive dysfunctional family situations out of the research. In fact it came down to only being 11 of the studies that excluded abusive family situations. Of these 11 that left abusive family situations out of the research altogether, six of those studies showed beneficial outcomes, four of them showed neutral outcomes and only one showed negatived outcomes.

That suggests that when used properly by parents who truly love their children, physical correction has positive results and no negative results. Based on these studies, Dr. Larzelere was able to be specific about the kind of physical punishment that brings beneficial results. On average he found that in a loving, responsible, functional home situation there were beneficial results when corporal correction was used less than weekly.

There were beneficial results when corporal correction was used at non-abusive levels of severity. There were beneficial results when it was used by parents who were not physically violent against family members, for example a father beating a wife or vice versa.

There were beneficial results when it was used without a potentially damaging instrument. With corporal correction there were beneficial results when used from ages two to six. There were beneficial results when it was used privately, not in public. There were beneficial results when it was used with reasoning and explanation.

There were beneficial results when it was used with a moderate level of child distress. As well, there were beneficial results when corporal correction was used primarily as a back up for other methods of discipline. This back up threat made reasoning and time out more effective, so the need for physical punishment decreased over time.

Beneficial results occurred when corporal correction was used by loving parents who were positively involved with their child and had child oriented motivations. It was not about the parent. It was about the rearing and the constructive raising of that child.

Corporal correction did not increase the child's fear of parental discipline. It was beneficial when parents co-operated with each other in discipline responsibilities and did not use verbal putdowns. Corporal correction is also beneficial when parents change their main discipline method to grounding when their children got older.

Based on those 11 studies that excluded abusive family situations, physical correction was seen to have positive results in six of the studies, neutral results in four, and negative results in one.

I would contend in view of this information that many of the studies had some flawed methodology weaknesses. Of the 35 studies, in fact 24 did. Of the other 11 studies it was found that on the basis of positive, responsible parenting in other ways there was positive benefit.

In my summary at the end of the hour I will refer to some follow-up research done by Marjorie Gunnoe, some very extensive confirmation of these findings. Again I ask for unanimous consent for this motion to be deemed adopted in the House today.

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the rest of my time to address some of the arguments that are used by—

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 1999]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should defend section 43 of the Criminal Code in the courts and should invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to speak to Motion No. 528, a motion that would protect parents and their children from state intrusion.

The motion says that in the opinion of this House, the government should defend section 43 of the Criminal Code in the courts. If the government does that, then all is fine and well and we may carry the day with that. It should also be prepared to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the charter of rights and freedoms if necessary. We believe that vigorous defence of section 43 of the Criminal Code in the courts would not even require that.

Under current law parents are allowed to use physical correction to discipline their children, as long as it is not abusive and is reasonable under the circumstances. The relevant statute is section 43 of the Criminal Code which reads as follows:

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.

Prior to the enactment of this section of the code there was no legislation placing limits on the use of physical correction, nor were there any government agencies to protect children from abuse.

It was precisely to protect children from abuse that section 43 of the Criminal Code was passed into law. Now thanks to section 43, parents cannot physically abuse their children in the name of discipline. As long as the police and the courts do their jobs, child abusers will be prosecuted under the law. In my view they ought to be, to the very full extent of the law and right up to the supreme court if necessary.

It is very ironic therefore that some people who want to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code argue that it only protects parents' rights when in fact parliament's original intent in framing section 43 was to protect children. These so-called child advocates have totally missed the point. They have missed the wise intention of parliament in giving us this part of the Criminal Code.

For that reason section 43 strikes that necessary balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children. On the one hand, parents must have the freedom to fulfil their responsibility to their children and to society to raise their children to be moral and decent people who respect others. On the other hand, children have the right to be free from physical abuse and bodily harm.

Section 43 strikes that appropriate balance. It is a good law that was well conceived, which has served its purpose well and continues to serve us well today. That is why I find it very disconcerting that some children's rights advocates want to see section 43 declared by the courts to be in violation of the charter of rights and freedoms.

This past fall a group which was thrown together very quickly called Justice for Children and Youth submitted an application to the Ontario court, general division asking the court to declare section 43 to be in violation of the charter and therefore unconstitutional. This case will be heard sometime in the coming months. If this group succeeds in having section 43 struck down, the results would be absurd and totally unacceptable in our country.

First of all many good and loving parents would be made into criminals overnight and could be charged under the Criminal Code. That would be a disgrace to our judicial system. The public gets frustrated enough when they hear about bizarre court rulings as we have had in Saskatchewan or B.C. or elsewhere, rulings that pose a threat to their freedoms and the well-being of their families.

If section 43 of the Criminal Code were to be struck down, the massive intrusion of the state into the private sphere that would result boggles the mind. Trudeau said that the state has no business being in the bedrooms of the nation, but anyone who removes section 43 will be moving the state right into the nation's family rooms. That would be tragic. The state makes a lousy parent and the state 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 calling on the government to defend section 43 of the Criminal Code in the courts and to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the charter of rights and freedoms if necessary. We believe that would only be a last resort. If it does this vigorous defence of section 43 in the courts we will prevail.

The aim of this 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.

Section 43 actually protects the rights of parents to raise their children in accordance with their moral and religious beliefs about effective child rearing. It protects the rights of parents to raise their children in accordance with their personal knowledge of the unique characteristics of their children. It also protects the rights of parents to raise their children in accordance with their understanding of how best to discipline children and to gain from their parents, to gain from other training and to gain from their own experiences during childhood.

The motion before us today accomplishes this goal in two ways. First, it requires that the government defend section 43 of the Criminal Code in the courts, to defend it vigorously and to use the best law resources in that defence. Second, in the event that one or more court rulings strikes down section 43, then the motion would commit 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 then remain the law of the land.

After the Shaw decision in British Columbia on the right to have child pornography, I think that parliamentarians more than ever understand and realize that parliament has an obligation to protect Canadians from nonsensical judicial rulings.

While parenting has always been a challenge, raising children to be responsible and law-abiding members of society is more of a challenge today than ever before. The surge in violence during past decades testifies to this. The recent shootings in high schools in the U.S. and Canada have horrified all of us. Now is not the time to handcuff parents in their role as moral guides.

For all of these reasons, I have brought forward this initiative. I will read it into the record again:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should defend section 43 of the Criminal Code in the courts and should invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if necessary.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the motion before us deemed adopted and passed at this time.