SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Feb/13/24 5:03:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the Conservatives' obstruction. Unfortunately, I could also talk about the Liberals' inaction, which is why we are still here today, why this file was delayed. What is more, they are asking us to wait another three years. Enough is enough. As for my colleague's remark, the Conservatives are bringing up cases that might have more to do with the justice system. Before being elected, I worked on the issue of elder abuse. These are isolated cases and they have more to do with the justice system. In the case at hand, we are talking about professional bodies. I talked about it in my speech. We are also talking about a joint committee made up of senators and MPs who worked hard and proved that the safeguards are there and that, no, it is not true that a person can ask for medical assistance in dying as easily as ordering food in a restaurant. It is not true. There are safeguards and, in Quebec, this is clearly understood. What we need to do is to let ourselves be guided by the scientific evidence and by what professional bodies are saying, not by isolated cases and regressive religious attitudes.

203 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/13/24 5:04:12 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou on a point of order.

12 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Feb/13/24 5:04:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, may I remind my esteemed colleagues that when they ask a question, they should want to hear the answer? At the moment, members seem to be talking to each other across the aisle and not listening to the person who was asked the question. Respect needs to be shown not only at school, but in everyday life.

59 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/13/24 5:04:41 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for pointing out that members need to listen to each other in the House. Those who have been recognized are the ones who should take part in the discussion. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge has the floor.

46 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Feb/13/24 5:05:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of the wonderful residents of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and all of the residents in the city of Vaughan. I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague from the wonderful riding of Kitchener Centre. Before I begin my formal remarks, this is a debate on Bill C-62, medical assistance in dying, which is obviously highly personal to all members in the House. Remarks are being delivered today with much passion, substance and thought. I will add a few words on that front. I have provided my personal beliefs on medical assistance in dying, which I am obviously in favour of. I know many individuals in many families who made tough decisions that were not with regard to mental illness. That gives me great consternation and much thought. I am glad that a pause will be put in place because mental illness is a complex subject. I am not an expert and will not profess to be an expert, but we all know someone who has struggled with mental illness. We all know family members or friends for whom mental illness continues to be an issue. Unfortunately, many folks have taken their lives, and we need to make sure there is a system in place that is robust, where people can get the help and assistance they need to live their full lives, which God has blessed them with. I am convinced that our current MAID system is working well. I would like to take the next ten minutes to explain why Canadians should have confidence in our MAID legislation and its application over the past seven years. I also want to describe some of the activities that will help sustain that confidence when eligibility is expanded in March 2027, as proposed in Bill C-62. When the law authorizing medical assistance in dying was originally passed in 2016, it included a number of mandatory eligibility criteria for anyone requesting MAID. The person must be an adult of at least 18 years of age and capable of making health-related decisions. The request must be voluntary. Their request must be fully informed, and the person must have knowledge of the options available to relieve their suffering. They must have a grievous and irremediable health condition, meaning it cannot be cured, which is defined as follows: They have “a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability”, and they are experiencing “enduring physical or psychological suffering” that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable. In 2016, the law also required that the person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable. In 2019, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that this criterion violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In March 2021, a revised version of the federal law was passed, extending eligibility for MAID to people whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable as long as they met other eligibility criteria. In addition to these eligibility criteria, the law also sets out many procedural safeguards that a clinician must meet before administering medical assistance in dying. Here are a few of them: Two independent practitioners must provide a written confirmation of the person's eligibility. The person who is requesting medical assistance in dying must be informed that they can change their mind at any time and in any way and that their wishes must be respected. Also, the person must reconfirm their desire to receive medical assistance in dying immediately before receiving it. When a person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, a series of enhanced safeguards must be respected. I will talk about some of those critical safeguards. First, at least one of the two MAID assessors must have expertise in the person's medical condition. If they do not have that expertise, they must consult another practitioner who does. Second, the person must be informed of the means available to alleviate their suffering and be offered meaningful consultations. Third, these means must have been discussed, and both MAID assessors must agree that the person has seriously considered these means. Fourth, at least 90 days must pass between the beginning of the eligibility assessment and the day on which MAID is administered. These are legislated safeguards that all practitioners must abide by. We know that MAID practitioners across the country exercise considerable professional judgment in providing this service by keeping patients' interests and wishes at the forefront. Practitioners work hard to ensure that MAID is a last resort. They compile essential information about the person's medical condition, their treatment history and their use of support services. They have the necessary conversations to ensure that their patients are aware of the services available to them that might alleviate their suffering. It is about exploring treatment options, facilitating referrals and following up on the results. If the person who wants to receive MAID consents to involving family members and loved ones, the practitioners will encourage their involvement and include them in the discussions that are part of the overall assessment process. Practitioners are also aware that they do not always have the necessary expertise in the patient's condition to conduct a full assessment. In these situations, they have to consult the relevant experts and other health professionals who have the necessary expertise to make an informed decision. Some provinces or regional health care authorities have put in place MAID care coordination services or case consultation mechanisms that rely on a team or network of doctors, nurses and other professionals, such as social workers and spiritual leaders, to support the assessment process. What does that mean for the future, once we begin allowing MAID requests based on enduring and intolerable suffering resulting solely from mental illness? Are our existing legislative safeguards sufficient? How can we be sure that the same level of care, diligence and consistency in the provision of MAID will be the norm? In 2021, as mandated by the former Bill C-7, an expert panel reviewed the issue and concluded that the existing legal framework for eligibility criteria and safeguards is sufficient, provided MAID assessors apply the existing framework appropriately, with guidance from MAID standards of practice that have been developed as well as specialized training. In the time I have left, I would just like to say that we all rise in this most honoured House on many topics. One of these topics, probably one of the most personal ones that we have risen on in the number of years I have been here, is medical assistance in dying. I look forward to questions from the hon. members in the House, who have been sent here by their constituents. This is an important debate for us to have, and it is an important topic to discuss.

1158 words

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

Feb/13/24 5:15:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do agree that this is an intensely personal decision for each one of us. I listened carefully to the member's speech. At the beginning, he seemed to suggest that the reason the government was compelled to move forward with expanding MAID for the mentally ill was that the lower courts have forced the government to do this, but the courts have not actually directed the Canadian government to implement MAID for the mentally ill. The Supreme Court of Canada has never opined on the matter. In fact, every time the Liberal government has been given the opportunity to appeal a case to the Supreme Court, it has refused to do so, probably for ideological reasons. I would ask the member for his opinion. Does he believe that the Supreme Court of Canada has directed the House, this Parliament, to implement medical assistance in dying for the mentally ill, yes or no?

155 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/13/24 5:16:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have had much respect and much time for the hon. member in all of our conversations. I am not a lawyer. On having something referenced to the Supreme Court for a decision, I would have to get back to the learned member for Abbotsford on that front. I would say that it is important for all members in the House to look at the evolving needs of individuals in this country, speak with the pertinent experts and work with the provinces and territories. I have always believed that we should legislate and not defer to the courts. That is my own personal opinion. I believe in that. I think that is the best way to legislate and govern. We should do so by taking decisions in the House, while making sure they are obviously compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I know all members in the House hold dear.

155 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/13/24 5:17:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite was wondering about the Carter decision. In my opinion, Carter clearly demonstrates that absolute prohibition would indeed be discriminatory and stigmatizing. That said, I would like to ask him the following question. My colleague obviously supports his government's bill, which defers application of the law by three years. Does this mean that he is going to lobby within his government so that, the day after tomorrow, once we have voted, the bill has gone through the Senate and the law has come into force, the committee will get back to work and eventually come up with a bill focusing on mental disorders, in particular, as well as on advance requests?

116 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/13/24 5:18:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for his question and assure him that this is very important to us. My answer would be yes, of course, as a member of Parliament, I always work in the interests of my constituents, and this is an issue and a law that has been brought forth in the last number of years that people are quite passionate about. I have always grappled with the technical and fine details of the law and the early provisions on a personal level. One term that has been used is “foreseeable death”. Thinking about this must be done with much diligence and judiciousness. I continue to advocate on our side and within our caucus for a law that is robust, that reflects the individual interests of Canadians and that is obviously compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

149 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Feb/13/24 5:19:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7 Bill C-62 Bill C-39

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have gotten ourselves into trouble with the use of arbitrary timelines. The Senate amendment to Bill C-7 kicked the can down the road two years. Last year's Bill C-39 added a year, and now Bill C-62 would add three years. I just want the member to put that into the context of the fact that the health ministers of seven out of 10 provinces and all three territories have asked for an indefinite pause. The special joint committee, likewise, was very careful not to put a timeline in its recommendation for a pause. How does the member reconcile this three-year pause with the fact that those institutions, those provincial governments, would rather put more of a qualitative benchmark than a timeline on it?

136 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/13/24 5:20:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in terms of a timeline of three, five or six years, obviously, a decision was made. As the member identified, we need to work with the provinces and territories as we move forward on this policy. We need to make sure that all provinces, territories, health ministers and individuals working in the various fields are ready for this. We need to make sure that we are ready for this and that it goes through in a manner that is prudent and appropriate.

84 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/13/24 5:21:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62 Bill C-39 Bill C-314

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I rise in strong support of Bill C-62, which would delay expanding medical assistance in dying for those in whom mental illness is the sole underlying condition by three years. My reasons for doing so are the same as they were in my speech to Bill C-39, one year ago to this day, at the time when the government was willing to delay by only one year: First of all, this delay aligns with what I have heard from so many folks in my community; second, we know that this is what experts have been calling for, for some time; and third, as Greens, we believe we should spend more time filling in our social safety net before we expand medical assistance in dying. Today, Greens also believe that we should be rushing this legislation before the March 17 deadline to ensure that MAID is not expanded for mental illness as the sole underlying condition because this is the next best thing to what Bill C-314 would have done. Bill C-314, which was proposed by the member for Abbotsford, would have avoided this expansion for good. Substantively, in the process we are in right now, this bill has been moving ahead quite quickly to this point. I expect that, as votes follow over the coming days, we will continue to move based on the motion that was approved earlier in the day. This shows that the House of Commons can move quickly when there is an urgent priority to be addressed, as is the case with the March 17 deadline in the existing legislation. Really, what this is about in terms of moving quickly is not that we do not have the legislative tools but that we need the political will to do it. When I think about this legislation in front of us, outside what I have shared so far in terms of why I am supporting it, why I have historically and why Greens have historically as well, my question is this: Where is the rush to support legislation that would substantively improve the quality of life of Canadians? Other members have reflected on and shared feedback, which I hope they have heard directly from people with disabilities across the country. Where is the rush on ending legislated poverty for people with disabilities? The fact is that, to this day, 40% of people living in poverty across the country are people with disabilities. While some will talk all about a piece of legislation that was passed in June of last year, the fact is that a person with a disability is no better off today than they were before that legislation was passed. The benefit is not yet funded, and we have not engaged in and figured out negotiations with provinces and territories. It is shameful. It is an embarrassment that, in a country as rich as ours, we are in a place where people with disabilities continue to live in legislated poverty. The House of Commons could choose to act as urgently to end legislated poverty for people with disabilities as it is moving right now to ensure that the March 17 deadline is met. The House of Commons could also push to actually address one of the core underlying issues here, which is the lack of supports to address mental health. In fact, at the time of the last electoral campaign, the Liberal Party promised a Canada mental health benefit. It was meant to be called the “Canada mental health transfer”. It was a $4.5-billion commitment, and it was not one of several bullet points in a health accord, the way we have now. One of the challenges is that, while we all want our health care to be delivered in a wholesome way, it is more helpful to have funding agreements that are specific, so we can have accountability on them. However, that is not the case when it comes to mental health. Instead, mental health is one of four bullet points in these provincial and federal agreements. As a result, it is up to the provinces, and it is unclear whether there is any accountability whatsoever on how many of the dollars in those agreements will go directly to mental health. In this year's budget, we could see the government step up, be more clear and say it is going to make sure it directly funds what was supposed to be the Canada mental health transfer. In so doing, it would substantively improve the quality of life of Canadians, of folks in my community who are waiting on unreasonable wait times and lists to get access to a mental health professional. If we were really serious about moving quickly on another core crisis in this country, we would move far more quickly on addressing the housing crisis. Again, for me, the little bit of hope I have, seeing what is happening right now, is that we know there are parliamentary tools available to do exactly that. The fact is, in my community, we just had a report come out today that continues to make calls with respect to dealing with people living rough, in encampments. In my community, the number of people living unsheltered has tripled in just the last three years. We should not be in a place where this is happening, but we know why it is the case. Right now, for every one new unit of affordable housing that gets built, we are losing 15 units to the financialization of housing. Housing has increasingly become a commodity for large institutional investors to trade, rather than a place for a person to live. This means that we continue to see large institutional investors buying up existing affordable housing, renovicting folks and increasing their rents. We wonder why that crisis is also getting worse. I do not think we would be in the place where we are right now if this Parliament, and the government in particular, were to get more serious about addressing the housing crisis. After 30 years of underinvestment, where are we now? The fact is that we are at the bottom of the G7 when it comes to the social housing stock in this country; 3.5% of our housing is social housing. This means that, even if we were to double social housing, we would only be around the middle of the pack in the G7. It means something after 30 years of underinvestment in communities across the country. I am thinking about someone I spoke with this past weekend, a nurse, who told me she cannot afford to live in our community as a result of the reality of the cost of housing. It means that, whether someone is a teacher, a nurse or a tradesperson, this is a generation that is looking at housing fundamentally differently than any one before it has. Why is that? In my community, since 2005, the cost of housing has gone up 275%, but wages have only gone up 42%. Once again, if we were to truly fill in the social safety net and move as quickly on doing that as the government has moved today on meeting this March 17 deadline, we could substantively ensure that we see the funding necessary to address the affordable housing crisis. We could also address financialization, which is the fact that institutional investors have swept in to make the biggest buck possible, as quickly as possible, on the backs of some of the lowest-income people in my community. Yes, I will be supporting Bill C-62. I think this is a really important opportunity for us all to mark that this Parliament can move quickly when it needs to on real crises that it sees. We have crises of housing, of legislated poverty for people with disabilities and of mental health, which this Parliament and the government should move a whole lot faster on.

1333 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/13/24 5:30:19 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

25 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Feb/13/24 5:30:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-273

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again in the House to speak to Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code. Introduced by my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the bill proposes to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. It is an undeniable fact that all children have the right to be protected from violence and abuse. As adults are, children are protected from a range of general criminal offences, including assault. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Health, where we study how to best support the physical, mental and emotional well-being of children across Canada. A big part of that goal is fostering healthy, safe environments in which children learn, evolve and grow. I have also heard from parents in my riding of Richmond Hill about their concerns for their children’s safety, not only at school but also on their way to and from school. I have had one parent personally reach out to my office to ask for assistance in securing the safety of his daughter because of the ongoing harassment she faced at school. Cases such as these serve as crucial reminders for us to take action on enhancing the protection of children in our communities, in our education system and across Canada. This starts with making the necessary amendments to our current legal provisions on this matter. Bill C-273 delves into deeply sensitive matters, including parental authority, children's rights, the government's appropriate involvement and delineating between acceptable parental discipline and instances of child abuse. I would like to start by outlining section 43 of the Criminal Code, which the bill addresses, and a few of the important perspectives we have heard on it. The bill before us specifically addresses section 43 of the Criminal Code, which provides a defence to a criminal charge of assault in situations where parents, guardians or teachers use corporal punishment with the intent of educating or correcting a child. This means that parents can use mild physical force, such as spanking or light hitting, to discipline a child in their care. Section 43 also applies to allow parents to use physical control to restrain or remove a child in appropriate circumstances. The same provision also applies to situations where a parent or a teacher uses reasonable physical force to restrain or expel a child from a classroom when appropriate. We know that Canadians hold a wide range of opinions regarding what should be deemed a suitable degree of physical discipline when parenting or teaching a child. These differing perspectives have sparked discussions regarding which behaviours reach a level of harm necessitating prohibition, all while recognizing that parental choices are deeply personal. I appreciate the chance offered by Bill C-273 to reflect on these significant questions. Our government supports Bill C-273 and its crucial goal of safeguarding children from violence and abuse. Nonetheless, we have received feedback from parents, particularly those from overpoliced communities, and educators. They have expressed apprehension that they may face criminalization for reasonable actions, such as minor instances of physical intervention that do not result in harm. It is worth noting that section 43 has been a component of the Criminal Code since 1892, remaining largely untouched. Its origins flow from the parental duty to protect and educate children. The defence typically applies in relation to assault charges, because assault is broadly defined in the Criminal Code as the non-consensual application of force. This definition captures non-consensual touching or even threats against another person, regardless of their age or whether physical harm or injury occurs. Section 43 was enacted by Parliament to prevent the criminalization of specific behaviours by teachers, parents and caregivers. However, its current application is not designed to safeguard against abusive or harmful behaviour. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its 2004 decision Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, found that section 43 is consistent with sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and clarified that the defence applies only to parents who impose minor corporal punishment of a transitory or trifling nature. The court also set certain parameters on the defence. For example, the defence applies only where the child is aged two to 12 and is capable of learning from the situation. No object may be used when applying force. The child’s head must not be slapped. There can be no physical harm or reasonable prospect of harm, and the adult must not be acting out of frustration or anger. The court has restricted the scope of the defence, particularly concerning educators, who are constrained to employing judicious physical intervention solely for the purpose of upholding discipline or enforcing school regulations, such as relocating a student from a classroom or ensuring adherence to instructions. The court underscored that corporal punishment administered by teachers is unequivocally prohibited. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling nearly two decades ago, advancing research and insights into the adverse effects linked to the physical disciplining of children have led to heightened calls for the reform or repeal of section 43. The government is steadfast in its dedication to realizing all recommendations outlined in the 2015 final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The repeal of section 43 would constitute another stride toward fulfilling this commitment, aligning with call to action 6. This particular call is substantiated by documented instances of pervasive corporal punishment and child mistreatment by personnel within the residential school system, as highlighted in the commission's final report: “The failure to develop, implement, and monitor effective discipline sent an unspoken message that there were no real limits on what could be done to Aboriginal children within the walls of a residential school.” Advocates for the complete repeal of section 43, including numerous civil society entities and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, contend that the existing criminal legislation fails to afford children equal protection to that which is afforded to adults. Moreover, a growing body of medical and social science studies suggests that corporal punishment adversely impacts children. Such disciplinary measures expose children to the risks of physical harm, abuse, compromised mental well-being, strained parent-child relationships, heightened childhood aggression, anti-social conduct and increased violence and criminal behaviour as adults, thereby perpetuating cycles of violence. More than 650 organizations across Canada have endorsed the stance that physical discipline of children and youth yields no beneficial outcomes, and have called for the same protection from assault for children as that given to adults. However, the complete repeal of section 43 raises concerns in some sectors. For instance, various religious groups, legal scholars and teacher representation bodies, including the Canadian Teachers' Federation, have expressed reservations regarding the complete repeal of section 43. They contend that a complete repeal could expose teachers and parents to potential criminal charges for minor and inconsequential physical interactions with children such as intervening in sibling disputes or relocating a student from a classroom in the interest of the safety of the other students. In the absence of a legal safeguard for parents, educators and caregivers who apply reasonable physical force to children in their care, the assault provisions may apply. This is due to the broad scope of the assault provisions, encompassing minor instances of force that do not culminate in physical harm. For instance, this could encompass scenarios such as a parent restraining a child to ensure they are properly placed in a car seat. As I alluded to earlier, it may also have an unintended negative impact on populations that are already proven to be overpoliced and overrepresented in the criminal justice and child welfare systems, including the indigenous and Black communities, as well as members of other racialized groups. In closing—

1321 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/13/24 5:40:55 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

11 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

Feb/13/24 5:41:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to be able to stand in this place today to debate this important piece of legislation. I come here, working on things like domestic violence, interpersonal relationship violence and the protection of children, but I also wear a hat of a mother of five and a grandmother of two. I know, one can only tell by some of the wrinkles that I am a grandmother.

72 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/13/24 5:41:31 p.m.
Watch

Oh, oh!

2 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/13/24 5:41:31 p.m.
Watch

One cannot mention the name of a member of the House.

11 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Feb/13/24 5:41:31 p.m.
Watch

Thanks to Leah for always laughing at me. Today's bill is brought—

14 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Feb/13/24 5:41:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, You are absolutely right; I cannot do that. I am thankful that on such an important issue we are able to have these conversations, and we have to have a little bit of give. The bill before us today has been brought forward to amend the Criminal Code, specifically with respect to the repeal of section 43. To begin, I want to clearly state that there is no provision in the Criminal Code that allows for violence against children. Perpetrators of child abuse must be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Currently in Canada there are clear parameters for use of the physical correction stated in section 43. I want to get into that part because as we are having this discussion, making sure we can differentiate between what would be seen as corrective force and abuse is very important. The line is very hard to draw. We recognize that in some situations, physical correction could be a one-off, but that in some households it could be a common practice. There is a much greater discussion we need to have, and to try to take a really hard stand on this can be very difficult. Ultimately, I want to go back to looking at what is currently in our legislation, what parents can currently do and what the restrictions are. I am going to read something that comes out of New Brunswick, a simple flyer that was put out to parents by the Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick. It hits on what the parameters are, so I want to put it on the record. It reads: What ‘boundaries’ did the Supreme Court set for physically disciplining children? The Supreme Court of Canada stated that: The force used must be intended to educate or correct the child; The force used must be to restrain, control or express disapproval of the actual behaviour; The child must be capable of benefiting from the discipline. In other words, factors such a child’s age and disability will influence the child's ability to learn from the use of force; The force used must be “reasonable under the circumstances” and not offend society’s view of decency. I add this to the discussion because we talk a lot about abuse. We talk about coercive control, which is not even a physical abuse, but we know it exists. However, we have to differentiate between parenting and abuse. This is a very hard discussion to have. I am a mother of five and I know that my son watching at home is also thinking, “What does this mean? What did I do as parent? What mistakes did I make?” I do not recall ever being spanked as a child. Perhaps I should have been; I do not know, but there are times and places in which there needs to be physicality for the protection of a child and for their own safety. I heard the member for Richmond Hill talk about physicality while trying to put a child into a car seat. It very clearly is not about slapping the child in the face and telling them, “You do as I say”, but it is for the protection of that child. I am thinking of a situation such as taking a child away from a burning fire, because, like little bugs, they think it is interesting, and there is a need to physically remove children from those situations. Each and every time we are talking about that, we need to look at the situation, because this is situation-based. I am not saying I am an advocate for spanking, but what I am is an advocate for understanding the situation and understanding the controls or the limitations parents may have. In some cases, unfortunately, force may be the only solution. When I say that, to me, it needs to be the final resort. It would have to be the final resort in the protection of that child. I would like to refer to the Library of Parliament, which did a really good study on this in February 2023. It is part of its HillStudies and is available to the public if anyone wants to print it off. It is obvious from the information in this write-up that we are talking about very different things and that we need to be aware. It is obvious just from here in the House that there is a vast range of views on physical contact for parenting and for teaching. Some advocates feel abuse is never justified but recognize a corrective lens. As I was reading a dissenting report coming from the discussions on this, I think it was six out of nine judges in 2004 who supported the Supreme Court decision to allow the Criminal Code to remain as is, with section 43 allowing for children to receive corrective force from teachers and from parents. The reason I want to talk about this is that there are appropriate times and places. Six out of the nine different judges agreed with there needing to be something and needing to continue with the bill. In the dissenting report, many of them came with a “but" and said that they understood, but that this needed to be used as a last resort. I am reading section 43 of the Criminal Code, which 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. I think this is really important because I spoke about teachers, and as the member who spoke previously mentioned, we received a letter from the Canadian Teachers' Federation, which I have here and want to add to the discussion. I will quote its concerns: The CTF...has a long-standing policy opposing corporal punishment and supports the Government of Canada's commitment to enact all the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Calls to Action. At the same time, the CTF...wants to ensure that no unintended harm is caused through the process, which is the case with the potential repeal of Section 43. If Section 43 is repealed without other changes to the Criminal Code that ensure teachers may intervene physically when necessary to protect students and, in some cases, themselves, teachers will not be able to maintain safety and security in classrooms. I wanted to add to that, because it is very much like the dissenting report that I read from the Supreme Court, talking about why people may not have supported a repeal. It is because we recognize that there may be some instances when things are out of control. I think of a high school principal I know personally, who was trying to break up a fight in a high school. It is a bit different, but we have to understand that sometimes in school situations teachers unfortunately must intervene. In this case, it was a principal who got in between two young women who were fighting. Ultimately, the two young women were fine, but the teacher will never be able to teach again because he hit the floor when he was pushed, and he will have brain damage forever. Therefore we have to understand that sometimes these workplaces need to be controlled as well. I am taking that very strange situation of what happened to a teacher in a high school and relating it to what might happen in elementary schools. How can we ensure that teachers are in charge and are respected in the classrooms? My sharing the story of the high school principal has a lot to do with respect for teachers in these institutions and the fact that there needs to be some control. I am not talking about forceful control, but sometimes there are situations that are way out of control, so a teacher may need to reprimand a child or take them to the office. When the Canadian Teachers' Federation comes forward to speak to us, I think those are the situations in which it wants to ensure that the safety of its members and the safety of the students are going to be paramount. I believe taking section 43 out may have extraordinary consequences because of how unsafe our schools are at this time. We are trying to do a good job, but unfortunately mental health situations are impairing us very much. I want to go to my final point, the proposals for reform. We know that we have had approximately over 20 private member's bills on this specific subject. None of them has passed at committee, and in the last 20 years, in a report on children's rights in Canada, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended the repeal of section 43 and highlighted the need for public education campaigns. I absolutely agree with that part, because I think it is important that, any time we are talking about abuse or misbehaving, we to educate. I think this all comes down to section 43 being a tool to be used only as a final resource, but I think we cannot take away this tool from our teachers and parents. I appreciate the time to speak on this important topic.

1585 words