44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 18, 2024 02:00PM
- Sep/18/24 5:13:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to hear that the Conservatives are in support of this bill to move to committee.
When the sexual misconduct scandals first came out, the Conservatives were seemingly ready to talk about the real systemic cultural reforms that were needed, but we are seeing a change within the leadership of the Conservative Party. It is certainly under new management, and they have talked about it. Actually, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman said himself today that there needs to be an end to this idea of woke culture.
There was a keynote speaker at the Conservative Party convention who downplayed the existence of sexual misconduct itself, which I found shameful, so I want to hear today from the Conservative member whether he will commit to that continued talk and support, as opposed to just pushing it aside and calling it “woke culture” when we're talking about women and men coming forward in this place, in this institution, to make the real change that they need against sexual misconduct.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will say that the code of service discipline, the very ethos of the Canadian Armed Forces, holds up the issues of honour and integrity. I think all of us would demand that all those who serve apply that to their daily lives. This situation of sexual misconduct only happens when those individuals are not following through on that ethos, and then they are going to be subjected to the code of service discipline and the Criminal Code.
When we are talking about sexual misconduct, that has nothing to do with wokeness. This is about behaviour that has to change, and that respect has to happen. I am talking about ending that woke culture and making sure that we get back to training war fighters. I think that the stereotyping that has happened about our Canadian Armed Forces members in general has been detrimental because everybody who dons a uniform deserves to be respected. For everyone who goes out there, there is an expectation that they have a certain standard to meet.
Bill C-66 is for those who refuse to follow the code, and then they have to be subjected to the Criminal Code. For that, we support it one hundred per cent. To my colleague from the NDP, I will just say that, as I said to my friend in the Bloc, we will be treating this with the utmost respect and balance this conversation deserves to ensure that those who come before committee feel safe and are going to be valued in their testimony, which we will take it into serious consideration as we go forward.
274 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I too will put an end to the suspense by announcing that the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of the principle of the bill at second reading so that it can be sent to committee.
However, I will reiterate some of the comments I made about the timeline that led to the passage of the bill and the relevance of debating it now.
As has been mentioned, the issue of sexual misconduct in the armed forces was first brought to the forefront in March 2015 by the hon. Justice Deschamps. This took place around the same time as a series of other events that I will come back to a little later. In April 2021, Justice Fish also made some recommendations. In addition, Justice Arbour released a report on the subject in June 2022. When she was asked to look at potential reforms within the armed forces to put an end to certain issues related to misconduct, she replied that this had already been done and studied. However, hardly anything was put in place to bring about the changes recommended by her predecessors.
It was not until March 2024 that Bill C‑66 was finally introduced at first reading. Only now are we debating it at second reading. We know that it is not because the Standing Committee on National Defence has nothing to do right now. We are already working on a number of things. I am a little concerned that other matters no less important than this one could get delayed.
I am not trying to diminish the importance of any particular issue, but we have several files to deal with. We usually give priority to clause-by-clause consideration of bills so that reports can be produced. I am worried that we are going to get bogged down because, for one thing, military procurement is still an issue. Just about every week, the media reports on a new problem, whether it is sleeping bags or deliveries of light armoured vehicles. This is a recurring problem. We are likely to hear about it again.
There is also the matter of military spending. Although new funding was announced with the updated defence policy, some cuts that were announced last September are still in effect. That has led to a lack of resources in several areas. Canada is still not meeting the 2% target that it committed to at the Wales summit in 2014. That percentage used to be a minimum, but it is now a maximum. We still have capacity issues when it comes to international operations. There are problems with recruitment, retention and housing. Francophones in the armed forces are also having trouble getting services in their mother tongue.
We may end up talking about the Afghanistan evacuation in the summer of 2021, the evacuation of Kabul. During that evacuation, the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the member for Vancouver South, reportedly gave instructions to prioritize members of the Afghan Sikh community over Canadians and interpreters who had helped Canada. That is not the first blunder this minister made. I may come back to that later, because, on his watch, mistakes were also made regarding the then chief of defence staff, Jonathan Vance. That was likely the most high-profile case pertaining to sexual misconduct and the lack of separation between the chain of command and the military justice system. It was a case study of sorts for the many other cases that were not necessarily talked about in the media but that still plague the armed forces.
All this work that could have been accomplished might get pushed aside because we are going to have to work on Bill C‑66, which could have been introduced much sooner. On top of that, we may not be able to finish the study. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the news in recent days knows about the sword hanging over our heads and the possibility that an election could be called. This could jeopardize the bill, which is anxiously awaited by victims of sexual misconduct in our military and other observers.
I have a lot of empathy for these victims, but I am afraid that we will not be able to finish the study, as much as we want to, even if everything goes as smoothly as humanly possible in committee. The bill may not make it to third reading, pass through the Senate, or go on to receive royal assent. However, at the very least, we all agree on the principle of this bill.
Another point I would like to make is that a number of victims were consulted by Justice Arbour as part of a much broader study on changing the culture in the armed forces. However, those victims do not appear to have been contacted for the specific study of Bill C-66, to fine-tune the bill. As I mentioned in a question to my colleague earlier, it can be hard for victims to testify publicly, so I would like to issue an appeal to them while I have the opportunity. If any victims wish to contact committee members to make recommendations or suggestions or to submit questions that they should ask, that would be great. Personally, I promise to treat any submissions in complete confidence, if only to get the point of view of people who have unfortunately experienced the difficulties of the excessive proximity between the military justice system and those facing charges.
Let us come back to the bill, which makes several changes. The bill focuses primarily on changes related to sexual misconduct. The military has other grievances as well, but they are unfortunately not addressed in this bill, which is understandable because it would have been a massive bill. It would have been almost impossible to address it all at once. I wish we had already dealt with this issue so we could move on to other things, but oh well. Again, it goes back to the issue of timing and the proper use of the parliamentary calendar by the government. We could spend all day talking about that. I will refrain from doing so this time.
On the issue of misconduct, the main amendment made by the bill is the one that could only be made through legislation. It seeks to implement recommendation 5 from Justice Arbour's report, which proposes to completely remove the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences listed in the Criminal Code and committed in Canada. Previously, the only offences that could not be tried by the Armed Forces themselves were murder, manslaughter and cases related to kidnapping or human trafficking. The bill adds new offences that will no longer be dealt with within the armed forces, such as sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, bestiality, voyeurism and publication of child pornography.
These are all sex offences. They can no longer be judged internally. This is a major change that was long overdue and I think it could have been implemented a little sooner. It was the key recommendation emerging from Justice Arbour's report and, as I said, it was the only recommendation that required legislation. Some things will not change, however, and I think that is a good thing. Military personnel can continue to gather evidence while awaiting the arrival of civilian authorities in the event of wrongdoing.
The other recommendations being adopted include ones from Justice Fish's report. Justice Fish recommended modifying the appointment process for the three primary judicial or military authorities, namely the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, to make it a political, civilian process instead of relying on the military chain of command. These individuals would be selected by the government instead of military leadership. That way, they would be sheltered from any form of blackmail. I would just remind my colleagues about the case of the chief of defence staff, Jonathan Vance, who had sexual relations with a subordinate and subsequently bragged about having full control over the military investigations, ensuring that the victim could not file a complaint. His successor at the time, Art McDonald, had also stepped down a few weeks following allegations of a sexual nature. That is one of the recommendations from Justice Fish's report that is implemented by Bill C‑66.
This bill implements eight others as well. I will speak to them briefly. They are recommendations 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Recommendation 2 was that the National Defence Act be amended to allow the Governor in Council to appoint military judges, who can now be any officer or non-commissioned member who is a lawyer registered with the bar of their province and who has at least 10 years of experience as a lawyer and military member. This measure aims to exclude military judges from the summary hearing system. This evidently refers to summary hearings for service infractions or offences of a more disciplinary nature in general, such as being absent without leave, negligently discharging a firearm, wearing a uniform improperly or maintaining equipment poorly. Previously, service infractions like these could be tried before military judges. Now that the government is going to appoint military judges, they will no longer be able to decide matters that are subject to a summary hearing.
I understand the reasoning behind this, but I think it will still be useful to hear from people in committee to find out whether this exclusion is a good idea. The problem is that these summary hearings will always be presided over by unit commanders. This means it will always be a superior officer trying one of their subordinates, which generally results in a rather expeditious form of justice in which the person is guilty until proven innocent rather than the other way around. This recommendation may need some improvement.
Recommendation 7 from Justice Fish's report will also be implemented. It calls for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services to be appointed, again on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, for terms of up to seven years.
Recommendation 8 will also be implemented, meaning that the judge advocate general will no longer be able to issue directives or instructions in respect of a particular prosecution. This power will be granted to the Minister of National Defence.
Recommendation 10 calls for the National Defence Act to be amended to enhance respect for the independence of military prosecutors, military defence counsel, and other actors in the military justice system. It will also clarify that the provost marshal, who is the head of the military police, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services are independent.
Recommendations 13 and 14 are for the provost marshal to be appointed by the government rather than by the military. Once again, appointments are being moved outside the military chain of command in favour of a more civilian process. An effort is made to create roles that are more self-sufficient, to avoid constantly ending up in a kind of closed circle or boys' club where judicial decisions are susceptible to outside control.
Finally, there is recommendation 16, which I mentioned earlier. It will allow any member of the military to file an interference complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada. Previously, only the victim could do so. A third party will be able to file a complaint against a military member or superior officer if they believe that the person interfered in the justice process. The purpose is to increase the number of people who can file a complaint, including the victim, for various offences.
Other recommendations being adopted include the recommendation that non‑commissioned members be allowed to become military judges. In the past, this position was reserved for more senior officers, but it did not necessarily reflect the current reality. Many non‑commissioned members, whose rank ranges from private to chief warrant officer, have a stronger academic background than some officers. In some cases, they are more academically qualified to fulfill this role.
Now the role of military judge could be open to a much larger pool that will better respect the current reality of the armed forces, which is not inappropriate in the circumstances. There will also be a much larger pool of potential candidates to select from for this role.
In the less substantial changes set out in Bill C‑66, there is the one that creates the victim's liaison officer position. It provides a representative for the victim, a sort of help in the complaints process. It also adds the possibility of a victim's representative being the spokesperson for the victim in dealing with this liaison officer. Some rather interesting recommendations were made, after all.
Finally, it harmonizes the National Defence Act with the Criminal Code regarding sex offender information and publication bans. There was a sort of code of silence for the general public on what could go on within the forces. Bill C‑66 will help modernize this.
As I was saying earlier, all of this is happening in the context of an issue that we have, unfortunately, been aware of for a long time, the issue of sexual misconduct. Members will recall that Justice Deschamps was commissioned to produce a report, which she submitted in March 2015. At that time, Jonathan Vance was also appointed as chief of the defence staff, even though allegations had already been made against him. Mr. Vance continued to commit indiscretions basically free from recrimination, mainly because the member for Vancouver South, the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness, more or less turned a blind eye to the complaints that he heard and everything surrounding Jonathan Vance's appointment. That likely gave victims the impression that nothing would change and that they would never get justice if the person who committed an offence against them was their superior. Unfortunately, that was true for many long years. We can hope that Bill C‑66 will have a positive impact and that it will give victims at least a little confidence in the system's ability to deliver justice when offences are committed.
Above all, the thing that I hope will change is the impression that no matter what happens in the armed forces, the boys' club will close ranks. Let us hope, once this dynamic changes, that recruitment and retention problems will become a thing of the past. It turns into a kind of vicious circle. The forces get a bad reputation, which has a ripple effect on recruitment and retention. We end up with a smaller pool of members in the forces and, unfortunately, fewer young recruits with a fresh outlook and possibly a much more assertive voice when it comes to speaking up and seeking justice. The fish, we are told, rots from the head. Often, we have to wait until the head is gone before things change. We cannot simply hope that things will change gradually as young people with different values join up. We need to speed up the process.
Bill C‑66 is a step in the right direction. I hope that we can move the bill forward quickly in committee. I somehow doubt it will happen. However, if any sand gets thrown in the gears, Bloc Québécois members will not be the ones to blame.
2609 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my very sincere appreciation for the Bloc's support in moving this bill through second reading and to committee. I also want to acknowledge the very thorough analysis of all the points that are in Bill C-66. The member did a very thorough job of articulating the important measures in this bill and the reasons behind them.
It is absolutely important that every single member of our Canadian Armed Forces, men and women, trusts that they will be treated fairly and respectfully. They should not be afraid to come forward. With the appointment of our chief professional conduct and culture in 2021 and our commitment to that position, with some of the very important work that has taken place over the last two years in implementing almost half of Justice Arbour's recommendations and with our clear commitment to doing the rest, I am hoping that we will encourage people to trust that they will be treated properly.
I also want to share that over 70,000 people applied to join the Canadian Armed Forces last year. There is no shortage of Canadians who want to serve their country. We just have to do a better job of getting them into training and deployed in the services. I believe that the introduction of this bill and the work that we will all do together in committee will make a real difference.
I do not have a question, but I look forward to working with all members on passing the bill through committee. I believe very sincerely that the committee has important work to do and can make this bill better.
278 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the minister may not have asked me a question, but he did raise a point that I failed to mention when I was listing other files that the committee could examine.
With respect to recruitment and retention, yes, 70,000 people applied. The problem is that so many applications remain in the queue for so long because the processing time for new recruits is so problematic that there is no way to make up for the backlog. This is just another example of how much work needs to be done in the armed forces to improve the system. This gives me an opportunity to reiterate that I wish Bill C-66 had passed already, so that we could continue to work on everything that still needs to be done, rather than doing it now, nearly 10 years after the first red flag was raised.
Nevertheless, I will work with the minister and my colleagues on this file, which is critically important, especially for the victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the armed forces.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:38:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when my colleague from the Bloc and I work together on the bill, we will be vigorous in our analysis and will ensure that we get it right.
The member mentioned the member of Parliament for Vancouver South, who is the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness and the former minister of national defence. Does she believe that his protection of his war buddy, his brother in arms, former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance, was political interference, and that because of his unwillingness to address this back in 2015 and onward until 2021, after the last federal election, nothing was done on sexual misconduct? Was there a willingness to turn a blind eye to it to protect his friend?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:39:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think there is no need to describe the former minister's actions as political interference to know, to understand and to conclude that it was absolutely not the thing to do.
Unfortunately, what happened ended up slowing down the process, because it was not until 2021, if memory serves, that journalists shed light on the issue and the Standing Committee on National Defence looked into it. Ultimately, it was unable to get anything done for two years because of the Liberals' obstruction.
The former minister's actions aside, it is undeniable that this delayed the adoption of Bill C‑66 currently before us. That might have given us an extra two years to adopt this bill that, in the end, might never see the light of day.
It is shameful and the former minister's actions are partially to blame.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:40:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in addition to the criminal offences, it is crucial to reassess our support for victims of sexual trauma in the military.
We have heard the concerns about the lack of institutional points of contact for francophone members of the armed forces, reservists and cadets.
I know that the member represents a riding where there is a military college, so I would like to ask her whether she supports the committee's inquiry into additional types of support for the survivors.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:41:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for the question she asked in perfect French.
Unfortunately, that comes back to what I was saying earlier. There are so many important issues to examine. Unless I am mistaken, the issue that she raised is addressed in a motion, but there are so many motions that the Standing Committee on National Defence has to examine.
Generally speaking, the substance of these motions is worthwhile. The Standing Committee on National Defence has worked relatively well over the past two and a half years since I have been the critic for this file. The problem is not the quality of the files that we need to look at, but the fact that the workload is enormous and the number of issues continues to grow. I therefore agree with what my colleague is saying. Unfortunately, the problem is more about prioritizing all of the files that the Standing Committee on National Defence has to look at. We have more work than we have time for.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:42:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very informative speech. She clearly has a firm grasp of the file.
I also want to acknowledge the Minister of National Defence for listening carefully to the positions of each of the other parties. Unfortunately, the House seldom sees a minister so diligent about his legislation. We appreciate it. We support the bill in principle, although it should have been implemented and passed a long time ago.
My hon. colleague raised another issue. It concerns the testimony of victims in committee who may end up getting caught in partisan crossfire from various elected members sitting on the Standing Committee on National Defence. She apparently has some suggestions to ensure the comfort and well-being of these witnesses and ensure they are treated with respect, considering the kinds of stress they may be dealing with.
I would like to hear her thoughts on that.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when I put the question to my colleague the co-chair, he may have mentioned that the issue of sexual misconduct is so non-partisan that we should ensure the safety of the witnesses who testify about it. However, the issue of domestic violence should not have been partisan either. That did not stop us from witnessing an unfortunate circus this summer at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
Hence my suggestion to have these individuals testify in camera, if they request it. The goal is to give ourselves an opportunity not to engage in partisanship, which we may be a little more quick to do when the cameras are rolling. That is a solution I am proposing. Perhaps there will be others. I would be more than happy to discuss it with my colleagues. I think it is critical for this issue.
I will pick up where my hon. colleague from Joliette left off. It is true that the minister is very attentive and available. I appreciate that. We know that he cares deeply about all issues affecting the forces. We do not always agree on how to resolve them, but we are able to talk about them in a very courteous way and that is appreciated.
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:45:23 p.m.
- Watch
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:46:07 p.m.
- Watch
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:46:07 p.m.
- Watch
moved that the bill be concurred in.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:46:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I propose it be adopted on division.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 5:46:43 p.m.
- Watch
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on what is a historic occasion. The bill before us is something that has seen various configurations over the course of the last couple of decades. Many advocates for children across the country have been pushing for repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits a physical punishment of children, essentially the hitting of children, in this country. It is a section of the Criminal Code that dates back to 1892, a time when there were residential schools and a time when children were often subjected to the most egregious types of abuses.
Today, finally, we are debating now at third reading, which means that in just a few days' time, parliamentarians across the country will be called upon to finally cast a ballot, to cast their vote on behalf of their constituents, to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which dates back to 1892. This is, I believe, the 18th time that members of Parliament have submitted a bill in order for this to become a reality.
It is a historic time for parliamentarians to stand against the physical punishment of children and to stand up for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action no. 6, one of its most important calls to action. There is no more important mission or role that we have than the protection of our children in this country.
That is why it is so essential that parliamentarians who have supported the bill through second reading, through committee and now through report stage, cast that final ballot at third reading so that the bill can be sent to the other place. Then, finally, after so many years of continuing with this section in our Criminal Code, we can stand up for the children of our country.
There is no doubt about this, and it has been discussed many times; I know that members of Parliament have received letters as well from people across the country who are profoundly concerned about the impacts of physical punishment of children. The facts are the following. I want to cite what was a vast coalition of 700 organizations across this country. I will be mentioning some of the organizations in just a moment. Years ago, when they called upon Parliament to take action, they very clearly enumerated the negative impacts of physical punishment on children. In their briefs submitted to the House of Commons in Canada, to all parliamentarians, they said the following:
75% of substantiated physical abuse cases in Canada arise from incidents of physical punishment. In addition to its impact on children, physical abuse places an enormous economic burden on Canada.
Across 75 [substantial scientific] studies, even mild physical punishment predicts poorer mental health, negative parent-child relationships, lower moral internalization, increased anti-social behaviour (bullying, dating violence, peer aggression), and increased risk of violence toward intimate partners and children in adulthood.
Across 69 prospective longitudinal studies, physical punishment was found to increase child aggression and other behaviour problems over time and to place parents at risk of inflicting increasingly severe violence.
Physical punishment can undermine brain development, activating neural systems that deal with threat and reducing the volume of the areas involved in self-regulation and executive function.
They pointed out at that time, very importantly, that:
No evidence has ever been found of long-term benefits.
The psychological studies, child development studies over time and longitudinal studies over decades, are very clear that physical punishment provides for potentially huge personal and societal harm. That is why it is important for parliamentarians to send a clear signal in repealing this remnant of the 1890s that has no place in child development today and, of course, no place at all in our Criminal Code.
Other countries have gone through this debate while we have not moved forward. I wanted to cite 67 countries that have already banned physical punishment of children. That includes all of our major allies, including Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany, Ukraine, Spain, Uruguay, Portugal, New Zealand, Argentina, Ireland, South Africa, France, Japan and the Republic of Korea.
In a letter that was sent to all members of Parliament just a few days ago from Professor Joan Durrant of the University of Manitoba, she mentions that, since the time this bill was introduced until today, as we have yet to adopt this bill on third reading, three countries, namely Zambia, Laos and Tajikistan, have also banned physical punishment against children. What we are seeing internationally is a very, very clear consensus among democratic nations. I will not read the entire list, but 67 countries, largely democratic countries, have stated that physical punishment of children is absolutely inappropriate and counterproductive and does harm to the child. We must heed what has been a very clear message sent by so many organizations, not only from across the country but also internationally, on the evolution of the understanding of the harm that physical punishment does to children.
I wanted to also mention the organizations across the country that have come together, 700 of them strong, to say that it is time to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. Just to mention some of those organizations, they are the Anglican Church of Canada, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, the Canadian Association of Paediatric Health Centres, the Canadian Association of Paediatric Nurses, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Red Cross, the Children's Aid Foundation and the Coaching Association of Canada. Many of these organizations have strong reputations. They have worked in all areas of childhood welfare and childhood development for so long and are credible national organizations. They are all calling upon parliamentarians to do the right thing and adopt this bill on third reading.
As I mentioned earlier, there is the important fact that this is call to action 6 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There was the horrendous brutality that we saw in residential schools. Until call to action 6 is adopted, we cannot move forward in a way that is appropriate for truth and reconciliation. There are many calls to action that must be adopted. This one has now languished for nine years.
The Hon. Murray Sinclair, who has had a profound impact in our country, spoke to this issue back in 2017, when he rose in the Senate. This was a previous iteration of the same attempt that has been going on now for years on behalf of child advocates to move to repeal section 43. He spoke in very compelling terms. The Hon. Murray Sinclair, on Tuesday, March 7, 2017, said:
At one Indian residential school in Alberta, a teacher was charged with assaulting a student by punching him three times in the face, causing serious injury. The teacher had been convicted of assault at trial but was acquitted on appeal by a court which held that the degree of force that he used was reasonable. That case set the tone for how all children in residential schools were treated thereafter.
This is respecting section 43 of the Criminal Code.
This is something that is long overdue. If we are to heed the calls to action, and if we are to heed what we are being told by child advocates across the country, we must act at this final stage, at third reading, to adopt this important legislation.
I want to mention a couple of the voices that have risen across this country to support the bill.
Dr. Tracie Afifi, who is the director at Childhood Adversity and Resilience at the University of Manitoba, said:
Evidence collected over the past two decades and published in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, has demonstrated that [spanking] is harmful to children and has no known benefits.
This research has consistently shown [spanking] to be a significant risk factor for injury, poor parent-child relationships...aggression, antisocial behaviour, slower cognitive development, emotional disorders including anxiety and depression, physical health problems, substance use, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts and violence in intimate relationships later in life....
It is our duty to protect our children from unnecessary harm and give them the best chance to live happy and healthy lives that are free from violence. This starts with the repeal of section 43.
In closing, I would like to talk about the importance of passing this bill at third reading.
A number of organizations are calling on members to vote in favour of this bill, including the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec, the Association des médecins en protection de l'enfance du Québec, and the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance au Québec. These Quebec organizations are calling on all members to vote in favour of removing section 43 from the Criminal Code.
The fact that this bill responds to call to action 6 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada illustrates just how important it is for us to take this final step. There have been 18 attempts over the years to get this legislation passed. That is 18 times that the voices of children and educators across the country, who have been very clear about the importance of taking this step, have been ignored.
This time, now that we are at third reading, it is extremely important that we pass this bill and that we join 67 other countries in the world, including France, Japan, South Korea and Germany, most of which are democratic countries. We need to follow their example on this. What is more, all the studies that have been done over the years show the negative consequences of legalizing the physical punishment of children. We need to outlaw this behaviour, which is currently allowed under the Criminal Code.
This is the final step. It has been a journey that has been going on for years. It is important. Across this country, parents and educators are looking for Parliament to show leadership to repeal an aspect of the colonial past, 1892, when we forced indigenous children into residential schools and permitted, often, physical punishment and cruelty.
Now, nine years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission asked parliamentarians and the government to take action and to repeal section 43, we have the opportunity to do that. I hope all members of Parliament will join together and that we will enact call to action 6 and pass the legislation before us.
1792 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:01:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will get the opportunity to expand on the comments I will provide to the member. I want to amplify the fact that there are over 700 organizations that have recognized the need to do what is being proposed within the legislation. I believe that there was a relatively high sense of co-operation that has ultimately led us to the point where we are today.
We all should express our gratitude to all those organizations and others, the individuals, who have made today possible regarding the legislation. Hopefully it will not take much longer before it ultimately passes and receives royal assent. I would like to compliment the member, who I know has been an advocate for this issue.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:02:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North and I sometimes disagree and sometimes agree. I appreciate his kind words and, above all, his words directed to the many organizations across the country that have been strong advocates for so long. This is an important point. As parliamentarians, all of us have done a disservice to those organizations, which have been calling for decades, in many cases, for section 43 of the Criminal Code to be repealed and for us to end the legalization of physical punishment of children in this country, as 67 other countries have done. Those advocates have often been frustrated by the slowness of the response from parliamentarians, but in the next few days, we can finally do justice to all of their work by adopting this legislation.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:03:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby has made a real study of this subject, so I am sure that he is aware of a Supreme Court of Canada decision called Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Attorney General of Canada, a decision from about 20 years ago. In it, the Supreme Court of Canada said that section 43 does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and certainly does not condone corporal punishment, and that only reasonable force can be applied for corrective purposes.
I wonder what my hon. colleague would say about that. What is his response to comments from the Supreme Court of Canada?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:04:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court was simply making a decision based on constitutionality. As many child advocates have said, the Supreme Court was erroneous about the impacts on children and did not consider the impacts on children, and it caused a great deal of confusion. That decision, which makes it very difficult to understand the impacts of section 43 of the Criminal Code, has led to much more confusion and consternation if we look at what child advocates are saying.
The fact that it is constitutional is not what we are considering here. It is what is in the best interests of the child, and there is no doubt, as 700 organizations and 67 countries are telling us, that it is not in the best interests of the child.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
