SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 338 - Sep/18/24

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

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

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

Ms. Christine Normandin

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

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

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Sep/18/24 5:46:07 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill be concurred in.

7 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Sep/18/24 5:46:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I propose it be adopted on division.

9 words

Mr. Peter Julian

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

Mr. Peter Julian

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

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

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

Mr. Peter Julian

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

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Sep/18/24 6:05:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. He just answered a question about the Supreme Court decision and indicated that it was constitutional. However, I would like to read an excerpt from that Supreme Court decision: The decision not to criminalize such conduct is not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families — a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process. The Supreme Court seems to have looked at the substance of the issue and decided that it was not a good idea to abolish section 43. I would like my colleague to comment on that aspect of the decision.

133 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Sep/18/24 6:06:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is hard to give a brief answer to that. All the Quebec organizations I just mentioned are calling on all members to pass this bill. The reality is that we should be listening to all of these organizations fighting for the well-being of children. The issue of a Supreme Court decision handed down some twenty years ago does not really come into play. The best interests of children should matter much more.

77 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Sep/18/24 6:07:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-273

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-273 today and, in my comments, pick up on the question I had posed to the mover of the legislation. Having had the opportunity to go through a number of the different organizations that have signed on in support of the legislation, what I have found is very impressive. In all the different regions, all different types of organizations, including everything from faith-oriented types of groups to professional organizations and non-profit groups, have a common thread. That is the interest of the child. All members of Parliament, I believe, have in our hearts a genuine concern. We want to be there to ensure that our children, who are our greatest treasure, will be protected into the future. The letter that I received that talked about the 700 groups was sent to me by Dr. Elizabeth Comack. I do not know exactly what role she played, and I apologize to her for not knowing, but I would like to compliment her in terms of her advocacy and ensuring that members of Parliament are a bit more informed about the types of supports that are out there for the legislation. I would hope that the listing she provided me is accessible, and I am sure those who signed in support and got behind the legislation will all be acknowledged. I would like to acknowledge them myself in terms of their efforts and their thoughts in making today a reality, as I expect that the legislation will pass. In good part that is because we have a minority government situation. Even though we have a minority, one of the nice things that came out of our situation is an agreement that was signed off on with the New Democrats and the Liberals that allowed us to look at areas in which there is common interest and see how we can move forward. This is one of those private members' bills that there was some discussion about, and one reason we might have it today is that high sense of co-operation. This clearly shows that minority governments can work; we can deliver some very good, solid legislation, whether in government bills or private members' bills. It was put into perspective well when Dr. Comack indicated that, since 1892, section 43 of the Criminal Code has really allowed parents to hit and hurt their children as a form of punishment. I want to pause there because norms and mores of society change over time. I was born in 1962, and I can recall my earlier years, in and around the early to mid-1970s, when there were many issues surrounding “my mom, my grandparents, this is the way in which they were raised” and so forth. I was surprised at the degree to which corporal punishment was being used in homes. I know from experience that it was actually tolerated quite freely in society, especially into the early 1960s, when we started to see significant changes. Regions of the country might have reacted differently; some might have been a little slower or faster than others. However, the bottom line is that, over time, I believe people have recognized that what was acceptable back in the 1960s and earlier would never be tolerated today. When I am out in the community and see someone hit a child, whether that person is a guardian, a parent or whatever, it causes a very different reaction today than it did a couple of generations ago. There are commentaries that go along with it. I was a member of the Manitoba legislature for a number of years and remember vividly a presentation that was made on the issue of corporal punishment. The presentation demonstrated that some people believe they really do have the right to hit and hurt a child as punishment. Some of the visuals that were shown were absolutely cruel. For example, there was the whipping of a child with the cord of a vacuum cleaner that left welts and physical abuse to the degree that the child would end up going to the hospital. We are not just talking about 13-year-olds or 14-year-olds, the teenage years. From the examples I saw, it went all the way to almost infancy, two-year-olds and three-year-olds, as a form of punishment. That, to me, is abhorrent. It was during the late 1980s, early 1990s, and we knew it was happening. Some people were not necessarily defending that extreme level, but they were ultimately arguing that corporal punishment is very effective as a form of discipline among children. That is why I say that it pleases me today, when I reflect on the past, how Canadians, as a whole, have changed those norms and mores. Many of the 700-plus organizations are educational organizations that, no doubt, share their thoughts and experiences with the public, let alone the many others out there that share those concerns, but may not have been aware of the legislation coming forward. We know better today than we ever have. It is surprising when we think of the date 1892. That really quite surprised me when I first found that out about the Criminal Code. I want to focus a bit of attention on the calls to action, specifically call to action 6. I have had an opportunity to talk about a number of calls to action. The government, in many different ways, has completed some. Most are in progress. This is legislation that would deal with call to action 6. There was a great deal of research done by the inquiry. We are moving even more toward the issue of reconciliation. It is also important to recognize that. I would like to think that there has been a great deal of co-operation, that members of Parliament on different sides of the House recognize the true value of the legislation and, ultimately, would like the legislation to pass. I am one of those members of Parliament. I thank the member for making the effort and bringing this bill forward. I think it was even a part of the agreement that we had, but it is something that we have to continue to support because it is really necessary.

1058 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Sep/18/24 6:16:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-273

Madam Speaker, assault is against the law in Canada, and assault gets a very broad definition in the Criminal Code, section 265: “A person commits an assault when without the consent of another person, he [or she] applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly.” Note that the definition does not talk about how forceful the force must be, but only that it is intentional and without the other party's consent. For example, a slap on the wrist could be an assault if it was intentionally applied without the other person's consent. Today we are talking about teachers and parents and the children who are under their care. The adult in the room could be charged with an assault for a slap on the wrist applied to a misbehaving child under their care if it were not for the section 43 defence, which reads, “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...who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.” Therefore teachers and parents have a defence if the force was reasonable and intended for correction. Note that it does not defend punishment, and it certainly does not allow corporal punishment like some of the other speakers have been suggesting; that is just not the case. The private member's bill before us today would repeal section 43 and eliminate the defence altogether. As I said, it is based on the mistaken belief that corporal punishment is legal in Canada on account of the section 43 defence. It is not. The proponent, in his testimony before the standing committee and today again, noted that his bill is at least in part in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report's call to action 6. That is absolutely true. He quoted again today the hon. Murray Sinclair, who gave testimony earlier in the Senate, and he cited examples of residential school teachers punching children in the face and causing serious injury. That is the battle the member for New Westminster—Burnaby is fighting today, and he thinks that repealing section 43 would solve that problem and win that battle. He is wrong. There was a Supreme Court of Canada decision 20 years ago called Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General). The case started its journey through the court system at the Ontario trial court and made its way, ultimately, to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was brought by a group of organizations that had the best interest of children in mind. The petitioners argued that section 43 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of children to life, liberty and security, section 7 of the charter; the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, section 12 of the charter; and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law in section 15. The trial judge found that section 43 does not infringe any of these constitutional rights. The Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed. It went to the Supreme Court of Canada, where Chief Justice McLachlin wrote for the majority. I will read from that decision, which goes to the very heart of the issue. She said of the section 43 defence that: It provides parents and teachers with the ability to carry out the reasonable education of the child without the threat of sanction by the criminal law. Without s. 43, Canada’s broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment. The decision not to criminalize such conduct is not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families—a burden that in large part would be borne by children. Therefore the appeal was dismissed, but the court did not just leave it there. It took the time to give guidance to teachers, parents and law enforcement agencies as to what section 43 means. It made it clear that section 43 protects only reasonable force applied for corrective purposes, and then went on to state in some detail what “reasonable” was in the circumstances in Canada today. Based on our reading of the Supreme Court of Canada decision, the Conservative members of the justice committee put forward an amendment to the private member's bill, which basically codifies the decision. As an aside, this is probably something that should have been done 20 years ago by whoever the government was at that time. I think it was a Liberal government, but the subsequent Conservative government could have picked it up. The current government certainly could have picked that up to codify the Supreme Court of Canada decision. That would have gone a long way in clarifying the law. Unfortunately, that did not happen. At committee, we heard from many experts. I just want to underline that the experts I am going to quote are critical of this private member's bill, but they were all in support of the spirit and intent of call to action 6 under the truth and reconciliation report. The experts said that repealing section 43 is too risky for teachers and students. There are four witnesses I want to quote and highlight. Dr. Lisa Kelly, a law professor, explained that section 43 is far narrower today than it was when it was first drafted in 1892, as well as in terms of how it was applied historically during the residential school days. She cited the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that I just highlighted; in her words, it “read in a series of limitations as to what would constitute reasonable correction.” At the April 15 meeting, Ms. Heidi Yetman of the Canadian Teachers' Federation stated, “the federation cannot support this legislation...unamended. The risk of unintended consequences that could make classrooms more unsafe is too great.” Ms. Tesa Fiddler, an indigenous educator who is also with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, said, “In an ideal world, there would be more support for students in difficult situations, and educators would get the support we need.... The sad reality is that it is not there, so passing Bill C-273 without an amendment will make an already challenging job more challenging.” I would just say again that the Conservative members of the committee tried to put in those amendments; they were turned down by the other members of the committee. Mr. Sébastien Joly of the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers said, “the removal of the elements of protection included in section 43, in the absence of an amendment to the Criminal Code to guarantee protections for school staff, would constitute a serious risk for teachers”. I would just summarize the testimony by saying that we had some very credible witnesses at the committee who said that repealing section 43 is risky business if there is not something else to fill in the gaps. I am going to suggest that the Liberal members on our committee actually agreed with that. At the April 29 meeting, after having the opportunity to reflect on the compelling evidence from very credible expert witnesses, the members told us that they had a discussion with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who is apparently assuring us that there will be new legislation coming to fill in that gap. The Liberals realize that the evidence we received from these teachers and professionals needs to be taken seriously. They realize that there is a risk, that there is going to be a gap that needs to be filled; therefore, they are promising that there will be legislation coming sometime in the future. I believe what they are saying is that we should just vote for the bill now and repeal section 43, recognizing that there is going to be a serious gap that many people will be deeply concerned about. They are going to fix it in the future. The Conservative members of the committee are saying to fix it right now. The draft legislation is before us. We are deep into it. We understand what the issues are. Let us fix it right now. The Conservative members of the committee put forward a proposal to do exactly that. I do not think we should wait; we need to do it now. In the absence of that apparent legislation, which is going to be presented to us sometime, we need to vote against the private member's bill. That is what I will be doing.

1464 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Sep/18/24 6:26:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois is skeptical about this bill, to say the least. I already mentioned this during consideration at second reading. I want to say that I proposed an amendment, which was rejected, that would have allowed for reasonable force to be exerted in order to ensure the safety of a child or third party, or the education of a child. Today, I have no choice but to say that it is rather difficult to support this bill. Too many people came to tell us in committee not to do this, that it would be a mistake, that it would be very risky. My colleague just said so, and I completely agree with him. I would also like to quote Professor Sébastien Joly of the Association provinciale des enseignants et des enseignantes du Québec, who told us that the association is convinced “that the removal of the elements of protection included in section 43, in the absence of an amendment to the Criminal Code to guarantee protections for school staff, would constitute a serious risk for teachers as well as other categories of school staff”. There is also Ms. Yetman, president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, who said the following: ...the federation cannot support this legislation passing unamended. The risk of unintended consequences that could make classrooms more unsafe is too great. Teachers need to be able to physically intervene in certain classroom situations. This is the reality of dealing with complex classrooms with complex needs. If two children are fighting in a classroom, telling them that it is not nice and asking them to sit down is not necessarily going to end the fight or prevent someone from getting hurt. Sometimes the teacher or the guardian has to intervene to separate the two parties, sit them down, ask one of them to leave the classroom or something else. There are all sorts of situations. I do not want to lecture teachers. I respect the profession far too much to think that I have anything to say about it. However, one thing is clear. These teachers are telling us that we cannot tell them that they may be subject to criminal prosecution if they approach children or put their hands on them. The courts have addressed this issue on several occasions. Members talked about that in the previous speeches. There was the Bender case in Ontario less than a year ago on December 20, 2023. A teacher was accused of assault after grabbing a student by the wrist and taking him out of class. Bender was fully acquitted by the court, which said that his actions were completely reasonable within the meaning of section 43. Let us talk about the Supreme Court. With all due respect for my NDP colleague's opinion, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. When the Supreme Court speaks, the other courts must follow, so I cannot say that it is not important. In the case of Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, the Supreme Court stated, and I quote: ...without s. 43, Canada's broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment, like placing an unwilling child in a chair for a five-minute “time-out”. The decision not to criminalize such conduct is not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families — a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process. Yes, that was 20 years ago. It was in 2004, but it was the Supreme Court that said so. Unless the Supreme Court hands down a subsequent decision and changes its mind, the original decision still has force of law as we speak. That is how section 43 should be interpreted. Section 43 is justifiable, despite everything that can be said about it. I tabled an amendment because I am trying to reach a compromise. I think there is some merit in that. I do not want any child to be the victim of corporal punishment, obviously, and all the courts that have ruled on section 43 say the same thing, specifically that corporal punishment of the kind where one uses an object to hit a child or hits a child on the head, or hits a child under the age of two, a child who does not understand what is going on, that is pointless. Those actions are not protected under section 43. As I said at the outset, we proposed an amendment that was defeated. My amendment was kind of a fallback, a last-ditch attempt. Before that, a Conservative amendment was defeated, but a government representative also spoke to the issue. Here is what the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said in committee on April 29: I also agree with you, Mr. Fortin, because we heard some very compelling evidence from multiple teachers' groups from Quebec and from across Canada. They raised very legitimate concerns, and we need to listen to those concerns. However, I don't feel it's appropriate to address that in the context of section 43. As a result of discussions my colleagues on this side of the table and I have had with [the Minister of Justice], he has given us his assurance that he will be bringing forward separate legislation at some stage on a separate section of the Criminal Code, to address the concerns raised by teachers and in keeping with the spirit of what all the witnesses who appeared here proposed. That was a long quote. I apologize. I only wanted to show that it is not just teachers, members of Parliament or parents who think this way. Everyone, even government representatives, is concerned about the impact of simply repealing section 43 without replacing it with another provision that allows parents and other individuals exercising parental authority to use the necessary force to correct a child, to control them and to prevent them from harming themselves or another child. Obviously, it is not a question of using force to strike a child. All of this seems so reasonable to me that I wonder if we are wasting our time discussing it all. I do not mean to be rude, but I think it is a no-brainer. In any case, it seemed that way to just about every witness we heard. It should be for us as well. The bill's sponsor told us that other countries have passed similar legislation. In almost every case I looked into, those laws prohibited corporal punishment. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Hitting a child just for the sake of hitting them out of anger, for example, is unacceptable. Japan adopted an act in 2020 that states that a person exercising parental authority over a child shall not discipline the child by using corporal punishment or other measures exceeding what is strictly necessary for the child's care and education. That is what it is like around the world and it makes sense. There will not be corporal punishment. It was common 50 or 100 years ago to take a ruler and strike a child or spank their bottom to teach them a lesson or put them in their place. That is no longer done these days. Society has evolved and we know that is not how we want to raise children these days. However, preventing the use of reasonable force to correct children or to control what is happening in a classroom or at the park is going too far. It puts people at risk because they will end up in situations where children might get in a fight and teachers will look away, hoping that it will not end too badly. I do not want that. If my children or grandchildren are in a schoolyard or classroom and they are getting into a fight with other children, I am not against the idea of a teacher being able to tell the children to go sit down separately so they can calm down and talk about it later. I think we need to be very careful before we do what this bill proposes. Unless there is an amendment or at least a proposal to replace section 43 with something else in the Criminal Code, as the government representative suggested, we will unfortunately have to vote against this bill.

1438 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Sep/18/24 6:36:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-273

Madam Speaker, I want to start with a quote by James Baldwin that has always stuck with me. He said, “The children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe; and I am beginning to suspect that whoever is incapable of recognizing this may be incapable of morality.” Today we are here to act on behalf of the countless advocates, the families and, most importantly, the children who deserve a future that is free from violence and fear. Bill C-273 would repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. This is the section that makes physical punishment of children legal in Canada, and as a mother of two young children, it is hard for me to even think about my girls being hit by someone five times their size and to think that in Canada, parents can legally hit children as young as my sweet three-year-old. We stand today on the precipice of passing this bill, of creating transformative change, and I urge my colleagues in the House to reflect on the urgency and the moral clarity that this bill represents. Section 43 of the Criminal Code allows the use of reasonable force to correct children. It is an archaic provision that has long outlived its place in a compassionate society, and it is not only that this provision perpetuates violence, but that it also undermines our efforts for true reconciliation with indigenous peoples. I want to thank the member from New Westminster—Burnaby for putting forward the bill. He noted in his speech that repealing this section is a critical step in fulfilling call to action 6 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. We must move forward and implement this bill, but also all of the 94 calls to action in the truth and reconciliation report. Corporal punishment of children is a violation of their human rights, a fundamental truth that is recognized by the United Nations and echoed in the global research. More than 65 countries, including Germany, Sweden and South Africa, have already banned this practice, and these countries have seen profound improvements in child welfare, reductions in aggressive behaviour and long-term positive impacts on our societies as a whole. The research consistently shows that corporal punishment leads to increased aggression, increased mental health challenges and a perpetuation of violence that often stretches across generations. I want to take a moment to respond to some of the comments that I have heard from colleagues in the Conservative and Bloc caucus. This is not something that happened in the past and no longer exists. Children are still being hit today, such as the corrective punishment of being pushed down or slapped. To think that we would accept that a three-year-old deserves that kind of treatment. Sweden was the first country to prohibit corporal punishment in 1979, and we have seen there not only a decrease in physical punishment but also a broader cultural shift. Because the country had an emphasis on public education paired with the legislative ban, this has transformed how parents and society view discipline. As a result, violence against children has decreased significantly. Sweden is now a global leader in child welfare, and it is not a coincidence. It is the result of legislation that prioritizes the rights of children. There is also a significant and well-documented connection between the use of force on children and the perpetuation of intimate partner violence. The research consistently shows that children who are subjected to physical punishment, even corrective physical punishment, are more likely to normalize violence as a means of resolving conflicts. This normalization occurs because children often learn these behaviours through modelling, and when they experience and witness violence in their formative years, they come to see it as an acceptable way to exert control or handle disagreements. Studies reveal that individuals who experience corporal punishment as children are more likely to engage in violent behaviours, including intimate partner violence and sexual assault. Moreover, the cyclical nature of violence is reinforced by the emotional and psychological impact of physical punishment. Children who endure this kind of punishment often struggle with anger, aggression or issues of self-worth, and these can carry on into adulthood. They can negatively affect their interpersonal relationships. The learned behaviour of using force to assert control combined with unresolved emotional trauma creates a dangerous foundation for intimate partner violence. By allowing physical punishment of children, our society not only undermines the emotional well-being of those children, but it also perpetuates a broader culture of violence that extends into relationships between adults. I want to be clear that this bill is not about criminalizing parents. There are actually provisions in our Criminal Code, common law defences, that would protect parents who are using force to protect their children or teachers who are using force to protect students. However, they would not protect a parent who, with or without thinking, strikes a child. They would not protect a teacher who, with or without thinking, holds in a lock or isolates a child, like occurred in Yukon schools very recently. This is not an issue that is decades in the past. This is an issue happening now. The government has a responsibility to provide parents with the resources, the education and the support they need to raise their children in a positive and non-violent environment. This is about breaking the cycle of violence that too many children in Canada continue to experience. Our laws should reflect our highest values, and allowing physical punishment of children is incompatible with those values. Indigenous children in particular have borne the brunt of the harms caused by this kind of physical punishment. The legacy of residential schools, where indigenous children were subjected to brutal physical abuse, continues to reverberate in communities where the intergenerational impacts of this violence keep causing harm today. We know, from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that corporal punishment was a tool to assimilate and dehumanize indigenous children. The failure of the Liberal government to deliver on its promise to implement the 94 calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation report is reprehensible. We are talking about call to action 6, which has been on the table for nearly a decade. Why is it requiring a New Democrat private member's bill to pass this law? While Liberals like to talk about reconciliation, their actions, or their lack thereof, tell a different story. It is simply not enough to make empty promises and drag their feet on reconciliation. I should not be surprised by what the Conservatives did, but I have to admit I was. I was shocked. I was outraged as I watched them vote in outright opposition to Bill C-273 and stand in the House and vote in favour of legalizing hitting children. By voting against this bill, they have made it clear they stand on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of indigenous justice and the wrong side of children's rights.

1180 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/18/24 6:45:05 p.m.
Watch

I have to interrupt the hon. member. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

37 words

Precedence

Mr. Arpan Khanna (Oxford, CPC)

Sep/18/24 6:45:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the chamber to talk about such an important issue, one we are seeing not only in my riding of Oxford but across this country. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, we are seeing a national drug opioid crisis across our country. Since 2015, we have lost 47,000 Canadians to opioid drug overdoses. Because of the government's radical drug policies, we have seen a 200% increase in drug overdoses. That is almost 22 a day. These are not just numbers; they are our friends and neighbours. They have names. They are part of our communities. To see the radical government agenda that has allowed for drugs to be given to our community is quite sad. In my riding, a mother came up to me during the summer who had a young son with a shoulder injury, and he was prescribed opioids for his pain management. He got addicted and lost his family. His kids have left him. He has not received any help for treatment despite his family asking for it. In my riding, there are no detox facilities and no treatment facilities, so even if people want support and want to get treatment, it is not available to them. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, its radical policies have not worked. There is no safe way of doing dangerous drugs. It does not exist. Recently, the Liberals' best friend out in B.C., NDP Premier Eby, has finally realized that his drug experiments do not work and that we have to invest in treatment. We also saw this in Alberta, which has cut down overdoses by 50%. Treatment works. In Oxford, I have a good friend, Patrick McMahon, whom many in our community know. He is a great champion, but he was not always involved in the community like he is today. He was once struggling with addictions and had been down and out in our community. However, he got the treatment he needed, and today he owns multiple restaurants, he gives back to our community and he is a productive member of our society. I want to reiterate that human life is sacred and human life is valuable. We cannot give up on our fellow citizens when they are asking for help. We should not give up on our friends and neighbours when it comes to treatment. That is why a common-sense Conservative team will ban government-sponsored hard drugs. We will defund unsafe supply. We will go after the big pharmaceutical companies pushing the opioids that are affecting our citizens. We will invest in treatment to bring our loved ones home drug-free. Will the government finally take the lead from its favourite premier out in B.C., Premier Eby, and invest in treatment—

474 words