44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 18, 2024 02:00PM
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:49:51 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:49:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, our hearts go out to the families and friends who have lost their lives to the toxic drug and overdose crisis. No community has been left untouched by this tragic public health crisis. We all have a responsibility to do everything we can to help Canadians and not look away. As part of an overall comprehensive approach, our government continues to support efforts to divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and towards health and social services. This approach helps reduce immediate harms and helps create opportunities for people to find a way to supports, including treatment and recovery, while keeping communities safe.
Prevention is critical. Everyone making the courageous step to seek treatment should have access without delay. Enforcement has a key role to play in disrupting illegal organizations that prey on vulnerable people. I think everyone in the House would agree that we need prevention, treatment and enforcement as part of a comprehensive approach. However, we disagree when it comes to harm reduction. Harm reduction keeps people alive, yet Conservatives want to remove an essential tool to address this crisis. People accessing harm reduction services are choosing to live another day. They are choosing to access health care and to be connected to the system. Like any service, these services need to be well resourced and well staffed to be successful, but removing services for ideological reasons is the trademark of the opposition. People struggling with addiction are not criminals. They need health care, not jail.
We changed the legislation and issued guidance to make sure that, in cases of simple possession, police and prosecutors must now consider referring the person to health and social services, issuing a warning or taking no further action. In this way, they can consider both public health and public safety. These amendments mean that individuals have the chance to get the help they need to address underlying issues rather than being criminalized for health care issues. This strategy encourages a public health approach while making sure that police have the discretion to move forward with criminal offences when public safety risks arise.
We will always work with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and all partners to provide them the support they need to deliver the services their communities need most. The overdose crisis has no borders and does not care about jurisdiction. We all need to be partners at the table, working together. We should not sow division or attack people on the front lines of this crisis but work to help Canadians. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this crisis. It requires a multi-faceted response. We are working so that Canadians have access to the full range of prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery services, and supports they need, as needed.
For example, budget 2024 announced $150 million over three years to support municipalities and indigenous communities. This is to help provide rapid responses to emergent critical needs related to the overdose crisis. We remain committed to working with provinces, territories, law enforcement, people with lived and living experience, indigenous leaders and communities, professionals and regulatory bodies, and health care providers to stop the needless harm and deaths of people in Canada.
540 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:53:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, they have had nine years; all we hear is talk and no action. Here is a quote from the chief of the London Police Service: “Diverted safe supply is being resold into our community. It's being trafficked into [our] communities, and it is being used as currency in exchange for fentanyl, fuelling the drug trade.”
They are funding organized crime. My very simple question for the government is this: Will it finally end its catch-and-release laws that let the criminals cause chaos on our streets and invest in treatment, so we can bring our loved ones home drug-free?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:54:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we will continue to work with all provinces and territories, as well as partners, to address their unique needs and support both public health and safety. Law enforcement has been clear: They do not want to arrest people for personal drug possession. Rather, they want the necessary tools to address issues of public safety. They support a comprehensive public health approach to addressing substance use harms where they can divert someone away from the criminal justice system to available, accessible health and social services. Our government's approach to addressing this crisis is comprehensive and collaborative. The crisis is ever evolving, making it essential to try new, innovative actions to save more lives. These actions are monitored closely, so adjustments can be made where needed, based on the evidence.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:55:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in June I asked the Minister of Small Business how she can support a tax hike on capital gains that will kill jobs and destroy our entrepreneurs. Instead of our hearing from the Minister of Small Business on how she was standing up for entrepreneurs in the face of the massive tax hike, the Minister of Finance rose and did not let her answer the question. In defending the hike, the finance minister highlighted that “the capital gains rate in Canada will be lower than the tax paid in California or in New York City”. However, she ignored the jurisdictions like Florida, New Hampshire and Texas, which have zero state-level capital gains tax.
A report from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy highlighted that prior to the changes announced in this year's budget, Canada's capital gains tax rate ranked 13th highest in the OECD, which was lower that of the ninth-ranked United States. However, after the changes announced, Canada's rate jumped to number three, behind only Denmark and Chile. Therefore let us correct the record here: Canadians are now, in fact, being taxed higher on capital gains than citizens of most industrialized countries, not just the Americans but also the French, the Finns, the Norwegians, the Swedes and even the Dutch.
This is what I am hearing on capital gains. The Canadian Medical Association has said that the changes will pose a significant financial hit to doctors and may push some out of the profession or to the United States, where they can still practise medicine and pay way less tax. Business groups are saying that the changes are unwise at a time of weak productivity. More than half of small business owners believe it will affect the eventual sale of their business.
Though the government claims it is a tax hike on only the wealthiest Canadians, business leaders and financial experts disagree. Focusing solely on a snapshot of the number of filers in one year, like the government did, gives false information. Most people dispose of assets such as a vacation home, a small business or farmland occasionally, not every year. Statistics Canada data confirms this.
Over the years 2011 to 2021, an annual average of 44,664 tax filers reported capital gains in excess of $250,000, but they are not the same people every year. Sixty-three per cent of people who experience capital gains experience them only once in their lifetime. High capital gains are among the most economically damaging form of taxation because they reduce the incentive to innovate and to invest. This tax can penalize a lifetime of hard work.
Canada is already behind all of our G7 peers for productivity. Investment money will flow out of Canada in search of better returns and will increasingly go to the United States. Statistics Canada's monthly estimates of business openings and closures reported in their most recent data that 2,000 more businesses closed than opened in May. Further, the superintendent of bankruptcy reported a 54.7% increase in business insolvencies for the year ending July 31, 2024.
The Minister of Small Business will not, or cannot, raise the concerns of entrepreneurs at the cabinet table or here in the House of Commons. Instead, she sits silently while the finance minister claims that Canadians will somehow be better off, that our economy will somehow be better off, paying these exorbitantly high taxes and having fewer job creators. In fact since the early 2000s, the number of entrepreneurs in our country has dropped from nearly three in 1,000 to 1.3 in 1,000.
Therefore, I will ask the—
614 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:59:21 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 6:59:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I simply cannot put it any way other than to say that my Conservative colleague is obviously misinformed. When it comes to business investments, I can tell members that Canada is currently third in the world for attracting foreign direct investments, and that is for the very first time in our country's history. It is an amazing achievement that highlights the focus of our government to bring new investments into Canada.
One of the problems here is that Conservatives are focusing only on the top capital gains tax rate on very large investment profits. Maybe that is what his donors are talking about, but it is certainly not what middle-class Canadians are talking about around their kitchen tables. In fact, on this subject, Conservatives never talk about regular folks making regular incomes, making regular salaries or hourly wages. A worker in Canada earning an average wage is taxed less than the average across all OECD countries. I can tell members that it is a hell of a lot lower than the 48% rate in Germany or the 47% tax rate in France.
In his question, my Conservative colleague is not even talking about the regular capital gains tax rate, which is itself only paid by a very small sliver of well-off Canadians who are able to realize profits on their investments. No, the Conservatives are talking about the very top marginal rate for capital gains, those making a profit of over $250,000 in investment profit in a single year, which is the definition of the one per cent. That is who the Conservatives are so very desperate to defend and make us all feel very sorry for.
This is ridiculous. The fact is that the rhetoric, and if I may say the populist rhetoric, that the Conservative leader goes on tour with during the summer is addressed to the hard-working Canadians who work in the construction industry, as nurses or as bus drivers. That speech is directed to folks right across the country. However, in the House, in this chamber, it is clear who Conservatives are defending. They are defending the top one per cent. They are protecting people's stock portfolios instead of their pensions. They are defending people's stock portfolios instead of the wages of the middle class. Let that be clear.
392 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 7:01:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I could not think of a more out-of-touch answer to the very real concerns that I raised, which were backed by Statistics Canada data. In fact, talking about middle-class Canadians, as I outlined in my remarks, the capital gains tax will often only be paid by 63% of Canadians once in their lifetime.
Why is that significant? It is because of the 80-year-old farmer in Hatzik Valley, who does not have any children, who came to me. He wants to keep his family farm in his family, but if he and his wife were to sell the property today, which is worth a few million dollars, they would not be able to have enough money to retire to assisted living, where they should be, because the capital gains tax increase they are paying has completely thrown off their retirement investment. I think of the auto mechanic who invested in a property to start a business and employ people.
The government is saying, no, that they need to give more. That is not sufficient—
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 7:02:59 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 7:03:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that the Conservatives' priority has been rather clear so far. Other than abandoning the fight against climate change, all they talk about is doing whatever they can to protect those who earn more than $250,000 a year in profit on their investments, even if that creates more inequality and raises the deficit that they regularly pretend to complain about.
My Conservative colleague is obviously also focusing only on the very highest capital gains tax rate for investment gains. Perhaps that is what his donors are talking about, but that is certainly not what most Canadians are talking about around the kitchen table.
I think that the Conservatives' priority is rather clear. The priority of our Liberal government is to defend the middle class.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 7:04:05 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, Nunavummiut still have the highest levels of food insecurity in the country. My home territory has the highest number of children going to school and to bed with empty stomachs. Mothers are not eating enough so their children can be full and grow up healthy. These conditions are by design of the federal government. These conditions do not happen by accident. These conditions are on purpose.
The Liberal government continues to refuse to fix the broken nutrition north program. When will the suffering finally be enough for the Liberals to act? While people are suffering in poverty, the Minister of Northern Affairs' response is to do more studies. His response, when I requested that the Auditor General review the program, was to do an internal review and then, possibly, an external review. The message was clear that he is not committed to helping alleviate poverty. His commitment is to protect corporate greed.
The first and only person who has been the Minister of Northern Affairs since his role was created claims to be absolutely committed to 100% of the retail subsidy being passed on directly to northerners. In fact, he said his internal audit will make sure of that. The minister says his internal review will assess nutrition north's performance. I can tell him right now that its performance is terrible. Food insecurity and prices have continued to rise under the program.
The minister should recall that when I called the CEO of the North West Company, Dan McConnell, to appear before the indigenous and northern affairs committee, he refused to disclose that he earned $3.9 million in one year. The North West Company uses nutrition north. That means we can interpret that Canadian tax dollars are funding corporate greed.
I travelled to 13 Kivalliq and Kitikmeot communities this summer. I heard the same thing everywhere: "We cannot afford the cost of living in Nunavut. We cannot afford groceries. We cannot feed our families." My constituents are yelling for help. I have repeated that in this House so many times. The federal government keeps ignoring us. Nunavummiut do not need another internal study. Nunavummiut need to be able to feed their families.
Ten years ago, the Auditor General exposed that nutrition north was not meeting its objective to increase Inuit's northern food access. The Auditor General said the government "has not done the work necessary to verify that northern retailers are passing on to consumers the full government subsidy". The Auditor General revealed that the government is not requiring retailers to tell it where the tax dollars are going or how high the profits have climbed. What a great deal for a big business.
My question is simple. Will the Minister of Northern Affairs stop delaying and finally tell us the program will be improved so tax dollars are shown going to alleviate poverty and not going into the pockets of rich CEOs?
487 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 7:07:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, nakurmiik to my colleague.
Food security is one of the most pressing issues in the north and one of the top priorities of the minister. The nutrition north program is helping communities address food insecurity, a significant and complex issue requiring shared solutions and partnerships across governments. Until recently, the program's main focus was its retail subsidy, which lowers prices on foods and essential items. Today, after extensive reforms informed by indigenous and northern partners, nutrition north's expanded food security programming takes a holistic food systems approach to strengthening locally led food security and food sovereignty initiatives.
An investment of $164 million over three years from budget 2021 expanded nutrition north's ability to help eligible northern and isolated communities address local food security priorities. The investment included an additional $36 million for the harvesters support grant and nearly $61 million to launch the new community food programs fund under the grants to support community food-sharing activities. An additional $1.5 million over two years was allocated for nutrition north's Canada's food security research grant to study the effects of retail subsidy and inform ongoing improvements to the program.
These initiatives make a difference for northerners. Since the launch of the harvesters support grant in 2020, over 15,000 harvesters have been supported with more than 717 new food-sharing initiatives and 410 community hunts and harvests taking place.
I would also like to highlight the community food programs fund, co-developed alongside indigenous partners, including 24 recipient organizations and ITK. This fund directly supports indigenous recipients in culturally appropriate and community-led food security activities, such as school food programs and elder meal programs.
The newly established food security research grant funds indigenous-led research on food access and cost of living in the north to inform ongoing improvements to the retail subsidy program, including subsidy pass-through.
We believe in “by the north, for the north” solutions. To that end, since 2019, nutrition north has transferred over $76 million for the four regional Inuit organizations through the harvesters support grant and community food programs funding. This includes over $27.8 million for NTI.
The retail subsidies help save money on essential food like eggs, which cost $7.99 for 18 in Cape Dorset in February 2024. This represents a 46% savings to consumers. In Igloolik, in the same month, four litres of milk only cost $5.69 as a result of the subsidy.
Retailers and suppliers have regular independent audits to ensure compliance with program requirements, and we also seek input for ongoing improvements from indigenous and northern partners. For example, recent program adjustments now require retailers to submit monthly price data for all products in the communities. An internal evaluation is also under way, targeted for completion in March 2025, which includes indigenous partners, local communities, elders and knowledge-keepers in the evaluation working group.
Nutrition north will not solve food insecurity, but it is part of a long-term strategy to address the factors affecting food security, such as income, employment and access to food distributors. We are committed to continuous improvement of the expanded nutrition north program and to working with indigenous and northern partners to ensure it meets local community needs.
546 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 7:11:47 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, Amautiit Nunavut Inuit Women's Association released a report on child poverty in April 2024, and its report showed that those dollars are not working because children are still in poverty.
The close to $100 million that you mentioned in your response is going to corporate greed. Your government's data on the nutrition north program—
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/24 7:12:13 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the hon. member to speak through the Chair please and not directly to the member.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
