SoVote

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

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/18/24 6:49:51 p.m.
Watch

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

11 words

Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.)

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

Mr. Arpan Khanna

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

Mr. Jaime Battiste

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

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/18/24 6:59:21 p.m.
Watch

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

13 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)

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

Investments

Mr. Brad Vis

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/18/24 7:02:59 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

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

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

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

Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.)

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

Ms. Lori Idlout

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

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

Remind
Speak

Ms. Lori Idlout

Sep/18/24 7:12:23 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I apologize. The government's data on the nutrition north program includes prices and the subsidy paid for some products. Since the voices of constituents are not enough, I will cite a researcher. Nicholas Li is one of just two or three researchers who have confidential access to that data. In April, Nicholas told APTN that when he last checked, there was a lag in the data reporting. Can the Minister of Northern Affairs confirm whether the government is currently even collecting data on the prices and subsidy paid for food products?

93 words

Mr. Jaime Battiste

Sep/18/24 7:13:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concerns of the member opposite over the nutrition north program subsidies and the reforms to the program. The harvesters support grant and the community food program are part of the expanded nutrition north program and provide significant support for indigenous recipients with culturally appropriate and community-led food security activities. We remain determined to help reduce food prices through the expanded nutrition north program, which has also helped to increase food security throughout the north. The newly established food security research grant supports indigenous-led academic research into food security and existing federal food programs. Access in the north is informing ongoing improvements to the retail subsidy program. I look forward to continuing to work with the opposition and our partners to ensure the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of nutrition north. I will pass the member's concerns on to the minister.

147 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/18/24 7:14:07 p.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:14 p.m.)

39 words