Bill C-273

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne’s Quest and the protection of children)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to repeal a provision that authorizes the correction of a child by force if certain criteria are met.

Criminal Code

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne's Quest and the protection of children), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C‑273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne's Quest and the protection of children).

The committee studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I agree 100% with Mr. Fortin on the need to hear from the minister. There's recognition by the Supreme Court that simply eliminating section 43 puts teachers and parents at risk. There's an acknowledgement from the Minister of Justice, apparently. We've heard through Mr. Maloney and the parliamentary secretary that he, too, recognizes there is risk in eliminating section 43. He has, we understand, suggested he would be bringing in legislation. For us to properly proceed on this private member's bill requires us to know what that legislation looks like. It also requires us to know the timing around the coming into force of this legislation and the other legislation, should they both pass.

I want to make one thing 100% clear: This bill is extremely problematic. There has been much concern raised by committee members and especially by witnesses and the Supreme Court. We had a big surprise dropped on us on Monday when we heard that the Minister of Justice acknowledges that this is a problematic bill and will be bringing in, presumably, government legislation. I agree that we should, as we scheduled, quickly move to our study on anti-Semitism on Monday. This bill is not ready. The committee has not heard from the minister. The committee has not heard from departmental officials on the content of the new justice legislation that may be coming to respond to the fallout from this bill.

I want to make it extremely clear that we should be moving on, on Monday, regardless of what happens with Bill C-273, which is a flawed bill that's out of touch with teachers and parents in this country. Regardless of what happens with it, we need to move on with our agenda. Our agenda should be that, on Monday, we begin Mr. Housefather's study on anti-Semitism. Look at your phone, look at the headlines and turn on the television. You will see that this is a massive issue across the country right now. That's why we have agreed as a committee, unanimously, to study Mr. Housefather's motion. I believe we should be studying Mr. Housefather's motion on Monday.

I think we should all be in agreement on that.

Madam Chair, I am moving a motion at this time that we begin our study on Mr. Housefather's motion on anti-Semitism on Monday and Thursday of next week.

Thank you.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Considering the answers I've just received from the witnesses, I'd like to hear from the Minister of Justice on the subject. We're preparing to make what I think will be a difficult a decision. We're told that the minister is working on something that should reassure us. I hope he is, and I want nothing more than to be reassured. I want to vote, as does everyone who's in favour of this, but I don't feel I can do so right now.

Could we ask the Minister of Justice to come and meet with the committee for 30 to 45 minutes at our next meeting, before we vote on Bill C-273?

At this stage, the minister's intentions are a decisive factor in our vote on Bill C‑273. The bill concerns one part of the problem, whereas we're told that what the minister is preparing to do concerns the essence of what section 43 protects and what we wish to protect. The committee might vote unanimously if the minister came and explained to us what he's working on.

I don't know if that's possible, but that's my proposal. I propose that we suspend the vote until our next meeting and that the minister come and meet with us for half an hour at the start of the meeting to explain to us what he's working on and to attempt, if possible, to reconcile us all.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

All right.

My next question is for both of you.

We're in a situation where the bill will probably be adopted, for numerical reasons. The Liberal and NDP members of this committee decided to join forces in support of Bill C-273 and told us that the Minister of Justice would be introducing something to reassure us.

What do you think we can expect? How can the minister bring back the dead, or salvage something from the wreckage? Where in the Criminal Code could we insert a provision to put the pieces back together—that's perhaps the appropriate expression—by re‑establishing the fact that it's legitimate for persons who exercise parental authority to make reasonable use of force to control children in the context of their upbringing? Could we do that? Do you have an idea how?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

As I understand it, Bill C-273 would repeal section 43 for fear that it might permit violence that has never previously been allowed. In fact, the Supreme Court has previously held that section 43 did not permit violence such as that committed in these dramatic cases from the dark history of Canada. I'm talking here about violence committed in schools against both indigenous and other persons, although call to action number 6, in particular, concerns indigenous persons.

The purpose of Bill C‑273 is to repeal section 43, but, and I apologize for speaking bluntly, it would be pointless for us to do so because, at any event, what we fear may occur isn't even possible, from what I can understand. What's more, that would then leave persons who exercise parental authority in a situation where, based on your testimony, they would have to offset the absence of section 43 by using common law defences or other sections of the Criminal Code. Once interpreted, those sections could offset the absence resulting from the repealing of section 43. That's roughly the case, isn't it?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

First you told me that Bill C-273 was based on the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That report, and particularly call to action number 6, concerned situations at indigenous residential schools. You explained that to me, and I understand it. The concern is that section 43 will normalize—and I'm using the expression you employed—cases of violence against indigenous children.

No one doubts this has happened; that's not my point. However, I'd like to know if there are any case law examples of courts that, relying on what's permitted under section 43, found that it was proper and acceptable for a teacher or a person exercising some sort of authority at a school attended by indigenous children to act in a physically or sexually violent manner toward them. Are there any examples where those kinds of acts were held to be acceptable as a result of the existence of section 43?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

All right, thank you.

Now I'm going to ask another question.

Both you and I have listened to the debate that we've had on this matter in the past two days. Our Liberal Party colleague told us that the minister will be working hard to table a bill to correct the deficiencies of Bill C-273 by restoring some power to persons who exercise parental authority so they can make reasonable use of force in the control and upbringing of children. I imagine there are various ways to do that.

As you can see, the idea of repealing section 43 is a concern for the moment. Parents and teachers fear they may be put in the somewhat awkward position of not really knowing what will happen to them. I would like to try to clarify that with you if I may.

First of all, when we refer to a person who exercises parental authority, we're talking about a teacher or a parent. If a teacher or parent intervenes in a fight between two children, and, obviously, uses force to separate them, could that person be subject to criminal charges?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask the witnesses some questions, if that's possible.

I understand that Bill C-273, the purpose of which is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, is a response to call to action number 6 of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. That's virtually the only reason we have this bill before us.

Would you please explain more clearly the purpose of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, I think my Conservative colleagues have said very well some of the really important reasons that, unless CPC-1 is passed, this would be an extremely dangerous direction to go in. If I had to sum it up, it's that government knows best. Families, teachers, they don't know what they're doing, but this Liberal government does.

I want to be very clear about a couple of things for Canadians who are interested in this legislation. Section 43 applies only to teachers and parents, so when we are talking about eliminating the defence contained in section 43, we're talking about eliminating it for only teachers and parents.

I have to mention, Madam Chair, that since 2015, murders are up 43% in Canada, which is the highest rate in 30 years; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%; sexual assaults are up 71%; sex crimes against children are up 126%. With that as a backdrop, the crisis Canadians are facing with crime, in rural and urban areas, is affecting all of us. We're here today talking about a bill that would criminalize the actions of loving parents and caring teachers—teachers who are trying to have a safe classroom and parents who are trying to raise their children to be upstanding Canadians and citizens.

You don't have to take my word for it. We had witness testimony from the Teachers' Federation, from experienced classroom teachers, who said to us at this committee that, without the protection of section 43, when there is physical conflict in their classroom such as two students beating up on another student, the advice given to teachers would be to not intervene. Now, some teachers may intervene, but it will now be at their peril. Why? Because the passage of this private member's bill would eliminate a defence that is available to only parents and teachers.

When it comes to parents, individuals have tried to minimize the impact of repealing section 43. I will quote directly from the 2004 Supreme Court decision that specifically studied and dealt with a challenge to the constitutionality of section 43. In that leading Supreme Court of Canada decision, number one, the constitutionality of section 43 was upheld, so this measure in the Criminal Code, section 43, is no doubt constitutional; number two, it applies to only parents and teachers; and number three, the Supreme Court narrowed in and provided advice on what that defence includes.

It's extremely troubling to me that, when the proponent and sponsor of the bill was here at committee, all of the examples he used as to why this bill is necessary are not covered by section 43: They're outside the protections of section 43. He used the example of a student being punched in the face. The Supreme Court said specifically that hitting someone in the face is not protected by section 43. He used the example of someone being struck with an object multiple times. Again, the Supreme Court said specifically that hitting someone with an object is not protected by section 43. The example was used of pushing someone down the stairs. Again, these are ridiculous examples of clear abuse that all of us are against. I don't think there's anyone around this table who thinks someone should be able to push someone down the stairs. The Supreme Court of Canada doesn't believe someone should be able to push someone down the stairs. This is the basis on which this private member's bill was brought forward. It's completely based on misinformation, but the consequences are real.

I want to read directly from Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the majority in this 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which they warned Parliament 20 years ago that, if they remove section 43, parents would be criminalized and families would be ripped apart.

In that decision, and I'm quoting directly, this “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.”

So the ruling of the Supreme Court is that if section 43 does not exist, it will lead to families being broken up. That's a pretty strong statement by the court. It is why CPC-1, our amendment, would fully implement and codify the ruling of the Supreme Court and the definitions they've applied to section 43, the parameters they've put around section 43, and the very constitutional findings that were made in that decision.

Madam Chair, myself and my colleagues stand against Bill C-273. It strips away the rights of teachers and of parents, it interferes in families and in classrooms, it's major government overreach and, in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada's leading decision, it risks breaking up families.

I would conclude my remarks there except to say what happened on Monday was extremely extraordinary. I've been a member of Parliament for quite some time. I can't recall a time before where we were dealing with a private member's bill that, if passed, would have the same effect in law as any piece of government legislation, and we find out at the last minute, as we're dealing with this bill: don't worry, we recognize there's a consequence to passing this bill and there's going to be government legislation. One, that may or may not happen. Two, what does the government legislation look like? We have no idea. Does it apply only to parents? Does it apply only to teachers? Is it expansive enough to protect teachers and parents from the impact and the fallout of the passage of Bill C-273?

This is not a proper way for us to conduct ourselves, as parliamentarians. I think we have to look at the legislation before us. We have to look at it and its impact in its entirety if we were to pass it. I urge members around this table, for the protection of parents and teachers, to pass CPC-1. But if we were to pass this bill without the Conservative amendment, it would put teachers and parents, and by extension children, at risk.

I'm speaking in favour of CPC-1 and speaking strongly against Bill C-273 unless it is amended.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've had a chance to reflect on all the information that was brought forward in the meetings but especially in the Monday meeting.

Let me share with you the conclusions I've come to.

First, I went back and read the truth and reconciliation report and recommendation 6. In there, it was clear that the concerns expressed were to make sure that children didn't experience violence and that they didn't experience abuse. Certainly they were opposed to corporal punishment. Those were the clear points.

The last residential school closed in 1996, so the 2004 Supreme Court decision narrowed to what I think is the balance that would prevent the exact things that people who experienced horrible things in residential schools were worried about. Violence is illegal already. Assault and abuse are already illegal.

We've seen, from the narrow definition that the Supreme Court has put in, which is in our CPC amendment, that you're not allowed to use instruments—belts, rulers, that kind of thing—to hit a child and all of these protections that I think people were looking for.

The second thing I would say is that it was announced that the Minister of Justice saw a problem if we removed section 43 and didn't put back protections for parents and teachers. He sees that as an issue, and he has promised to come with legislation where they will put that protection in a different part of the Criminal Code.

This is problematic to me because, first of all, we haven't seen that legislation. We don't know what the timing of that legislation is. I don't think we can remove protections that are key without putting them back in.

Certainly, there is no way that we could approve this bill and know that we are removing protections for parents and teachers, protections that I would say have served us well. Since the Supreme Court came with this narrow decision, there have not been a lot of frivolous cases brought, and there have not been people who hugely objected to the interpretation here.

Until such time as the government comes forward with a bill that would add that protection somewhere else and remove it in section 43, I cannot, in good conscience, support Bill C-273.

We've heard lots of testimony from teachers, and I've certainly heard from parents across the country who believe in the use of reasonable force in the raising of their children and in protecting children, one from the other, as they get into their various scuffles. This is where I've landed after sombre reflection.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity as the newest member of the justice and human rights committee to share my perspective on why I will be voting against Bill C-273, unless we adopt amendment CPC-1.

CPC-1 addresses my primary concern, one that I've heard from many people, which is that Bill C-273 does not recognize or respect parental rights. Parental rights deserve recognition just as teacher safety does in any consideration of this bill and any consideration of section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code. We have heard from many parents who are concerned about their place being completely excluded, undermined, disrespected and disregarded by the current Liberal government.

It's not hard to see why many moms and dads might feel that way. At the very top of the Liberal government there is a Prime Minister who has said quite clearly that he does not respect or recognize parental rights. In fact, last year in a conversation with Muslim parents, he said that parents who are concerned about their rights and parenting their children are being influenced by misinformation and disinformation by the American right wing. These comments could have been made just as easily to Christian parents, Jewish parents, Hindu parents or Sikh parents. It is a fundamental disrespect that the Prime Minister has for the rights of moms and dads.

It's not just the Liberal Party that has this chronic ideological problem. We have a member of our committee here from the NDP, Mr. Randall Garrison, who also said less than a year ago that there's no such thing as parental rights in Canada. This is not just morally incorrect; it is also factually incorrect. The most relevant Supreme Court of Canada decision on section 43 of the Criminal Code says quite clearly that the legislative purpose behind section 43 is parental rights. It is not an American right-wing idea. It is a Canadian idea recognized by our highest court in the land and recognized as an important objective behind section 43.

This is why we call the current government the NDP-Liberal government. It's quite obvious that these parties work together on ideological objectives that seem completely inconsistent with what the vast majority of Canadians actually want from their government. As a member of this committee, it is not hard for me to understand why so many moms and dads are concerned.

It's important we point out that without amendment 1 from the Conservative Party, we would actually be continuing the allowance of an ideological agenda that seems hell-bent on the marginalization of moms and dads in raising their children.

I'd also like to share a statement from a member of the Muskowekwan First Nation, a granddaughter of a residential school survivor, who responded to these concerns about parental rights when Liberal labour minister Seamus O'Regan was going on one of his famous tangents against Canadian parents. Ms. Mbarki said, “I am always very skeptical when the federal government gets involved in saying how parents should parent. Have we forgotten about residential schools? The 60's scoop? Off reserve child and family services? The system saw us as savages who couldn't/can't parent.”

This ugly side of our history is precisely why so many people are bothered, why so many people are concerned when the federal government and politicians in Ottawa treat moms and dads like they know better. When moms and dads are marginalized in important conversations about child protection and raising children, it is completely unacceptable.

For that reason, I cannot support Bill C-273 unless amendment CPC-1 is adopted. I highly encourage all members of this committee to reconsider how they are treating parents in our country right now and to consider amendment CPC-1 as a way that we may restore the place of moms and dads in this important conversation.

Thank you.