Evidence of meeting #100 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was child.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
First off, I think your point about the Supreme Court actually reinforces the point of those who want to repeal section 43. You're saying there are a variety of judgments and statements in the Supreme Court's split decision. That confusion, which you've just very clearly indicated, is a very eloquent testament to repealing section 43. You've indicated the confusion, the differences and how confusing they are.
Mr. Garrison's point—
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, you certainly did. I have a lot of respect for you. I understand that you do your homework. You've just indicated one of the principal arguments for repealing section 43, which is the confusion around the Supreme Court decision from 20 years ago. Mr. Garrison indicated in his questioning that at the same time, for teachers—
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Should this be criminal? That's all I want to know.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
—and child protection officers and workers, that confusion you've just indicated needs to be cleared up.
Secondly, you're asking me to define the law, and that is not up to me.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
That is not up to me. We are putting forward a call to action, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission put forward that call to action, to repeal section 43.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
You are asking me to put in place some provisions or interpretations in the Criminal Code, and I've cited them—section 27, section 34 and section 35—
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
No, I'm not asking you to do anything. Those are self-defence sections. I'm saying when should a parent be subject to criminal law? That's why we're here.
Should a parent who taps a wrist with two fingers be subject to criminal law? To simply say, “Well, I don't know; that's up to somebody else”.... With all due respect, we're here to talk about these very issues. Again, I've tried to come here with an open mind. That's why I'm asking this question.
You're the sponsor. Do you believe that?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Okay. Let me ask you this back: Is it done in anger? Is it done in a way that—
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
What extent of force is used? Here again you're proving my point.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
It's a tap on the wrist. That's the extent of the force used.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
You're demonstrating something that you are not defining. Are you using force?
Conservative
NDP
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
These are all things that indicate exactly the point I'm making.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
I will now move to Mr. Housefather for five minutes.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That was highly entertaining. I want to thank Mr. Caputo and Mr. Julian for providing that.
I'm going to come back to the decision on Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada. I wasn't even planning to go down this line of questioning, but given the previous questions, I think the right question involves looking at the majority judgment versus the three minority judgments that Mr. Caputo was referring to.
The majority judgment states that you cannot use force against children under two. Mr. Julian, is that written anywhere in section 43?