Justice Committee on April 15th, 2024

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Ms. Fiddler, Ms. Yetman and Mr. Joly, I thank you for being here with us today.

I don’t know if it was announced at the start, but for the sake of the cause, I’d like to point out that we have interpretation service. You may speak in English or in French as you wish. Everyone will hear your testimony correctly.

I am happy to see you today. Our children’s safety and education are indeed significant concerns. It is quite obvious that violence against children must end and we must do what is necessary, as legislators, so that it is not authorized in any way.

After a brief overview of jurisprudence and events in other jurisdictions, it seemed obvious to me that corporal punishment was widely prohibited. In fact, it’s largely the case almost everywhere. I am wondering, however, if we aren’t confusing two different things, meaning corporal punishment and the use of force to ensure children’s safety and education. It can be a matter of protecting them, but also of protecting their environment, for instance, from other classmates. That is what I’m concerned about as we conduct our study of Bill C‑273. I think what you told us this morning is interesting. It goes along the lines of what I had in mind from the beginning.

Mr. Housefather asked if this type of exception might be useful in the case of workers, specifically health workers. I wonder if this might also apply to parents. Shouldn’t they be on the same footing, perhaps by making the required adaptations? We’re talking here about any person with parental authority or delegated authority, regardless of whether they are a teacher, parent or someone else.

What is your opinion on that?

I might invite Mr. Joly to answer first. Ms. Yetman or Ms. Fiddler could perhaps respond afterwards.

[Sébastien Joly]

I’m a parent too. I am probably speaking as a parent, but obviously, I’m doing so as a representative of the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers. I am therefore speaking on behalf of teachers and our colleagues in other job categories within the education sector.

Mr. Housefather asked if we could extend this type of exception to all stakeholders, for example educators working in youth centres. Of course, we would not oppose it. In this case, however, it’s a matter of speaking on behalf of teachers and raising our concerns about the consequences of repealing section 43 without amendment.

They face risks every day because of their working conditions and the situations they have to face on a daily basis.

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

What about the parents?

[Sébastien Joly]

As I said, I am a parent. I could therefore give you a personal opinion, but the Association does not speak on behalf of parents. Parents’ groups could come and talk to you about those issues.

As a parent, I would say it’s reasonable to include parents.

That said, I am representing teachers here. I will try to maintain political correctness.

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

Thank you, Mr. Joly.

Ms. Yetman, did you want to add any comments?

[Heidi Yetman]

My answer is somewhat identical. I too am a parent. I have two boys. I remember, for example, that they sometimes needed to be held to get their winter boots on.

For my part, I do not oppose the idea of tabling an amendment that could help the general public, including parents. However, since I represent teachers, I have to speak on their behalf.

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

Thank you for representing teachers. You are all doing it very well.

I asked the question anyway because in a way, you are experts in children’s education. Certain broad principles you would apply could also apply to anyone participating in children’s education, be they a parent, an uncle, an aunt, or an educator entrusted with supervising a five-year-old boy for a weekend, for example.

At the end of the day, shouldn’t all these people be treated the same way?

Shouldn’t we all make sure that anyone can intervene effectively when parents entrust them with supervising a child, one way or another? I share your opinion on the matter.

Since there must not be a lot of time left, I’d like to move on to a completely different subject.

We know that Bill C‑273 is the result of a call to action in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. You talked about it earlier and you’re familiar with the report itself.

Do you have an opinion on the way that repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code could help improve the situation of indigenous communities in Canada?

We understand that abuses occurred in the past, and there’s no point in lingering on the subject. We all agree that it made no sense.

That said, how will repealing this section today help indigenous communities in Canada to flourish?

Can you give me some comments on that issue?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

There are 30 seconds left.

[Tesa Fiddler]

I can try.

The repeal of section 43 would honour the history and the truth that came out of that history. That history has caused a legacy of ongoing violence and harm, so those were the recommendations that came out of that.

We could probably go back now to community—this is eight years later—and start asking what we need next, and that is to put in those safeguards that will protect children, families and the organizations that are providing a service to a very vulnerable population.

I think that is what the repeal would do for our communities.

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

Thanks to all three of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Just for the record, I’ll note that I gave an extra 20 seconds.

We will now move on to the next speaker.

Now, we'll move on to Mr. Garrison, please, for six minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today.

I recognize that you're doing the job of representing your members, but I have some questions. They are not hostile, but I have some concerns.

I'll talk about the 94 calls to action. Was either of your organizations involved with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission at the time of the hearings?

[Heidi Yetman]

I have only been president since July 2023, so I really can't answer that, but we work very closely with our advisory committee.

I don't know, Tesa, if you were involved at that time.

[Sébastien Joly]

Our association was not involved in the workings of the commission, but we did take steps in the early 2000s, even before the end of the work done by the commission, to push the Government of Quebec to review education programs, namely history programs. I'm a history teacher. As a new representative, I've been pushing that for quite a while, with some success. It's not perfect, but there were certainly changes made in the content on calls to action 62 and 63 in particular. We were actively involved.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe both of your organizations did endorse the calls to action at some point.

[Heidi Yetman]

Yes, that is correct. We have done a lot of work in trying to get the calls to action for education moved forward in the provinces.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Go ahead, Ms. Fiddler.

[Tesa Fiddler]

I've been with the Canadian Teachers' Federation on the advisory committee for indigenous education. This is my fifth year with the organization, and I worked provincially with the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association for about seven years. It was shortly after the calls to action were published.

I've been part of the revisions to the Ontario curriculum. I've been on the writing teams. Personally, I gave testimony at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I've worked very closely with many folks who have been part of the TRC. My husband worked with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and travelled across the country. The advisory committee brings that depth of knowledge and guidance to the work of the Canadian Teachers' Federation.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I'm asking that question of both of you, because I think there's both a real, substantive problem and a perceptual problem if non-indigenous organizations are substituting their judgment for the indigenous community on this section.

What I was trying to do was give you a chance to express your support.

Has there been any communication with Murray Sinclair or the other commissioners about these concerns with the repeal of this section?

[Heidi Yetman]

I do know that the Canadian Teachers' Federation did meet with Mr. Sinclair. This was before my time. We have spoken to him about this particular action.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I do think an important part of the reconciliation process is to continue that dialogue.

Mr. Joly.

[Sébastien Joly]

I was part of meetings back in 2018 with a group of senators who had taken on this action and to raise the same concerns. I met with five senators at the time. Then it fell by the wayside. Now it's been picked up again.

Certainly we express the same concerns with the complete repeal of section 43 without any amendments.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Go ahead, Ms. Fiddler.

[Tesa Fiddler]

[Inaudible—Editor] the new term of the indigenous advisory committee. We've reached out to re-establish and maintain a relationship with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation as well. With COVID, there was a pause. We're actively doing that work to engage the NCTR and continue supporting the good and important work they do.