Justice Committee on April 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good morning. I call the meeting to order.

As you've noticed, the system has been changed, so I have quite a few remarks to make first.

First and foremost, welcome to meeting number 102 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 14, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to begin its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom app.

This is a bit new, on avoiding audio feedback: Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from the microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29—that's today—the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced with a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only a black, approved earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.

When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker. You will find the sticker for this purpose on the table. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines on preventing audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece. These measures are in place so we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Thank you for your co-operation.

For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard.

Before we begin, I want to remind everyone that we will leave about 30 minutes for an in camera meeting to discuss business.

Now I want to welcome the witnesses from the justice department, who will help us with technical questions on Bill C-273.

First we have Matthias Villetorte, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; and Isabelle Desharnais, counsel.

Welcome and thank you for joining us.

We will now commence the start of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-273.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

On a point of order, can we welcome our new member to the committee, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Yes. We have a new member, whom we will welcome.

MP Jivani, welcome.

As members already know, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause will be subject to debate and a vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I'll recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

I will go slowly.

Each amendment has been given a number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted it. Once an amendment is moved, unanimous consent is required in order to withdraw it.

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On that, some time ago, when we were considering this bill, we set a timeline for submitting amendments. Then there was some discussion, and that timeline was extended. I note that Mr. Fortin submitted an amendment, and I also submitted an amendment, so there were two amendments. We've all considered those.

As I was leaving my office to come over here, I got notice of a government amendment. It might have been 10 or 15 minutes before the committee started. In order for us to print it off and for me to take a look at it, I ended up getting here just at 11:01 or so.

My point is that when we set these deadlines for amendments, it's a courtesy, and beyond being a courtesy, it's an expectation the committee has set out around amendments. Sometimes things come up that are outside our control. I don't want to spoil the surprise, but I note the government amendment just deals with the coming into force of the legislation. I'm wondering why we couldn't have received that in a more timely fashion so we could have had more orderly conduct when we came to the committee. This puts us all in a position in which we're playing a bit of catch-up, when avoiding that is the whole point of having a deadline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Maloney, please go ahead.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

The amendment was submitted last week. I know it's pretty long. If we want to suspend for a few minutes, you can take some time to read it and digest it if you want, if that makes your life a little easier.

The amendment is there. I don't think there's any issue to be discussed here, frankly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Members, I think you know that amendments can be submitted at any time, even during the meeting, as long as they're submitted appropriately.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Chair, on that, I would then suggest that, going forward, we don't submit or agree to a deadline.

Around this table, there are four parties represented, and we agree to a deadline to submit amendments. I wouldn't even mention this, except that it happened on the last private member's bill, on coercive control. We ended up with the government table-dropping an expansive amendment to that bill that was essentially a rewrite of the bill. This is the second consecutive time it has happened.

I guess I would ask now.... I'm not going to speak, of course, for the NDP or the Bloc, but for our part, we don't have the resources of a full department and a minister's office and all those things, yet we somehow get our amendments in on time. The government, which has full resources, including hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of employees, should be able to get its amendments in at least as quickly as we do.

I don't want to belabour it, but I think I had to make the point, because this is the second time that the government has failed to introduce its amendment by the time agreed to by committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

(On clause 1)

Let me start now with clause-by-clause. I will call clause 1. Amendment BQ-1 was submitted first.

Would the member like to move it?

Mr. Fortin, please go ahead.

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

Regarding amendment BQ-1—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

You don't have to explain anything. For the time being, if you would just propose the amendment please.

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

I understand, but I want to explain why—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

No, not now. I have to say something before you provide any explanations.

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

Okay.

I would like to propose amendment BQ-1, if that is all you wanted to hear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Yes.

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

When I have the chance, I will explain why we are proposing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Okay.

Thank you for proposing the amendment. Now I have to tell you the following.

If BQ-1 is adopted, CPC-1 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 769:

Amendments must be proposed following the order of the text to be amended. Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would ask the chair to rule this amendment out of order. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation did not say that section 43 should be partially repealed or that another purpose should be substituted for it, and the private member's bill before us simply calls for the repeal of that section.

Again, this amendment would actually restore part of section 43, so I believe it's fundamentally in conflict with the purpose of the private member's bill and, therefore, not in order.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you for that. Based on advice I've received, I'm going to rule that it is admissible and in order to proceed.

Mr. Fortin, you may now speak to your amendments.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be pleased to explain.

We understand the intent of Bill C‑273. Yet we must not lose sight of the fact that it will have much broader repercussions than the concerns expressed by certain parties to the truth and reconciliation debate. When the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was drafted, the goal was to find solutions to prevent the deplorable situations of the past that affected indigenous communities. I agree with that. Those abuses are unacceptable, not just for the first nations, but for society as a whole. We do not want children to be subjected to violence, either at home or at school.

That said, repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code would have negative effects that we cannot ignore. I am referring to the testimony we have heard, Madam Chair. I am thinking in particular of Mr. Sébastien Joly, from the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers, who said that QPAT was convinced of the following:

…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…

We also heard from Ms. Heidi Yetman, president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, who stated that:

…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.

These concerns are important to us in the Bloc Québécois. We cannot ignore them. There was also the 2023 Supreme Court decision in the Bender case, Madam Chair. That is very recent. That was a ruling on an appeal of an Ontario court decision that recognized the application of section 43 in acquitting a teacher accused of assaulting a child. I will not summarize the whole decision. I think we are all familiar with it. The Supreme Court issued the following warning:

62 Without section 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 and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process.

Further, in Japan, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which came into force in 2020, states roughly the following:

“A person who exercises parental authority over a child shall not discipline the child by inflicting corporal punishment upon him/her or by taking other forms of action that go beyond the scope necessary for the care and education of the child”.

I think section 43 needs to be reviewed in light of legal and cultural changes in Quebec and Canada.

I think this is needed, but simply repealing the section would be a serious error that would fly in the face of international movements in the field of the education and correction of children. We propose an amendment, Madam Chair, and I will read it out since it is not very long.

I propose that section 43 be replaced by the following:

43 A person who exercises parental authority, or to whom that authority has been delegated, must not subject a child under their care to any corporal punishment or to any other violence. However, the person may use force that is reasonably necessary for the safety of the child or of a third party or for the child's upbringing.

That would allow teachers, parents or anyone else with parental authority to use reasonable force with the child. Let us recall the Supreme Court's example of placing a child in a chair for a time-out. Similarly, a child may sometimes have to be expelled from the classroom if they pose a danger to the children in the class. If there is a fight between students, a teacher must use reasonable force to intervene. A fight cannot be broken up by saying it would be nice to stop fighting. We might wish it were so, but that is not reality. Anyone who has raised a child knows that full well.

It is unacceptable to use force or corporal punishment by hitting a child with a stick, for instance. No one thinks corporal punishment is acceptable. Yet we do think it is entirely justifiable to use reasonable force to control and protect a child and to protect a third party if the child is having an outburst and wants to fight. That is the approach taken in other parts of the world. I mentioned for example the recent legislative changes in Japan, as well as the Supreme Court decision in Bender.

We have heard testimony from education experts. I say that with the utmost respect because they know more about it than I do and probably more than each one of us at the table. The Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers and the Canadian Teachers' Federation have told us that repealing section 43 would be a mistake.

On that basis, I think our amendment would address everyone's concerns and further the interests of children, teachers, parents and any person with parental authority in Quebec and Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Next we have Ms. Gladu.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Definitely, I agree with Mr. Fortin that we heard testimonies, numerous testimonies, from teachers who talked about the increase of violence that they're seeing and the importance of retaining section 43. I agree with him that it would be a big mistake to take it out altogether.

In fact, the Supreme Court did quite an excellent job of defining, with clarity, the scope. If we support BQ-1, we can't support CPC-1, which actually is the more fulsome Supreme Court decision put in to clarify.

For that reason, I can't support this, although I do agree that we need to retain section 43 and capture, with clarity, the Supreme Court decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Maloney.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Fortin. I agree almost entirely with everything you said, but I will not be supporting your amendment, nor will I be supporting, if we get to that stage, the second amendment that's been put on the table. I'll tell you why.

I will be supporting the bill as proposed, because it addresses call to action number 6, which I think we all agree is very important and something that needs to be dealt with.

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 Minister Virani, 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.

I think that's a solution to what you're proposing and to what the Conservatives are proposing, while adhering to the spirit of call to action 6.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Moore.