Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to speak a bit generally, and then I'll come specifically to the amendment.
I am concerned when, around this table, we don't take seriously the commitment that all of us made to truth and reconciliation in this country. Recommendation 6 was carefully considered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I believe all of us around this table have expressed support for those calls to action.
If we go to the calls to action and say, “Yes, we support them, but...”, that's not really reconciliation. That's substituting our judgment for the judgment of indigenous people on the impacts of this section on indigenous communities.
We may have a second and competing concern here, which is that of teachers. I am glad to hear Mr. Maloney say there's a commitment to solving that problem, but we can't solve that problem at the expense of reconciliation in this country. I think it diminishes the arguments that were made about the impacts of this section on indigenous communities to say that we can't proceed without protecting some other group at this point.
On the specific amendment, my problem with Mr. Fortin's amendment is the last phrase, which says, “or for the child’s upbringing.” If you just take it most simply, it says reasonable force can be used for the child's upbringing. That was exactly the problem with section 43, and that's why I believe this is out of order. It restores the very problem that the call to action is trying to take away, which is the idea that reasonable force can be used for a child's upbringing.
For that specific reason, I'm voting against this amendment, and I would urge all members to pass this bill unamended to repeal this section, which was the purpose and intention of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It will uphold our commitment to reconciliation in this country.
Thank you.