Absolutely, I agree with you 100%. That is why the case law you mentioned that has flowed in the last 20 years since the Supreme Court decision upholding section 43 and narrowing its application is based on section 43 being there. With section 43 gone—if this Parliament decides to eliminate that section 43—then all of that goes out the window as well.
I am more convinced than ever that we need to pass CPC-1. We know there's an agreement between the NDP and the Liberals. This isn't the way to go about things, to put parents and teachers at risk. If there's more information about the timing of the passage of this private member's bill and the coming into force of some hypothetical legislation from the minister, I think that is really important right now.
The minister apparently wants to be able to go to teachers and say, “Don't worry; we're looking after you,” but we're not privy to that. All we have is the bill that's in front of us, and the minister has indicated now that those of us who have been saying this is a problem are 100% right; it is a problem.
There's going to be some kind of sleight-of-hand fix in a less appropriate section of the Criminal Code. There's going to be an amendment maybe at some point that addresses the fallout for parents and teachers of the passage of this private member's bill. That's putting the cart before the horse, Madam Chair. That's not how we are to conduct ourselves at these committees.
Based on the legislation that's before us, based on the law as it stands and based on the Supreme Court decision, we have no alternative than to either reject this private member's bill or at least pass the protections that teachers and parents need in CPC-1.