Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, I think my Conservative colleagues have said very well some of the really important reasons that, unless CPC-1 is passed, this would be an extremely dangerous direction to go in. If I had to sum it up, it's that government knows best. Families, teachers, they don't know what they're doing, but this Liberal government does.
I want to be very clear about a couple of things for Canadians who are interested in this legislation. Section 43 applies only to teachers and parents, so when we are talking about eliminating the defence contained in section 43, we're talking about eliminating it for only teachers and parents.
I have to mention, Madam Chair, that since 2015, murders are up 43% in Canada, which is the highest rate in 30 years; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%; sexual assaults are up 71%; sex crimes against children are up 126%. With that as a backdrop, the crisis Canadians are facing with crime, in rural and urban areas, is affecting all of us. We're here today talking about a bill that would criminalize the actions of loving parents and caring teachers—teachers who are trying to have a safe classroom and parents who are trying to raise their children to be upstanding Canadians and citizens.
You don't have to take my word for it. We had witness testimony from the Teachers' Federation, from experienced classroom teachers, who said to us at this committee that, without the protection of section 43, when there is physical conflict in their classroom such as two students beating up on another student, the advice given to teachers would be to not intervene. Now, some teachers may intervene, but it will now be at their peril. Why? Because the passage of this private member's bill would eliminate a defence that is available to only parents and teachers.
When it comes to parents, individuals have tried to minimize the impact of repealing section 43. I will quote directly from the 2004 Supreme Court decision that specifically studied and dealt with a challenge to the constitutionality of section 43. In that leading Supreme Court of Canada decision, number one, the constitutionality of section 43 was upheld, so this measure in the Criminal Code, section 43, is no doubt constitutional; number two, it applies to only parents and teachers; and number three, the Supreme Court narrowed in and provided advice on what that defence includes.
It's extremely troubling to me that, when the proponent and sponsor of the bill was here at committee, all of the examples he used as to why this bill is necessary are not covered by section 43: They're outside the protections of section 43. He used the example of a student being punched in the face. The Supreme Court said specifically that hitting someone in the face is not protected by section 43. He used the example of someone being struck with an object multiple times. Again, the Supreme Court said specifically that hitting someone with an object is not protected by section 43. The example was used of pushing someone down the stairs. Again, these are ridiculous examples of clear abuse that all of us are against. I don't think there's anyone around this table who thinks someone should be able to push someone down the stairs. The Supreme Court of Canada doesn't believe someone should be able to push someone down the stairs. This is the basis on which this private member's bill was brought forward. It's completely based on misinformation, but the consequences are real.
I want to read directly from Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the majority in this 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which they warned Parliament 20 years ago that, if they remove section 43, parents would be criminalized and families would be ripped apart.
In that decision, and I'm quoting directly, this “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.”
So the ruling of the Supreme Court is that if section 43 does not exist, it will lead to families being broken up. That's a pretty strong statement by the court. It is why CPC-1, our amendment, would fully implement and codify the ruling of the Supreme Court and the definitions they've applied to section 43, the parameters they've put around section 43, and the very constitutional findings that were made in that decision.
Madam Chair, myself and my colleagues stand against Bill C-273. It strips away the rights of teachers and of parents, it interferes in families and in classrooms, it's major government overreach and, in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada's leading decision, it risks breaking up families.
I would conclude my remarks there except to say what happened on Monday was extremely extraordinary. I've been a member of Parliament for quite some time. I can't recall a time before where we were dealing with a private member's bill that, if passed, would have the same effect in law as any piece of government legislation, and we find out at the last minute, as we're dealing with this bill: don't worry, we recognize there's a consequence to passing this bill and there's going to be government legislation. One, that may or may not happen. Two, what does the government legislation look like? We have no idea. Does it apply only to parents? Does it apply only to teachers? Is it expansive enough to protect teachers and parents from the impact and the fallout of the passage of Bill C-273?
This is not a proper way for us to conduct ourselves, as parliamentarians. I think we have to look at the legislation before us. We have to look at it and its impact in its entirety if we were to pass it. I urge members around this table, for the protection of parents and teachers, to pass CPC-1. But if we were to pass this bill without the Conservative amendment, it would put teachers and parents, and by extension children, at risk.
I'm speaking in favour of CPC-1 and speaking strongly against Bill C-273 unless it is amended.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
