44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 27, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate in this place on the important issues that Canadians face. I do so today on Bill C-273, understanding the complexities surrounding the debate we are having here when it comes to the issues of reconciliation, parenting and parental rights, and ensuring children are given the best and every opportunity to succeed in our country.
As one approaches the important discussion we have here, it is meant to be taken seriously and with a full understanding of what the implications of such a bill would be. I note that it is very simple; it is one line that would repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. For those watching, who may not have the full breadth of understanding surrounding what section 43 of the Criminal Code is, it states:
Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
We have before us a bill that would take out something that has been the course of debate and a subject of debate in this country for the last half-century or so. In fact, I believe there have been around 30 bills brought forward endeavouring to accomplish this or something very similar to it.
I note first a process challenge that exists when it comes to this conversation taking place in the form of a private member's bill, and that is the limited time we have to address the many complexities surrounding this debate. Certainly, two hours of debate in this place and a short committee study is not nearly long enough to speak to the complexity that exists on a whole host of issues, which I will endeavour to get into during the course of this speech.
Let us be clear: Child abuse, as well as violence against children, is wrong and should always have been wrong. However, we have examples throughout our history where, unfortunately, it has been permitted and even state-sanctioned. What we have here is a disconnect, I would suggest, between what the bill purports to do and what the Criminal Code actually says. I emphasize this because there are no provisions in the Criminal Code that permit violence against children or child abuse.
I find it troubling that this has created a notion that one needs to support Bill C-273 in order to be opposed to violence against children. In reality, in terms of section 43, a number of Supreme Court challenges have taken place that brought forward the legitimacy of this. I note that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby failed to take into account some of the challenging nuances surrounding it, including some of the communities he referenced. That is part one.
I would also suggest that another important element is the process of reconciliation and how important it is to ensure that we continue to have that conversation in this country. In fact, I am very proud to be a part of the party that brought forward the apology for the government's role in the residential process, kicking off the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which led to this report. I am very proud that we have been able to be strong supporters of the process of reconciliation. There is a need for that process to continue in order to ensure it is done in a way that gives every opportunity for meaningful reconciliation to take place.
Specifically, when it comes to Bill C-273, there are nuances in this debate that indigenous communities are concerned about with regard to the possible implications if we do not take into account every aspect of what this would mean for children, parents and educators in our country. Some of my constituents with indigenous heritage have shared this with me. It is unfortunate that, as with many other issues faced in this place, the voices of parents are not being meaningfully heard.
We have seen attempts, time and time again, to diminish the role played not only by parents but also by the family as a fundamental building block of society. Any attempt to see that diminished would be wrong. We can see the implications of this over the course of our recent history. We need to be very careful, as the family has done so much to build this country.
I would suggest that, when it comes to the state's involvement in matters such as this, in terms of removing a parent's right to parent their children as they feel fit and the appropriateness around what is reasonable, there is a fair discussion to be had. One of the most challenging things, when I hear these debates taking place, is that we see that this is a response to, especially, the conversation surrounding reconciliation.
We see how the things that were sanctioned by the state ended up causing such significant harm, specifically to children. Now we have the inability to have a reasonable conversation around a parent's role in raising their children and what could take away some of the tools that are available for a parent to do so. We have the state, the possibility of taking and, in some cases, even criminalization.
In fact, there is a concern raised by many parents, parental groups and a number of teachers, including teachers' organizations. I know that the members raised a host of organizations that support this. I can tell us, very clearly, that the support is not unanimous.
The history of the debate that we are having today speaks to that very thing: We have to have that fulsome understanding of what the implications of this would be. As we endeavour to understand this, it comes back to the need to be able to trust our parents to raise children. That includes ensuring that the reconciliation process is undertaken.
I would note, just in terms of a process question, that there is a similar bill in the Senate. It has passed second reading on division. It has not yet been studied in committee there.
I would suggest that the discussion we are having here is of a limited nature, but the widespread consequences that it could bring about for our nation are profound. If we do not take that seriously, we are certainly not doing our job as parliamentarians.
I would just note that the courts have ruled on this. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada laid out very clear parameters for the use of physical correction and stated that section 43 does not extend to an application of force that results in harm or, and this is important, the prospect of harm.
I spoke before about how the Criminal Code has very clear and wide-reaching applications of what constitutes abuse and assault. To ensure that parents are able to have the full latitude required to raise healthy and productive citizens is absolutely fundamental.
I find it very concerning. Certainly, my constituents have reached out to me. Moreover, I have heard from a number of groups across the country, which have shared their concern that, if we allow section 43 to be removed without the appropriate conversations surrounding what the implications would be, we open ourselves up to allowing for further state control. This would not end up benefiting the children.
In conclusion, in fact, I noted that my Bloc colleagues and Liberal colleagues had noted a number of concerns that they have with the bill. However, I believe that the Liberals said that they would be supporting the bill going to committee. Those concerns should be taken very seriously. They necessitate further conversations and reasonable dialogue to ensure that we are doing what is best for our country and for the future of our children, as well as to ensure that we can have those reasonable and sometimes difficult conversations, so that we strike the right balance in this place.
I would simply say that I have followed this debate closely over both my years in Parliament and the years before as a parent. As somebody who cares deeply about our nation's future, my concern is that this bill simply does not facilitate the conversations that are required to have the meaningful dialogue about what raising children in Canada should look like in the future.
1426 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of Liberal-NDP policies being forced on Canadians, we see that the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. Recent reports show that food banks saw nearly two million visits in the last month. The tragedy is that this is a feature, not a flaw, of the Prime Minister's plan to quadruple the carbon tax on gas, groceries and home heating.
How high does the number of Canadians starving have to get before the Prime Minister gets out of the way and allows his appointed senators to pass a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234 and help farmers and ranchers lower the cost of food for all Canadians?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it sounds like that high-priced communications consultant certainly is not worth the cost. The real nonsense is the rhetoric coming from the Liberals.
There is a real opportunity to lower the cost of food for Canadians. It is in the name of a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234. It is a simple and pragmatic way to reduce the cost of food production on our farms.
Will the Prime Minister put his ego aside and do what is best for Canadians and stop the pressure he is applying to his appointed senators, which is keeping them from passing a common-sense bill, Bill C-234?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 6:28:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech my colleague from Alberta gave. I would ask him to reflect on how it seems like the NDP has highlighted a number of challenges it sees with this bill, although it plans to support it. We recently saw media reports that, if the Liberals do not get pharmacare done this year, it is willing to amend their confidence and supply coalition agreement.
I wonder if my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton would have any reflections on whether the NDP has any integrity left in standing up for the principles that it supposedly ran on in the last election. It certainly seems to me as though NDP members are nothing more than sellouts.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 6:31:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I know one of the issues for some of my colleagues on this, and in light of the discussion that was had after question period today, is that, when it comes to the conduct and speech of members, there needs to be an equal application of the rules across party lines.
The accusations the government House leader made during question period certainly call into question whether or not those rules are being fairly applied. Therefore, when it comes to decorum in the House, it is absolutely incumbent upon all members. Certainly for my part, I will always be happy to defend the things I say and endeavour to speak the truth.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
