SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 338

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 18, 2024 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 338 - Sep/18/24
Mr. Peter Julian
  • Sep/18/24 6:04:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court was simply making a decision based on constitutionality. As many child advocates have said, the Supreme Court was erroneous about the impacts on children and did not consider the impacts on children, and it caused a great deal of confusion. That decision, which makes it very difficult to understand the impacts of section 43 of the Criminal Code, has led to much more confusion and consternation if we look at what child advocates are saying. The fact that it is constitutional is not what we are considering here. It is what is in the best interests of the child, and there is no doubt, as 700 organizations and 67 countries are telling us, that it is not in the best interests of the child.
129 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 338 - Sep/18/24
Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)
  • Sep/18/24 6:05:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. He just answered a question about the Supreme Court decision and indicated that it was constitutional. However, I would like to read an excerpt from that Supreme Court decision: 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. The Supreme Court seems to have looked at the substance of the issue and decided that it was not a good idea to abolish section 43. I would like my colleague to comment on that aspect of the decision.
133 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border