SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 338

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 18, 2024 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 338 - Sep/18/24
Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)
  • Sep/18/24 6:26:55 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois is skeptical about this bill, to say the least. I already mentioned this during consideration at second reading. I want to say that I proposed an amendment, which was rejected, that would have allowed for reasonable force to be exerted in order to ensure the safety of a child or third party, or the education of a child. Today, I have no choice but to say that it is rather difficult to support this bill. Too many people came to tell us in committee not to do this, that it would be a mistake, that it would be very risky. My colleague just said so, and I completely agree with him. I would also like to quote Professor Sébastien Joly of the Association provinciale des enseignants et des enseignantes du Québec, who told us that the association is convinced “that the removal of the elements of protection included in section 43, in the absence of an amendment to the Criminal Code to guarantee protections for school staff, would constitute a serious risk for teachers as well as other categories of school staff”. There is also Ms. Yetman, president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, who said the following: ...the federation cannot support this legislation passing unamended. The risk of unintended consequences that could make classrooms more unsafe is too great. Teachers need to be able to physically intervene in certain classroom situations. This is the reality of dealing with complex classrooms with complex needs. If two children are fighting in a classroom, telling them that it is not nice and asking them to sit down is not necessarily going to end the fight or prevent someone from getting hurt. Sometimes the teacher or the guardian has to intervene to separate the two parties, sit them down, ask one of them to leave the classroom or something else. There are all sorts of situations. I do not want to lecture teachers. I respect the profession far too much to think that I have anything to say about it. However, one thing is clear. These teachers are telling us that we cannot tell them that they may be subject to criminal prosecution if they approach children or put their hands on them. The courts have addressed this issue on several occasions. Members talked about that in the previous speeches. There was the Bender case in Ontario less than a year ago on December 20, 2023. A teacher was accused of assault after grabbing a student by the wrist and taking him out of class. Bender was fully acquitted by the court, which said that his actions were completely reasonable within the meaning of section 43. Let us talk about the Supreme Court. With all due respect for my NDP colleague's opinion, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. When the Supreme Court speaks, the other courts must follow, so I cannot say that it is not important. In the case of Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, the Supreme Court stated, and I quote: ...without s. 43, Canada's broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment, like placing an unwilling child in a chair for a five-minute “time-out”. 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. Yes, that was 20 years ago. It was in 2004, but it was the Supreme Court that said so. Unless the Supreme Court hands down a subsequent decision and changes its mind, the original decision still has force of law as we speak. That is how section 43 should be interpreted. Section 43 is justifiable, despite everything that can be said about it. I tabled an amendment because I am trying to reach a compromise. I think there is some merit in that. I do not want any child to be the victim of corporal punishment, obviously, and all the courts that have ruled on section 43 say the same thing, specifically that corporal punishment of the kind where one uses an object to hit a child or hits a child on the head, or hits a child under the age of two, a child who does not understand what is going on, that is pointless. Those actions are not protected under section 43. As I said at the outset, we proposed an amendment that was defeated. My amendment was kind of a fallback, a last-ditch attempt. Before that, a Conservative amendment was defeated, but a government representative also spoke to the issue. Here is what the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said in committee on April 29: I also agree with you, Mr. Fortin, because we heard some very compelling evidence from multiple teachers' groups from Quebec and from across Canada. They raised very legitimate concerns, and we need to listen to those concerns. However, I don't feel it's appropriate to address that in the context of section 43. As a result of discussions my colleagues on this side of the table and I have had with [the Minister of Justice], he has given us his assurance that he will be bringing forward separate legislation at some stage on a separate section of the Criminal Code, to address the concerns raised by teachers and in keeping with the spirit of what all the witnesses who appeared here proposed. That was a long quote. I apologize. I only wanted to show that it is not just teachers, members of Parliament or parents who think this way. Everyone, even government representatives, is concerned about the impact of simply repealing section 43 without replacing it with another provision that allows parents and other individuals exercising parental authority to use the necessary force to correct a child, to control them and to prevent them from harming themselves or another child. Obviously, it is not a question of using force to strike a child. All of this seems so reasonable to me that I wonder if we are wasting our time discussing it all. I do not mean to be rude, but I think it is a no-brainer. In any case, it seemed that way to just about every witness we heard. It should be for us as well. The bill's sponsor told us that other countries have passed similar legislation. In almost every case I looked into, those laws prohibited corporal punishment. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Hitting a child just for the sake of hitting them out of anger, for example, is unacceptable. Japan adopted an act in 2020 that states that a person exercising parental authority over a child shall not discipline the child by using corporal punishment or other measures exceeding what is strictly necessary for the child's care and education. That is what it is like around the world and it makes sense. There will not be corporal punishment. It was common 50 or 100 years ago to take a ruler and strike a child or spank their bottom to teach them a lesson or put them in their place. That is no longer done these days. Society has evolved and we know that is not how we want to raise children these days. However, preventing the use of reasonable force to correct children or to control what is happening in a classroom or at the park is going too far. It puts people at risk because they will end up in situations where children might get in a fight and teachers will look away, hoping that it will not end too badly. I do not want that. If my children or grandchildren are in a schoolyard or classroom and they are getting into a fight with other children, I am not against the idea of a teacher being able to tell the children to go sit down separately so they can calm down and talk about it later. I think we need to be very careful before we do what this bill proposes. Unless there is an amendment or at least a proposal to replace section 43 with something else in the Criminal Code, as the government representative suggested, we will unfortunately have to vote against this bill.
1438 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border