44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 18, 2024 02:00PM
- Sep/18/24 5:46:43 p.m.
- Watch
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on what is a historic occasion. The bill before us is something that has seen various configurations over the course of the last couple of decades. Many advocates for children across the country have been pushing for repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits a physical punishment of children, essentially the hitting of children, in this country. It is a section of the Criminal Code that dates back to 1892, a time when there were residential schools and a time when children were often subjected to the most egregious types of abuses.
Today, finally, we are debating now at third reading, which means that in just a few days' time, parliamentarians across the country will be called upon to finally cast a ballot, to cast their vote on behalf of their constituents, to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which dates back to 1892. This is, I believe, the 18th time that members of Parliament have submitted a bill in order for this to become a reality.
It is a historic time for parliamentarians to stand against the physical punishment of children and to stand up for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action no. 6, one of its most important calls to action. There is no more important mission or role that we have than the protection of our children in this country.
That is why it is so essential that parliamentarians who have supported the bill through second reading, through committee and now through report stage, cast that final ballot at third reading so that the bill can be sent to the other place. Then, finally, after so many years of continuing with this section in our Criminal Code, we can stand up for the children of our country.
There is no doubt about this, and it has been discussed many times; I know that members of Parliament have received letters as well from people across the country who are profoundly concerned about the impacts of physical punishment of children. The facts are the following. I want to cite what was a vast coalition of 700 organizations across this country. I will be mentioning some of the organizations in just a moment. Years ago, when they called upon Parliament to take action, they very clearly enumerated the negative impacts of physical punishment on children. In their briefs submitted to the House of Commons in Canada, to all parliamentarians, they said the following:
75% of substantiated physical abuse cases in Canada arise from incidents of physical punishment. In addition to its impact on children, physical abuse places an enormous economic burden on Canada.
Across 75 [substantial scientific] studies, even mild physical punishment predicts poorer mental health, negative parent-child relationships, lower moral internalization, increased anti-social behaviour (bullying, dating violence, peer aggression), and increased risk of violence toward intimate partners and children in adulthood.
Across 69 prospective longitudinal studies, physical punishment was found to increase child aggression and other behaviour problems over time and to place parents at risk of inflicting increasingly severe violence.
Physical punishment can undermine brain development, activating neural systems that deal with threat and reducing the volume of the areas involved in self-regulation and executive function.
They pointed out at that time, very importantly, that:
No evidence has ever been found of long-term benefits.
The psychological studies, child development studies over time and longitudinal studies over decades, are very clear that physical punishment provides for potentially huge personal and societal harm. That is why it is important for parliamentarians to send a clear signal in repealing this remnant of the 1890s that has no place in child development today and, of course, no place at all in our Criminal Code.
Other countries have gone through this debate while we have not moved forward. I wanted to cite 67 countries that have already banned physical punishment of children. That includes all of our major allies, including Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany, Ukraine, Spain, Uruguay, Portugal, New Zealand, Argentina, Ireland, South Africa, France, Japan and the Republic of Korea.
In a letter that was sent to all members of Parliament just a few days ago from Professor Joan Durrant of the University of Manitoba, she mentions that, since the time this bill was introduced until today, as we have yet to adopt this bill on third reading, three countries, namely Zambia, Laos and Tajikistan, have also banned physical punishment against children. What we are seeing internationally is a very, very clear consensus among democratic nations. I will not read the entire list, but 67 countries, largely democratic countries, have stated that physical punishment of children is absolutely inappropriate and counterproductive and does harm to the child. We must heed what has been a very clear message sent by so many organizations, not only from across the country but also internationally, on the evolution of the understanding of the harm that physical punishment does to children.
I wanted to also mention the organizations across the country that have come together, 700 of them strong, to say that it is time to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. Just to mention some of those organizations, they are the Anglican Church of Canada, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, the Canadian Association of Paediatric Health Centres, the Canadian Association of Paediatric Nurses, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Red Cross, the Children's Aid Foundation and the Coaching Association of Canada. Many of these organizations have strong reputations. They have worked in all areas of childhood welfare and childhood development for so long and are credible national organizations. They are all calling upon parliamentarians to do the right thing and adopt this bill on third reading.
As I mentioned earlier, there is the important fact that this is call to action 6 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There was the horrendous brutality that we saw in residential schools. Until call to action 6 is adopted, we cannot move forward in a way that is appropriate for truth and reconciliation. There are many calls to action that must be adopted. This one has now languished for nine years.
The Hon. Murray Sinclair, who has had a profound impact in our country, spoke to this issue back in 2017, when he rose in the Senate. This was a previous iteration of the same attempt that has been going on now for years on behalf of child advocates to move to repeal section 43. He spoke in very compelling terms. The Hon. Murray Sinclair, on Tuesday, March 7, 2017, said:
At one Indian residential school in Alberta, a teacher was charged with assaulting a student by punching him three times in the face, causing serious injury. The teacher had been convicted of assault at trial but was acquitted on appeal by a court which held that the degree of force that he used was reasonable. That case set the tone for how all children in residential schools were treated thereafter.
This is respecting section 43 of the Criminal Code.
This is something that is long overdue. If we are to heed the calls to action, and if we are to heed what we are being told by child advocates across the country, we must act at this final stage, at third reading, to adopt this important legislation.
I want to mention a couple of the voices that have risen across this country to support the bill.
Dr. Tracie Afifi, who is the director at Childhood Adversity and Resilience at the University of Manitoba, said:
Evidence collected over the past two decades and published in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, has demonstrated that [spanking] is harmful to children and has no known benefits.
This research has consistently shown [spanking] to be a significant risk factor for injury, poor parent-child relationships...aggression, antisocial behaviour, slower cognitive development, emotional disorders including anxiety and depression, physical health problems, substance use, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts and violence in intimate relationships later in life....
It is our duty to protect our children from unnecessary harm and give them the best chance to live happy and healthy lives that are free from violence. This starts with the repeal of section 43.
In closing, I would like to talk about the importance of passing this bill at third reading.
A number of organizations are calling on members to vote in favour of this bill, including the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec, the Association des médecins en protection de l'enfance du Québec, and the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance au Québec. These Quebec organizations are calling on all members to vote in favour of removing section 43 from the Criminal Code.
The fact that this bill responds to call to action 6 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada illustrates just how important it is for us to take this final step. There have been 18 attempts over the years to get this legislation passed. That is 18 times that the voices of children and educators across the country, who have been very clear about the importance of taking this step, have been ignored.
This time, now that we are at third reading, it is extremely important that we pass this bill and that we join 67 other countries in the world, including France, Japan, South Korea and Germany, most of which are democratic countries. We need to follow their example on this. What is more, all the studies that have been done over the years show the negative consequences of legalizing the physical punishment of children. We need to outlaw this behaviour, which is currently allowed under the Criminal Code.
This is the final step. It has been a journey that has been going on for years. It is important. Across this country, parents and educators are looking for Parliament to show leadership to repeal an aspect of the colonial past, 1892, when we forced indigenous children into residential schools and permitted, often, physical punishment and cruelty.
Now, nine years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission asked parliamentarians and the government to take action and to repeal section 43, we have the opportunity to do that. I hope all members of Parliament will join together and that we will enact call to action 6 and pass the legislation before us.
1792 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
