Evidence of meeting #101 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was child.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much, Mr. Levasseur and Ms. Brière.
I now give the floor to Mr. Fortin for six minutes.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses.
Mr. Levasseur, your testimony is moving. Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy for what you experienced in the past, and I am convinced that everyone agrees on that point.
That said, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I gather from your testimony is that you are opposed to the use of corporal punishment, and I think you are right.
You've probably heard from previous witnesses at this committee about how useful it is for a teacher, for example, or even a parent, to use reasonable force to control a child, to separate two children who are fighting or things like that. It seems to me that we must clearly distinguish between corporal punishment and the use of force, which may at times be necessary in the education of children, by anyone in a position of authority, be it a parent or a teacher.
I would like your opinion on that. Should we proceed with caution and make a distinction between corporal punishment, on the one hand, and the use of reasonable force to ensure the safety of children or their education on the other?
12:30 p.m.
As an Individual
First of all, I think section 43 needs to be removed because of its legacy, because it justified the use of force to correct a child.
Second, I'm a parent myself and I'm also a former correctional officer. My current life partner is a special needs teacher. So I am very aware of the reality of having children and the need to use force. I often have discussions with my partner, who sometimes needs to use force. Personally, I have reservations about that, but if it is deemed necessary, it should really be subject to a separate section of the act. My reservations are based on the fact that the Criminal Code already contains provisions governing the use of force in cases where a person presents a danger to themselves or others, disturbs the peace or presents a danger to property.
I used force as a security officer. When I was a nursing student, I worked in a hospital setting, and force was used regularly to restrain people. I have never heard of anyone being criminally charged for using force in a hospital setting. I've used force in a correctional setting many, many times. I've used it in my personal life. I even used it in civilian life. Indeed, as a citizen, you can use force to intervene in a fight or when you see a person being assaulted. I've had situations where I've had to tie someone up and detain them. I was never charged since there was no justification. Our legislation is sufficient in this area.
Now things are different in the case of a child. Let's take the case of a child with a mental disorder or a different perception of reality, such as an autistic child. If he goes onto the street and poses a danger to himself or to others, our current legislation gives someone the right to use force to protect him. However, if that same child started running in a field, where he does not pose a danger to himself or to others, and someone ran behind him and tackled him with great force, it would be a matter of debate.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I would like to discuss another sensitive issue with you, Mr. Levasseur.
You told us what a child is called in indigenous communities. That was most interesting. I don't remember the exact word, but it means “little being of light”.
This committee has studied many bills that have shown us that certain groups are currently overrepresented in our justice and penitentiary systems. I'm wondering if repealing section 43 would have an impact on that overrepresentation.
What, in particular, would be the impact on indigenous communities, of which you are a representative? I have a good idea of what you are going to tell me, but I would still like to hear your answer, Mr. Levasseur.
12:35 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't believe that there will be any overrepresentation if section 43 were repealed.
Will it enable us to do more on the prevention side or to draw a much more defined line to determine if force used on a child constitutes a violent act or if it is justified?
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I have only about 40 seconds left and I would like to address a related matter.
How will repealing section 43 lead to improvements for indigenous communities? I understand that there is a moral aspect and a whole historical context related to section 43. You've already spoken about it and we won't revisit that right now. Apart from that, how will repealing section 43 help indigenous communities at present?
12:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Apart from the legacy aspect, it's really about drawing a line to break the cycle of violence that has been established due to corporal punishment being meted out to children in Canada. Those values are still being passed on, because there is a very large grey area that allows that to happen.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'll start by thanking Mr. Levasseur for bringing his very powerful personal testimony. I think that, as parliamentarians, we don't often credit the bravery and the difficulty for people to do that, so I thank him very personally.
However, I think you've done something else very important in addition to that, and that is that you've taken us back to the first causes. Why did we ever decide that violence against children was acceptable, as non-indigenous Canadians? I'd like you to say a bit more about that difference, which you talked about in your opening statement, that causes us to say, even today, “You can't use force against adults, but with children it's somehow okay.”
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I mean the contrast between non-indigenous and indigenous approaches to that question.
12:35 p.m.
As an Individual
You have to go back to our colonial history to understand that contrast.
According to the Augustine doctrine within Christianity, Catholics baptize children at birth because they are born in a state of sinfulness. When children are born, they are seen as bad with madness in their hearts that has to be beaten out with the rod. That's what the scriptures say.
That belief was predominant across the western world. It even goes back to the Middle Ages. That legacy of the church was passed down here in America at the time of colonization.
Indigenous people had a very different vision of education and children. In the western view, parentage was very hierarchical. Everything started with the father, the woman was his subordinate and the children were the subjects of the parents, their chattel even. Instead of that triangular vision, indigenous people saw a circle. The child was seen as an awashish, which means “little being of light”. The light also represented the energy of the creator. For indigenous people, not only was the child a symbol of purity, but a child's birth was the miracle of life. The child was literally a reflection of the creator who came into this world, but he was not the creator himself. I want to make that clear so as not to offend Christians; that's not it at all. In any case, indigenous people saw purity in the child. It was not seen as a chattel.
What the residential schools did was simply take children who had been raised with a certain view of the world that was completely different from the western world view, one that had its good and bad aspects but was beautiful, and impose a new world view on them. The children were told that their ancestors were pagans, that they did not know the one true god and that they could be subjected to much corporal punishment because of the bad in them. That violence was beaten into them, just as I was imbued with violence as a child when I was hit with a stick. I was imbued with a certain view of the world, just as the children in residential schools were. Afterwards, these children returned to their communities carrying the violence they had suffered inside them.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Mr. Levasseur.
I want to turn, with the little time I have left, to Dr. Kelly and the third concern she raised about the impacts on marginalized people of repealing this section. I'm not quite sure that I understood your concern there, Dr. Kelly. Can you maybe go through that again with me?
12:40 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
Sure, absolutely.
We know that, in both the child welfare and the criminal legal system in Canada, indigenous people, racialized people, especially Black people, and poor and working-class people are overrepresented, and they're oversurveilled compared to their affluent, whiter counterparts.
The concern is not that if section 43 is repealed, in the morning we will see swaths of parents being arrested across the country, but that those who are already within more heavily surveilled systems will have these types of incidents come to the attention of state authorities and worked through the criminal legal system at some level, and that there will be gendered, racial and class elements. For instance, we know that in Ontario, 86% of cases of child maltreatment found to have been verified as of 2018 involve biological mothers, and 90% involve female carers. We also know that uses of physical discipline or non-consensual touch are more likely to occur in homes where there is greater economic stress, in single-parent households, etc.
I believe that we will likely see a continuation of these forms of inequality. I think it's important to note that, yes, this defence is a colonial one, but the entire Criminal Code is a colonial construct that was imposed in the late 19th century, and it's that part of the system that will be aimed at this kind of contact.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you, Dr. Kelly.
We will now move to our second round, with Mr. Moore for five minutes, please.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Levasseur, Mr. Lutes and Dr. Kelly, you've all given fantastic testimony today. This is a great panel. I'm sure we could go on and on, because you all have so much to offer in this discussion. We really do appreciate it.
When we look at section 43, we can look at it in the historical context, but we also, as we sit here today, have to look at the reality of what the law does and does not do here in 2024. We are dealing with section 43 now not as it is written in the code but as it has been significantly interpreted and narrowed in a leading Supreme Court of Canada case. Had the case not existed, Parliament itself may have taken similar action.
Dr. Kelly, I'll address this to you. When the bill was introduced, the proponent mentioned in their opening remarks some actions that clearly.... My view is that they fall outside the scope of section 43, but I want to get your opinion on it. An example is punching or slapping a child in the face. Do you think there's a defence in section 43 for that, as interpreted by the Supreme Court?
12:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
No, I do not.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
What about paddling a child or striking a child with an object?
12:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
No, I do not.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
What about slapping someone and leaving a bruise on their cheek?
12:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
We also know that the court narrowed the application of section 43 for correction to those who are two and over and not yet teenagers.
What about teachers administering corporal punishment? Does section 43 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in this leading decision—section 43 as it appears before us in Canadian law—allow teachers to administer corporal punishment and be protected by section 43?
12:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
April 15th, 2024 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I thank you for your quick answers, because I think that's the reality that we're dealing with here today. There was a reality before, but then there's the reality in the law, and that's what, with this private member's bill, we are vested with today.
I think I've seen some of the dangers of simply abolishing section 43 that have been highlighted. Mr. Lutes, you mentioned—and we heard previous testimony on this—the chilling effect it could have on teachers when it comes to breaking up a fight. As a parent, I find that remark kind of horrifying, when you think someone is being beaten by a classmate or by a couple of classmates. You only have to look on your social media to see that this is happening all over. It's being posted. I know you're from Nova Scotia. I'm from New Brunswick, but we're seeing this across the country and internationally. There are videos of fights at school. It's not an easy environment that teachers are in.
Can you speak to this chilling effect? What message would you as a leader be sending to your teachers if this protection was not there?