- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to wish my daughter Naomie a happy second birthday and tell her that mommy loves her very much. It is a bit in keeping with the theme of the bill before us, since we are talking about children, and I am certain she is paying close attention right now.
Some bills are tricky to explain, especially when they are about children, and particularly given that, in Quebec, we are crazy about our kids. That being said, I want to state from the outset that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-273 to prevent it from being studied in committee. I will begin by explaining why we made this decision. I will then describe the context surrounding this bill and, finally, I will explain why it is a bad idea masquerading as a good one.
First of all, the Bloc Québécois is once again advocating a balanced position on this sensitive issue. We are going to be the adults in the room. As such, we believe that the law must include reasonable defence mechanisms to help maintain public confidence in our rule of law.
The bill essentially aims to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which provides a defence to parents as well as teachers if they use reasonable force to correct a child. This could be described as child discipline and parental discipline.
Section 43 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.” That is clearly stated.
Second, as we have seen in the media, a movement has taken off in recent years. This movement calls for an end to all forms of corporal punishment of children and young people, including the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code. A number of stakeholders and groups like Corinne's Quest have expressed their support for the idea that parliamentarians should remove this provision from the legal framework once and for all. Initiatives with that goal have been introduced in the House of Commons and the Senate as recently as 2022.
It is important to recall that, in 2004, the Supreme Court considered the issue and upheld the constitutionality of section 43. It can be used as a defence to charges of assaulting a child. To avoid legal pitfalls, we believe it remains relevant to the exercise of parental or teaching authority, as long as it is reasonable.
In Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, the highest court interpreted section 43 of the Criminal Code. Section 43 was challenged on the basis of sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantee the right to security of the person and the right to equality respectively, but it was not struck down because the protection it offers is limited. As a result, it does not exclude the possibility of charges being brought and possibly even criminal sanctions being imposed when excessive force is used against a child.
As soon as that force becomes anything more than transitory or trifling force to control the behaviour of a child or as soon as it becomes harmful or degrading for the child, then the protection offered under section 43 no longer applies and the behaviour in question can be considered criminal. This protection is exercised reasonably and the circumstances are taken into account. The Supreme Court found that force may not involve objects, such as rulers or belts, and it may not be applied to the child's head.
The removal of section 43 from the Criminal Code would mean criminalizing the normal behaviour of parents who are trying to put their child to bed and of teachers who have to physically control a child to remove them from the classroom or take them out of a dangerous situation, such as a fight.
Without a protection mechanism, prosecutors can still exercise their discretion to prosecute or not. However, once charged, parents and teachers would lose legal recognition of the educational role they play, which could justify these behaviours. Psychology has shown that removing this legal recognition can have consequences.
Third, the NDP's Bill C‑273 is an all-or-nothing proposal: either repeal section 43 or not. The fact that the NDP is unwilling to compromise when it comes to justifying actions intended to physically control a child or youth stems from its ideology.
An example of a compromise would have been to repeal section 43 but to add a new provision that indicates that the behaviour cannot be criminalized if the force is used to protect the child from a threat or danger, to prevent the child from committing a crime, or when performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good parenting.
The NDP's proposal is not the good idea that it appears to be. With the rise in violence in our schools, we cannot take away the few protective measures that teachers have at a time when they need to manage students who are less and less respectful of authority. Criminalizing by default force that is used to reasonably control a misbehaving student does nothing to encourage efforts to recruit educators.
That is a very real issue right now. For example, a Radio-Canada article written by Alexandre Duval last year stated that in 2021, “education centres in Quebec reported twice as many violent acts as in 2018-2019, before the pandemic”. There is no denying that increase, and we cannot add to teachers' mental burden by increasing the risk of lawsuits and taking away their ability to intervene if situations get out of hand. The article states the following:
At the Centre de services scolaires des Affluents in Lanaudière, reports of physical and verbal violence more than doubled over the same period, from 757 to over 2,000. This represents an increase of 164%. A comparable increase of 141% occurred in cases reported at the Centre de services scolaires de la Beauce-Etchemin. Just over 400 violent acts were reported in 2021, compared with 979 last year.
I would like to share a personal story. Before I was elected, because I love children so much, I was lucky enough to work as a monitor in an elementary school, where I had to deal with various situations. I had a ball thrown at my face, which broke my glasses. I saw children in crisis attacking their classmates. This was clearly a safety issue for the student involved and for the others. That is to say nothing of all the times I walked into a classroom and the teacher was trying to get some of the more unruly students under control. I witnessed some pretty disturbing scenes.
This bill would make it difficult for staff to intervene. In fact, I myself would have had concerns about intervening to restore a sense of security in such situations. We have to be extremely careful because the law already exists and we cannot use excessive force on a child. We obviously do not want to harm a child. Earlier I mentioned the 2004 ruling on section 43.
The research I did in preparation for this speech also led me to a report from the Institut national de santé publique du Québec that focused on violence and health and addressed the issue of bullying and violence at school. Violence can occur between students as well. Staff have to be able to take reasonable action if the other students are in danger.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois believes that our schools can be safe places for everyone and that our teachers play a key role in preserving a harmonious environment that is conducive to learning. We need to have a legal framework that is respectful of parental and teaching authority, provided it is used reasonably. It is a matter of education, but also of safety. As I was saying earlier, it is also a matter of knowing how we want to intervene with children, but it needs to be done reasonably. That is why we are voting against Bill C‑273. Again, the NDP is proposing an idea that is not as good as it seems and that might end up criminalizing the behaviour of parents and teachers who are acting in good faith.
I would like to point out one last thing. We all want the best education for our children, but we need to keep the tools that we have for taking action and protecting them. No one wants to use excessive force against a child. If there is a problem, then we want the justice system to be able to do its work. What we are seeing right now is that there are risks involved in repealing section 43. There is the risk of additional pressure on staff and the risk of error on the part of some parents. For all of these reasons, once again, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill, which addresses this extremely sensitive issue. Let us remember that, first and foremost, we want to make children's welfare a top priority for elected officials in the House.
1600 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S‑210. Before I begin, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We are in favour of it being studied at committee so that we can have a more in-depth discussion to ensure that we protect minors, which is a major public safety challenge. The Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with initiatives to strengthen protection of the public, particularly for minors.
Introduced by Julie Miville‑Dechêne, the independent senator with whom I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, Bill S‑210 seeks to put in place safeguards to restrict minors' access to sexually explicit material on the Internet. I will begin with an overview of the issue, then I will further explain the Bloc Québécois's position, and finally I will close with examples of other support for Bill S‑210.
First, let us note that making sexually explicit material available to minors for commercial purposes is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to $250,000. This makes it a criminal offence for organizations to make this type of content available to young people. The term “organization” echoes the definition in section 2 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, the Federal Court could order that websites contravening the law be blocked. The definition of “organization” includes any public body, body corporate, society, company, firm, partnership or association of persons that is created for a common purpose, has an operational structure and holds itself out to the public as an association of persons. This makes it possible to directly target commercial pornography distributors.
The bill is motivated by a concern to better supervise access to sexually explicit material online, as age verification is currently limited to a simple declaration. Under Bill S‑210, pornographic sites will be required to verify the age of their users. The bill essentially replicates Bill S‑203, which was sponsored by the same senator. That bill died on the Order Paper at the end of the 43rd Parliament, and now the senator is trying again.
The digital landscape our young people have grown up with makes it easy to view degrading and even extreme content that normalizes the objectification of women and dominant relationships. This type of video and image content is available on platforms owned by companies that do not fulfill any meaningful requirement to ensure that the people viewing it are adults. It would be unrealistic to entrust companies that disseminate pornographic content with verifying the age of the individuals accessing it. Bill S‑210 would assign that responsibility to a third party, an intermediary designated by regulations.
With the emergence of computer technology that enables parties to disseminate and access sexually explicit content, the government has a responsibility to prevent minors from accessing it, as much as possible. Given the obscene nature of this material and the harmful impact on young people's brain development, things cannot be kept in check by self-regulation alone. Bill S‑210 lays out broad principles for verifying the age of people accessing pornographic content in order to prevent those under 18 from accessing it. Once this bill is passed, it will provide authority to make regulations prescribing the specific methods to achieve that.
Bill S-210 will also have consequences for pornographic sites, whether hosted on Canadian soil or not, that might contravene it. The government will be able to block sites that fail to comply with future regulations on age verification. Let us not forget that the minimum age to view pornographic films is 18.
Obviously, I am not a magician and I do not have a magic wand. No one can ignore the fact that this bill is not a silver bullet. A minor who wants to view pornography illegally could resort to circumvention methods like virtual private networks and so on to get around the age validation mechanisms. I remain realistic and I am not naive. However, even if Bill S-210 does not turn out to be the silver bullet that completely eradicates this scourge, there is a good chance that it will have beneficial effects and further restrict access for minors. In that respect, the objective will be met.
Second, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois will always support measures that seek to protect the public and promote a healthy lifestyle. Bill S-210 responds to a real concern in our communities. The Bloc Québécois reacted when disturbing revelations were made about MindGeek's Internet Pornhub, which is one of the most popular pornographic sites in Canada and well-known in Quebec, since the company is based in Montreal. We knew that data was being collected on the most popular video categories, common themes in video titles and the best-known actors in the adult film industry. While the United States held an inquiry and other parts of the world, including Europe, are considering this issue and taking action, Canada has been slow to act.
There is data confirming that access to explicit material is harmful if it ends up in the hands of minors, particularly young girls. With femicide and violence against women on the rise, our society has a duty to restrict access—to the greatest extent possible—to explicit content that is said to promote such violence.
In fact, we are just a few days away from the sad commemoration of the Polytechnique femicide, which occurred on December 6, 1989. I recently heard on the radio that there are still people today who worship Marc Lépine and wish women dead. It is chilling. Misogyny still exists. Keep in mind that many cities are passing motions to declare gender-based violence an epidemic and to pressure legislators to act on it within their respective jurisdictions.
Third, other groups also support this bill. Many stakeholders and civil society groups, including the Association des pédiatres du Québec, support the initiative embodied by Bill S-210. Allowing young minors to be exposed to pornography has consequences. Viewing pornography early in life has extremely negative effects, including the inability to develop healthy relationships. These young people can also develop a misconception that women and girls are sexual objects, available for sex 24-7, with no consent required. Worse still, it can create a dependency on pornography. In some cases, this can even lead to financial problems that can ruin lives, because pornography is not free. In fact, the industry is highly lucrative.
This proposal therefore crosses party lines and will likely receive support from all political parties represented in the House of Commons. This is no trivial matter.
It is also important to know that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying the trafficking of women, girls and gender-diverse people. Although we may not be able to comment yet on the committee's eventual findings, many stakeholders pointed out in their briefs that human trafficking is closely linked to pornography and the coercive relationships that pimps maintain with their victims in order to get them to perform sex acts.
In the studies that follow our committee, from the study on intimate partner violence to the one on change of culture in sport, the concept of educating young men and women constantly comes up when we talk about preventing all forms of violence. In particular, this includes the need to offer an education on healthy sexuality.
For young girls, mental health problems are exacerbated by the pressure they feel from seeing manipulated, even degrading, images of the female body and sexuality that are projected by pornography. They may even end up being subjected to unwanted sexual acts that are dangerous to their health and unsafe for their body. By its very nature, Bill S‑210 will help curb the dissemination of pornography on the Internet and protect the victims from the humiliating exposure of illegal material.
The bill will make organizations accountable and subject them to a new offence if they make such content available. This will give victims an additional tool to help them reclaim their dignity and punish their abusers. We have also been hearing that young women are often filmed without their knowledge and that those images are being posted when the young women are not even aware that they have been filmed. It is really worrisome to see so many images that were taken without consent being freely shared on the Internet.
In closing, Bill S-210 is important to create tools to ensure that women, children and girls are protected from the negative effects of early exposure to pornographic images online. As a new mother, I must admit that I worry about the future of my daughter, and I truly hope that, unlike me, she will never have to say “me too”. We need to do something about the femicides that the Secretary General of the United Nations described as a shadow pandemic. This problem was exacerbated by overexposure to the Internet during the pandemic. It created all sorts of problems, including these ones. We need to take action so that we can say collectively, “not one more”.
1588 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in addition to discussing public safety, my colleague addressed the issue of national security by talking about the armed forces and commenting on that.
I would like to know whether he agrees that beyond the issue of national security, there is a blind spot in this bill, namely the matter of preserving our economic levers. I would like to know what he thinks because we have some head offices to protect.
How does this bill respond, or fail to respond, to my colleague's expectations when it comes to further protecting our economic levers?
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we Quebeckers have worked really hard to protect supply management. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in particular has taken up that fight. The minister seemed to be saying this morning that supply-managed sectors would be excluded and therefore protected. There is definitely a lack of transparency. There are still many aspects of this bill that are worrisome.
Can my colleague reiterate the importance of making the risk of prosecution the same for multinationals as for countries? What does he think should be done next to ensure that we get our fair share and that we can monitor the government's lack of transparency?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I fully agree with my colleague.
My colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, who is the fisheries critic, surely has something to say about protecting marine species. She has already made a presentation explaining the importance of enhancing protections for these protected species. She is lobbying for greater protection.
We in the Bloc Québécois really believe that we will need to think about these marine protected areas and create much more robust provisions, particularly in committee. If not, it means we are not serious about meeting this 30% target.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a little ironic to hear the government, and even the NDP in its questions, boasting about the much-vaunted 30% protected areas when the Liberal government itself authorized exploratory drilling in a marine refuge it created.
How credible is the government when it comes to protecting and conserving oceans and endangered species? I have my doubts.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to disclosure of information to victims. I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑320. This bill is an essential measure to ensure greater transparency in our justice system and to strengthen our fight to end violence against women and girls.
As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I was involved in the study on domestic violence in the fall of 2021. Sadly, as I listened to the extensive committee testimony, I realized that we live in a world where violence against women and girls is all too common. These abhorrent acts leave indelible scars that prevent many people from achieving their full potential. That is why we have a duty to take firm action and send a loud and clear message that we will no longer tolerate it. I would like to explain a little more about the Bloc Québécois's position. I will then talk about the progress made in Quebec. I will conclude by talking about other initiatives that will need to be monitored and analyzed, with the aim of working to end this scourge once and for all.
First, the Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with its commitment to supporting initiatives that keep women safe and that address violence against women. We believe that victims have everything to gain from getting as much information as possible about their assailant and the situation surrounding the assailant's parole, when applicable. Our position is therefore in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-233. Let us remember that that bill amended the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device, also known as an electronic bracelet. The Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and strengthen the relationship of trust between the public and our institutions.
Bill C‑320 essentially seeks to amend the Criminal Code to enable victims of an offence to be given an explanation about how certain decisions were made about their assailant. This includes, for example, the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole. It would strengthen the justice system to have a mechanism that would give victims access to additional information about their assailant's situation and the decisions being made about their assailant.
Second, over the past few years, Quebec has positioned itself as a world leader in enhancing victim protections and strengthening victims' trust in the justice system. For example, the Government of Quebec has launched a pilot project to create courts specializing in sexual assault cases in certain courthouses, like the one in Granby, in my riding of Shefford. It also launched a pilot project requiring electronic monitoring devices to keep victims and their abusers apart, which has been a success and has been deployed across the province. These advancements meet the objective of recognizing how vulnerable victims of an offence are and putting all the tools at their disposal so they can be safe. This way, the justice system can evolve and adapt to better serve the needs of victims of crime.
In an effort to be consistent, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑320. If it passes, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence. The justice system has to be more effective and transparent, not just to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant, but also to strengthen public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report it to the police, which still happens far too often, unfortunately.
Statistics show that there has been a spike in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. We all know that this situation was exacerbated during the pandemic. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this troubling trend. The reality on the ground highlights the gaps, including the status quo in the justice system: Many victims continue to fear their assailant, even while that person is being detained. We can only applaud an initiative that seeks to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the process, starting from the moment she decides to file a report.
I believe that we could work on this bill without too much partisan bickering, because I fully expect that Conservative members will support this bill to further punish offenders and above all to restore victims' confidence in the justice system, which the Conservatives often say is soft on crime.
The member for Oshawa, who is the sponsor, says he presented the bill to empower victims and their families to obtain more accurate and timely information about the court's decisions concerning their assailant. In his opinion, too many victims and their families have been surprised to learn the assailant was released early, well before 25 years were served, for example.
It would seem that the Liberal caucus is also in favour of this bill to increase transparency in the judicial process. The same goes for the NDP caucus, which believes that this bill could possibly increase transparency in the judicial process.
Third, I will also be monitoring the implementation of the recommendations in the report “Rebâtir la confiance”, a report produced in Quebec that seeks to address violence against women in a targeted and non-partisan way. It recommends the creation of a special court, which I spoke about in the first part of my speech.
In fact, a member of the Quebec National Assembly, the MNA for Sherbrooke, recently contacted me to suggest that we look into the notion of coercive control, which could broaden the possibilities of action in the face of domestic violence.
I fully intend to listen to women's groups and to the requests coming from elected officials in Quebec City, who are also asking that this issue be addressed at the federal level, since it falls under the Criminal Code. That is why I will be going back to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with the following motion: that the committee undertake a study on coercive behaviour, with an emphasis on studying countries or jurisdictions around the world that have already passed legislation on this issue.
The concept of coercive control was first introduced by American researcher Evan Stark, who has proposed a shift away from an understanding of domestic violence based essentially on acts of violence and visible signs of abuse. Although considerable efforts have been made in recent years to ensure the recognition of forms of violence other than physical violence, including psychological violence and harassment, domestic abuse still tends to be regarded as acts of violence committed by an individual.
As an alternative, the concept of coercive control advocates an understanding of the complex dynamics that enable abusers to establish and maintain control over their partners or former partners. This should lead to a better assessment of domestic violence situations and the risks they pose to the safety of women and children.
Coercive control was recently introduced into the criminal codes of England and Scotland.
The concept of coercive control makes it possible to analyze female victims' accounts in their entirety before looking for a discrete incident that corresponds to a particular offence. It highlights the different techniques an abuser may use to maintain power and control, because violence is not always about hitting, but it always hurts.
If we want to take serious action, these two measures, namely specialized courts and coercive control, should be examined carefully. We must also remember that lack of housing has repercussions on women's ability to regain power and on their opportunities to break the cycle of vulnerability that keeps them in a cycle of violence.
In conclusion, by strengthening the ties between victims and judicial institutions, we are providing a meaningful response to the insecurity that many victims experience.
To come back to the bill that is before us today, this bill would be a valuable tool, one more tool to help us stop violence against women and girls, but it will not fix everything. At least it will make information on the possible release of offenders available to victims, so that they are better able to protect themselves and take the necessary steps to keep themselves safe.
In the long term, this measure could help prevent further acts of violence by giving victims a way to report any suspicious activity to the proper authorities.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations recently referred to violence against women as the shadow pandemic. Let us therefore ensure that victims have as much information as possible so that they can get into the light and break the cycle of violence.
I would be remiss if I did not mention an absolutely wonderful meeting that I had last week. My colleague from Mirabel invited me to meet a group of students from Oka Secondary School, who came to Ottawa to read me their plea to stop femicide and to implement effective public policies to keep women and girls safe.
I want to commend them for that. They were heard. I will share their plea and try to find ways to be their ally in this fight against violence against women and girls. I thank them.
1687 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for her love of French. She is improving. That is great. I love having discussions with her.
I think I demonstrated that there has been a great deal of misinformation about this bill.
I remember the sarcastic intervention by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert when he said that after listening to the Conservatives, he had to agree with their arguments.
The Conservatives claim that we now have a system that imposes things on us, controls information and might well drift into allowing excessive control over what is broadcast.
I showed that compared to the former Bill C‑10, clause 4.1 of this bill adds protection against that. I would remind members that the bill includes a provision requiring a five‑year review of the legislation. We could therefore monitor the progress of the situation.
In this specific case, I believe that this worry is unfounded. We have shown that there is a protection mechanism in the bill. This does not infringe on freedom of expression; Canada has not become a dictatorship that tells people what they can say, do, think or broadcast. That is really pathetic.
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague briefly touched on why this bill is important for cases relating to intimate partner violence. As the status of women critic, I am participating in the committee's study of a report on what goes on in certain intimate partner violence situations. The goal is to figure out how to reduce intimate partner violence.
One aspect of the bill I want to focus on is the immediate revocation of a licence for anyone under a protection order or involved in an act of intimate partner violence or harassment. That is obviously essential, but we cannot just tackle physical violence.
How can we expand the scope to emotional violence in order to include what is known as coercive control, a much broader concept of intimate partner violence? That is what I am getting from this measure. Is that what the member is getting as well?
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
