Bill C-273

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne’s Quest and the protection of children)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to repeal a provision that authorizes the correction of a child by force if certain criteria are met.

Justice and Human Rights

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C‑273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne's Quest and the protection of children).

The committee studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I agree 100% with Mr. Fortin on the need to hear from the minister. There's recognition by the Supreme Court that simply eliminating section 43 puts teachers and parents at risk. There's an acknowledgement from the Minister of Justice, apparently. We've heard through Mr. Maloney and the parliamentary secretary that he, too, recognizes there is risk in eliminating section 43. He has, we understand, suggested he would be bringing in legislation. For us to properly proceed on this private member's bill requires us to know what that legislation looks like. It also requires us to know the timing around the coming into force of this legislation and the other legislation, should they both pass.

I want to make one thing 100% clear: This bill is extremely problematic. There has been much concern raised by committee members and especially by witnesses and the Supreme Court. We had a big surprise dropped on us on Monday when we heard that the Minister of Justice acknowledges that this is a problematic bill and will be bringing in, presumably, government legislation. I agree that we should, as we scheduled, quickly move to our study on anti-Semitism on Monday. This bill is not ready. The committee has not heard from the minister. The committee has not heard from departmental officials on the content of the new justice legislation that may be coming to respond to the fallout from this bill.

I want to make it extremely clear that we should be moving on, on Monday, regardless of what happens with Bill C-273, which is a flawed bill that's out of touch with teachers and parents in this country. Regardless of what happens with it, we need to move on with our agenda. Our agenda should be that, on Monday, we begin Mr. Housefather's study on anti-Semitism. Look at your phone, look at the headlines and turn on the television. You will see that this is a massive issue across the country right now. That's why we have agreed as a committee, unanimously, to study Mr. Housefather's motion. I believe we should be studying Mr. Housefather's motion on Monday.

I think we should all be in agreement on that.

Madam Chair, I am moving a motion at this time that we begin our study on Mr. Housefather's motion on anti-Semitism on Monday and Thursday of next week.

Thank you.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Considering the answers I've just received from the witnesses, I'd like to hear from the Minister of Justice on the subject. We're preparing to make what I think will be a difficult a decision. We're told that the minister is working on something that should reassure us. I hope he is, and I want nothing more than to be reassured. I want to vote, as does everyone who's in favour of this, but I don't feel I can do so right now.

Could we ask the Minister of Justice to come and meet with the committee for 30 to 45 minutes at our next meeting, before we vote on Bill C-273?

At this stage, the minister's intentions are a decisive factor in our vote on Bill C‑273. The bill concerns one part of the problem, whereas we're told that what the minister is preparing to do concerns the essence of what section 43 protects and what we wish to protect. The committee might vote unanimously if the minister came and explained to us what he's working on.

I don't know if that's possible, but that's my proposal. I propose that we suspend the vote until our next meeting and that the minister come and meet with us for half an hour at the start of the meeting to explain to us what he's working on and to attempt, if possible, to reconcile us all.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

All right.

My next question is for both of you.

We're in a situation where the bill will probably be adopted, for numerical reasons. The Liberal and NDP members of this committee decided to join forces in support of Bill C-273 and told us that the Minister of Justice would be introducing something to reassure us.

What do you think we can expect? How can the minister bring back the dead, or salvage something from the wreckage? Where in the Criminal Code could we insert a provision to put the pieces back together—that's perhaps the appropriate expression—by re‑establishing the fact that it's legitimate for persons who exercise parental authority to make reasonable use of force to control children in the context of their upbringing? Could we do that? Do you have an idea how?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

As I understand it, Bill C-273 would repeal section 43 for fear that it might permit violence that has never previously been allowed. In fact, the Supreme Court has previously held that section 43 did not permit violence such as that committed in these dramatic cases from the dark history of Canada. I'm talking here about violence committed in schools against both indigenous and other persons, although call to action number 6, in particular, concerns indigenous persons.

The purpose of Bill C‑273 is to repeal section 43, but, and I apologize for speaking bluntly, it would be pointless for us to do so because, at any event, what we fear may occur isn't even possible, from what I can understand. What's more, that would then leave persons who exercise parental authority in a situation where, based on your testimony, they would have to offset the absence of section 43 by using common law defences or other sections of the Criminal Code. Once interpreted, those sections could offset the absence resulting from the repealing of section 43. That's roughly the case, isn't it?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

First you told me that Bill C-273 was based on the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That report, and particularly call to action number 6, concerned situations at indigenous residential schools. You explained that to me, and I understand it. The concern is that section 43 will normalize—and I'm using the expression you employed—cases of violence against indigenous children.

No one doubts this has happened; that's not my point. However, I'd like to know if there are any case law examples of courts that, relying on what's permitted under section 43, found that it was proper and acceptable for a teacher or a person exercising some sort of authority at a school attended by indigenous children to act in a physically or sexually violent manner toward them. Are there any examples where those kinds of acts were held to be acceptable as a result of the existence of section 43?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

All right, thank you.

Now I'm going to ask another question.

Both you and I have listened to the debate that we've had on this matter in the past two days. Our Liberal Party colleague told us that the minister will be working hard to table a bill to correct the deficiencies of Bill C-273 by restoring some power to persons who exercise parental authority so they can make reasonable use of force in the control and upbringing of children. I imagine there are various ways to do that.

As you can see, the idea of repealing section 43 is a concern for the moment. Parents and teachers fear they may be put in the somewhat awkward position of not really knowing what will happen to them. I would like to try to clarify that with you if I may.

First of all, when we refer to a person who exercises parental authority, we're talking about a teacher or a parent. If a teacher or parent intervenes in a fight between two children, and, obviously, uses force to separate them, could that person be subject to criminal charges?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask the witnesses some questions, if that's possible.

I understand that Bill C-273, the purpose of which is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, is a response to call to action number 6 of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. That's virtually the only reason we have this bill before us.

Would you please explain more clearly the purpose of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, I think my Conservative colleagues have said very well some of the really important reasons that, unless CPC-1 is passed, this would be an extremely dangerous direction to go in. If I had to sum it up, it's that government knows best. Families, teachers, they don't know what they're doing, but this Liberal government does.

I want to be very clear about a couple of things for Canadians who are interested in this legislation. Section 43 applies only to teachers and parents, so when we are talking about eliminating the defence contained in section 43, we're talking about eliminating it for only teachers and parents.

I have to mention, Madam Chair, that since 2015, murders are up 43% in Canada, which is the highest rate in 30 years; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%; sexual assaults are up 71%; sex crimes against children are up 126%. With that as a backdrop, the crisis Canadians are facing with crime, in rural and urban areas, is affecting all of us. We're here today talking about a bill that would criminalize the actions of loving parents and caring teachers—teachers who are trying to have a safe classroom and parents who are trying to raise their children to be upstanding Canadians and citizens.

You don't have to take my word for it. We had witness testimony from the Teachers' Federation, from experienced classroom teachers, who said to us at this committee that, without the protection of section 43, when there is physical conflict in their classroom such as two students beating up on another student, the advice given to teachers would be to not intervene. Now, some teachers may intervene, but it will now be at their peril. Why? Because the passage of this private member's bill would eliminate a defence that is available to only parents and teachers.

When it comes to parents, individuals have tried to minimize the impact of repealing section 43. I will quote directly from the 2004 Supreme Court decision that specifically studied and dealt with a challenge to the constitutionality of section 43. In that leading Supreme Court of Canada decision, number one, the constitutionality of section 43 was upheld, so this measure in the Criminal Code, section 43, is no doubt constitutional; number two, it applies to only parents and teachers; and number three, the Supreme Court narrowed in and provided advice on what that defence includes.

It's extremely troubling to me that, when the proponent and sponsor of the bill was here at committee, all of the examples he used as to why this bill is necessary are not covered by section 43: They're outside the protections of section 43. He used the example of a student being punched in the face. The Supreme Court said specifically that hitting someone in the face is not protected by section 43. He used the example of someone being struck with an object multiple times. Again, the Supreme Court said specifically that hitting someone with an object is not protected by section 43. The example was used of pushing someone down the stairs. Again, these are ridiculous examples of clear abuse that all of us are against. I don't think there's anyone around this table who thinks someone should be able to push someone down the stairs. The Supreme Court of Canada doesn't believe someone should be able to push someone down the stairs. This is the basis on which this private member's bill was brought forward. It's completely based on misinformation, but the consequences are real.

I want to read directly from Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the majority in this 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which they warned Parliament 20 years ago that, if they remove section 43, parents would be criminalized and families would be ripped apart.

In that decision, and I'm quoting directly, this “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.”

So the ruling of the Supreme Court is that if section 43 does not exist, it will lead to families being broken up. That's a pretty strong statement by the court. It is why CPC-1, our amendment, would fully implement and codify the ruling of the Supreme Court and the definitions they've applied to section 43, the parameters they've put around section 43, and the very constitutional findings that were made in that decision.

Madam Chair, myself and my colleagues stand against Bill C-273. It strips away the rights of teachers and of parents, it interferes in families and in classrooms, it's major government overreach and, in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada's leading decision, it risks breaking up families.

I would conclude my remarks there except to say what happened on Monday was extremely extraordinary. I've been a member of Parliament for quite some time. I can't recall a time before where we were dealing with a private member's bill that, if passed, would have the same effect in law as any piece of government legislation, and we find out at the last minute, as we're dealing with this bill: don't worry, we recognize there's a consequence to passing this bill and there's going to be government legislation. One, that may or may not happen. Two, what does the government legislation look like? We have no idea. Does it apply only to parents? Does it apply only to teachers? Is it expansive enough to protect teachers and parents from the impact and the fallout of the passage of Bill C-273?

This is not a proper way for us to conduct ourselves, as parliamentarians. I think we have to look at the legislation before us. We have to look at it and its impact in its entirety if we were to pass it. I urge members around this table, for the protection of parents and teachers, to pass CPC-1. But if we were to pass this bill without the Conservative amendment, it would put teachers and parents, and by extension children, at risk.

I'm speaking in favour of CPC-1 and speaking strongly against Bill C-273 unless it is amended.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've had a chance to reflect on all the information that was brought forward in the meetings but especially in the Monday meeting.

Let me share with you the conclusions I've come to.

First, I went back and read the truth and reconciliation report and recommendation 6. In there, it was clear that the concerns expressed were to make sure that children didn't experience violence and that they didn't experience abuse. Certainly they were opposed to corporal punishment. Those were the clear points.

The last residential school closed in 1996, so the 2004 Supreme Court decision narrowed to what I think is the balance that would prevent the exact things that people who experienced horrible things in residential schools were worried about. Violence is illegal already. Assault and abuse are already illegal.

We've seen, from the narrow definition that the Supreme Court has put in, which is in our CPC amendment, that you're not allowed to use instruments—belts, rulers, that kind of thing—to hit a child and all of these protections that I think people were looking for.

The second thing I would say is that it was announced that the Minister of Justice saw a problem if we removed section 43 and didn't put back protections for parents and teachers. He sees that as an issue, and he has promised to come with legislation where they will put that protection in a different part of the Criminal Code.

This is problematic to me because, first of all, we haven't seen that legislation. We don't know what the timing of that legislation is. I don't think we can remove protections that are key without putting them back in.

Certainly, there is no way that we could approve this bill and know that we are removing protections for parents and teachers, protections that I would say have served us well. Since the Supreme Court came with this narrow decision, there have not been a lot of frivolous cases brought, and there have not been people who hugely objected to the interpretation here.

Until such time as the government comes forward with a bill that would add that protection somewhere else and remove it in section 43, I cannot, in good conscience, support Bill C-273.

We've heard lots of testimony from teachers, and I've certainly heard from parents across the country who believe in the use of reasonable force in the raising of their children and in protecting children, one from the other, as they get into their various scuffles. This is where I've landed after sombre reflection.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity as the newest member of the justice and human rights committee to share my perspective on why I will be voting against Bill C-273, unless we adopt amendment CPC-1.

CPC-1 addresses my primary concern, one that I've heard from many people, which is that Bill C-273 does not recognize or respect parental rights. Parental rights deserve recognition just as teacher safety does in any consideration of this bill and any consideration of section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code. We have heard from many parents who are concerned about their place being completely excluded, undermined, disrespected and disregarded by the current Liberal government.

It's not hard to see why many moms and dads might feel that way. At the very top of the Liberal government there is a Prime Minister who has said quite clearly that he does not respect or recognize parental rights. In fact, last year in a conversation with Muslim parents, he said that parents who are concerned about their rights and parenting their children are being influenced by misinformation and disinformation by the American right wing. These comments could have been made just as easily to Christian parents, Jewish parents, Hindu parents or Sikh parents. It is a fundamental disrespect that the Prime Minister has for the rights of moms and dads.

It's not just the Liberal Party that has this chronic ideological problem. We have a member of our committee here from the NDP, Mr. Randall Garrison, who also said less than a year ago that there's no such thing as parental rights in Canada. This is not just morally incorrect; it is also factually incorrect. The most relevant Supreme Court of Canada decision on section 43 of the Criminal Code says quite clearly that the legislative purpose behind section 43 is parental rights. It is not an American right-wing idea. It is a Canadian idea recognized by our highest court in the land and recognized as an important objective behind section 43.

This is why we call the current government the NDP-Liberal government. It's quite obvious that these parties work together on ideological objectives that seem completely inconsistent with what the vast majority of Canadians actually want from their government. As a member of this committee, it is not hard for me to understand why so many moms and dads are concerned.

It's important we point out that without amendment 1 from the Conservative Party, we would actually be continuing the allowance of an ideological agenda that seems hell-bent on the marginalization of moms and dads in raising their children.

I'd also like to share a statement from a member of the Muskowekwan First Nation, a granddaughter of a residential school survivor, who responded to these concerns about parental rights when Liberal labour minister Seamus O'Regan was going on one of his famous tangents against Canadian parents. Ms. Mbarki said, “I am always very skeptical when the federal government gets involved in saying how parents should parent. Have we forgotten about residential schools? The 60's scoop? Off reserve child and family services? The system saw us as savages who couldn't/can't parent.”

This ugly side of our history is precisely why so many people are bothered, why so many people are concerned when the federal government and politicians in Ottawa treat moms and dads like they know better. When moms and dads are marginalized in important conversations about child protection and raising children, it is completely unacceptable.

For that reason, I cannot support Bill C-273 unless amendment CPC-1 is adopted. I highly encourage all members of this committee to reconsider how they are treating parents in our country right now and to consider amendment CPC-1 as a way that we may restore the place of moms and dads in this important conversation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for being here this morning.

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 103 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 14, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to continue its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code, Corinne’s Quest and the protection of children.

Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I have a few instructions. I believe I read them last time, but I'm required to read again about avoiding audio feedback. Before we begin, I would like to remind members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures. To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.

As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black whereas the former earpieces were gray. Please only use a black, approved earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting.

When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down in the middle of the sticker for this purpose that you will find on the table. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece. These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Thank you for your co-operation.

For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard.

I now want to welcome back our witnesses from the justice department who will help us with technical questions on Bill C-273 . We have Matthias Villetorte, senior counsel, criminal law policy section, and Ms. Isabelle Desharnais, counsel, criminal law policy section.

Thank you for being with us.

We're now ready to start clause-by-clause, and I will recognize Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

On your point, you indicated that we would start committee business at 12:30 p.m. It's 12:30 p.m. now.

In no way, shape or form should anything that's happening on Bill C-273 impact what we're doing on our study on anti-Semitism.

I think we should go to committee business now and that we should pick this up at some time in the future. For now, we have an agenda for today, and I think we should stick with it and go on with our consideration of committee business.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Section 43, as we heard from witnesses, provides a defence for certain actions that could otherwise be criminal. It pertains specifically to—this isn't interpretation, since it's in the plain reading of the legislation—schoolteachers and parents, by and large. Section 43 allows those individuals to use reasonable force while dealing with children. We've already, in the discussion we had today.... I think it bears repeating about this particular amendment, because our amendment was very specifically crafted around the Supreme Court of Canada decision. In fact, the CPC-1 amendment adopts the language of the Supreme Court.

As you know, Madam Chair, oftentimes legislation in the Criminal Code can be challenged. Provisions can be challenged through the courts, particularly under our charter, on the constitutionality of legislation. Is it cruel and unusual punishment, for example? Is it a reasonable search, for example?

This particular legislation, like most sections of the Criminal Code, has been challenged. We've seen, in times past, sections of the Criminal Code being struck down. We've seen sections of the Criminal Code upheld. The Supreme Court of Canada, in a majority decision 20 years ago, in 2004, considered this section of the Criminal Code in the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada decision. It's very instructive and important to understand what the state of the law is right now in Canada, because, when the Supreme Court strikes down or upholds legislation, it is binding on all other courts in this country when they consider someone charged under a particular section of the code. What the Supreme Court did is uphold section 43. Those saying section 43 is unconstitutional are wrong. The Supreme Court determines what is constitutional and unconstitutional. They found that section 43 is constitutional. They also defined what is protected under section 43.

I want to speak a bit about that, Madam Chair, in moving my amendment.

Number one, it applies only to a parent or a person standing in place of a parent. Only those individuals are justified in using force by way of correction towards a child. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding among some of the witnesses. It may be a deliberate misunderstanding or not. In Canada, today, teachers cannot administer corporal punishment. This bill changes nothing in that regard. What that means is that a teacher cannot spank a child. A teacher cannot paddle a child. The Supreme Court decision found that a teacher cannot administer corporal punishment. Only a parent can administer corporal punishment. In fact, even that is quite narrowed by what the Supreme Court decision finds regarding section 43.

For example, for the purpose of this section, force is used for correction only if it addresses the specific behaviour of the child. Its purpose is to educate, correct or restrain a child. It is not of a punitive nature. It is used towards a child between the ages of two and 12. The child is capable of learning from the use of force. It's minor and transitory in nature.

Some of the examples that have been used to justify this private member's bill are clearly outside the scope of this law.

I'll go on, Madam Chair. Objects, including rulers and belts, are not used. The idea that a teacher can paddle a student with a wooden paddle.... No. They can't under this decision of the Supreme Court.

It is not applied to the child's head. The mover of this private member's bill used an example in his opening remarks. Don't take my word for it. Refer back to his opening remarks. He used the example of someone punching a child in the face. That behaviour is not protected by section 43.

The decision goes on; likewise, our amendment goes on, because our amendment codifies what the Supreme Court decision found.

Let's read what the law is in Canada, Madam Chair. We have a lot of people making stuff up on the fly.

A schoolteacher is justified in using force towards a child under their care only when the purpose is “to remove the child from a classroom or secure compliance with instructions” and “the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances”.

There's a lot of misinformation out there.

Why would teachers be concerned about that protection being removed? It is protection that applies only to them. It's because teachers have to use force sometimes to address behaviour in a classroom, such as two students kicking another student who is on the ground and beating them senseless. It happens all the time, Madam Chair. Teachers intervene, sometimes at their own risk, in those situations when they're dealing with high school students, to protect their students and to protect their classroom.

On this bill, we heard from various teachers' organizations that the safety of their classrooms in fact depends on this section of the code. Their ability to maintain a safe environment for students hangs on this. We also heard testimony that the advice that leadership in the teaching community would give to teachers, should this bill pass, is to not intervene.

In a scenario where one child is getting beaten by another child—perhaps an older or a bigger child—the advice they're going to give is to not intervene. Now, some of them will intervene and some of them will be charged. If it happened today and they were charged and went before a judge, the judge would say that under section 43, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in its 2004 decision, a schoolteacher is justified in using force towards a child that is reasonable in the circumstances.

However, should this bill pass, that teacher would no longer have that protection. That is why teachers took the time to leave what they were doing to appear before this committee and provide testimony. It was that important. That's not to mention the protection for parents against frivolous lawsuits that could be brought if a parent is now going to be the target of a charge because they are protecting their child.

Abuse in Canada has been and is rejected and illegal. I counted four scenarios that Mr. Julian used in his opening remarks. They're all illegal.

We are all against assaulting children—all of us. We're all against someone being punched in the face. We're all against someone being hit with an object. The problem is that this stuff is all illegal.

This bill goes beyond that.

That is why it is imperative, if we're going to pass Bill C-273, that it pass with a Conservative amendment that maintains the protection of the constitutionally upheld section of the code. Without that protection, teachers and parents are going to be at risk, and that puts children at risk as well. Madam Chair, that is why I'm moving CPC-1.

I know that BQ-1 was rejected. I understand why Mr. Fortin moved it, and I think I get what he was getting at. The reason I did not support Mr. Fortin's amendment is that I think CPC-1 more fulsomely follows the logic of the finding in the Supreme Court decision.

I want to mention, Madam Chair, the gravity of the decisions that we're making here today. There have been 20 private members' bills or Senate bills over the years on this issue, but this Parliament—and past Parliaments, in their wisdom—have not repealed section 43 in its entirety. The reason they didn't do that is the consequences and the follow-up.

To reinforce this point, now we hear that Minister Virani recognizes that there is going to be fallout and there are going to be consequences. He is talking about legislation that would no doubt amend some other part of the code so that he is able to go to these groups—maybe to parents, maybe to teachers—and say, we listened to you, and here we're going to do something else somewhere else in the code. It would certainly not be in the appropriate section. This is the appropriate section.

Madam Chair, I think I'll leave it at that for now on our amendment. I ask all members to consider it.

If you're wondering what it means to pass this amendment, it means that we respect the decision that was made by the Supreme Court of Canada, which really narrowed the possible interpretation of section 43. They took a view; they narrowed it in, and they further defined what protections were afforded to teachers and parents by section 43. I think that was very constructive for all of us, and case law has followed that Supreme Court decision.

Now it is time for Parliament, and if we're going to amend this section we need to ensure that those protections that the Supreme Court put in are maintained.

I so move CPC-1.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I'm deeply concerned about the messaging that will come out of the work of this committee today. If this bill passes unamended, which is what it seems the Liberals want, then the messaging is going to be clear that this government does not stand with teachers.

We had Dr. Kelly, a law professor, here to give evidence, and she was asked exactly that question: “What would be the message to the public of repealing section 43?” She said, “I think proponents of repeal hope that the message will be that all forms of physical discipline are wrong and unlawful”.

We had witnesses here from the Canadian Teachers' Federation give evidence strongly in support of retaining section 43, with amendments. They actually put forward thoughtful amendments to a different section of the Criminal Code, which would have more or less the same effect as the motions that the Conservative Party is putting forward. Their written submission said, “When it comes to education and the safety of children, careful consideration of all eventualities is vital. In its current iteration, Bill C-273 ignores the [present-day] realities facing students and teachers. We urge you to amend and pass this bill to work towards reconciliation while keeping classrooms safe.” They also said that educators are deeply committed to serving children and that “protecting students from themselves and from one another is a key component” of educators' work in schools. “Stopping classroom violence should be supported, not policed.”

Repealing section 43, which is what Bill C-273 would do, would do exactly that. It would not support schools, but it would bring in police enforcement instead. I think that is just the wrong way to go, and certainly the Teachers' Federation thinks that would be completely inappropriate.

Thank you.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be pleased to explain.

We understand the intent of Bill C‑273. Yet we must not lose sight of the fact that it will have much broader repercussions than the concerns expressed by certain parties to the truth and reconciliation debate. When the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was drafted, the goal was to find solutions to prevent the deplorable situations of the past that affected indigenous communities. I agree with that. Those abuses are unacceptable, not just for the first nations, but for society as a whole. We do not want children to be subjected to violence, either at home or at school.

That said, repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code would have negative effects that we cannot ignore. I am referring to the testimony we have heard, Madam Chair. I am thinking in particular of Mr. Sébastien Joly, from the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers, who said that QPAT was convinced of the following:

…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…

We also heard from Ms. Heidi Yetman, president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, who stated that:

…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.

These concerns are important to us in the Bloc Québécois. We cannot ignore them. There was also the 2023 Supreme Court decision in the Bender case, Madam Chair. That is very recent. That was a ruling on an appeal of an Ontario court decision that recognized the application of section 43 in acquitting a teacher accused of assaulting a child. I will not summarize the whole decision. I think we are all familiar with it. The Supreme Court issued the following warning:

62 Without section 43, Canada's broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment. 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.

Further, in Japan, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which came into force in 2020, states roughly the following:

“A person who exercises parental authority over a child shall not discipline the child by inflicting corporal punishment upon him/her or by taking other forms of action that go beyond the scope necessary for the care and education of the child”.

I think section 43 needs to be reviewed in light of legal and cultural changes in Quebec and Canada.

I think this is needed, but simply repealing the section would be a serious error that would fly in the face of international movements in the field of the education and correction of children. We propose an amendment, Madam Chair, and I will read it out since it is not very long.

I propose that section 43 be replaced by the following:

43 A person who exercises parental authority, or to whom that authority has been delegated, must not subject a child under their care to any corporal punishment or to any other violence. However, the person may use force that is reasonably necessary for the safety of the child or of a third party or for the child's upbringing.

That would allow teachers, parents or anyone else with parental authority to use reasonable force with the child. Let us recall the Supreme Court's example of placing a child in a chair for a time-out. Similarly, a child may sometimes have to be expelled from the classroom if they pose a danger to the children in the class. If there is a fight between students, a teacher must use reasonable force to intervene. A fight cannot be broken up by saying it would be nice to stop fighting. We might wish it were so, but that is not reality. Anyone who has raised a child knows that full well.

It is unacceptable to use force or corporal punishment by hitting a child with a stick, for instance. No one thinks corporal punishment is acceptable. Yet we do think it is entirely justifiable to use reasonable force to control and protect a child and to protect a third party if the child is having an outburst and wants to fight. That is the approach taken in other parts of the world. I mentioned for example the recent legislative changes in Japan, as well as the Supreme Court decision in Bender.

We have heard testimony from education experts. I say that with the utmost respect because they know more about it than I do and probably more than each one of us at the table. The Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers and the Canadian Teachers' Federation have told us that repealing section 43 would be a mistake.

On that basis, I think our amendment would address everyone's concerns and further the interests of children, teachers, parents and any person with parental authority in Quebec and Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good morning. I call the meeting to order.

As you've noticed, the system has been changed, so I have quite a few remarks to make first.

First and foremost, welcome to meeting number 102 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 14, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to begin its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom app.

This is a bit new, on avoiding audio feedback: Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from the microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29—that's today—the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced with a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only a black, approved earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.

When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker. You will find the sticker for this purpose on the table. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines on preventing audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece. These measures are in place so we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Thank you for your co-operation.

For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard.

Before we begin, I want to remind everyone that we will leave about 30 minutes for an in camera meeting to discuss business.

Now I want to welcome the witnesses from the justice department, who will help us with technical questions on Bill C-273.

First we have Matthias Villetorte, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; and Isabelle Desharnais, counsel.

Welcome and thank you for joining us.

We will now commence the start of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-273.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause.

[Ryan Lutes, President, Nova Scotia Teachers Union]

Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Ryan Lutes. I'm the president of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union. We represent approximately 10,000 teachers and educational specialists in Nova Scotia's public school system.

I'd like to acknowledge that I live and work on the unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq people.

Teachers are absolutely committed to reconciliation, and we support 100% the Government of Canada's commitment to enact all TRC calls to action. The NSTU is committed to this support, while also being committed to keeping our schools and classrooms safe places.

As such, the NSTU opposes Bill C-273 if it is passed without other amendments to the Criminal Code. This is simply because a repeal without amendment will lead to more unsafe classrooms. Student violence against other students, against themselves and against educators is on the rise. Now more than ever, we need laws in place to help teachers ensure that schools are safe for everyone. It is important that the views of teachers are reflected in your deliberations and decisions. Repealing section 43 is extremely important, but we have to get it right. Teachers on the ground in the classrooms of our country have not been afforded meaningful consultation, and teachers do not support the bill passing unamended.

As the NSTU president, I'm first and foremost a teacher. I'm a high school math teacher, and I can tell you that no teacher wants to physically intervene. As I think Mr. Caputo said, no one gets up in the morning wanting to break students apart, but unfortunately that need is increasing. I personally have been in situations where I've had to physically intervene to restrain students, and without me being able to do that, there may have been a violent assault in the halls of my school.

Unfortunately, this is not a unique situation. Numerous situations arise in the school context that require a teacher to respond. These responses might include a teacher placing their hands on a student's shoulder to guide them away from an altercation or restraining or redirecting a student to protect student safety. Under section 265 of the Criminal Code, these everyday actions could be subject to prosecution. The repeal of section 43 would put a chill on teachers trying to do their jobs. It may cause them to stop from ever intervening in difficult situations, and this will compromise the safety of our schools. The unfortunately reality is that 92% of Nova Scotia's teachers have witnessed violence in their schools and classrooms, and 55% have either been the victim of violence or been threatened with violence.

A school safety amendment would ensure the specific protection of teachers and educational staff within the Criminal Code in situations where reasonable physical intervention is necessary to protect the safety and well-being of our students, teachers and education workers across our country.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation draft language, which the NSTU supports, seeks to amend section 265 of the Criminal Code. The amendments would honour the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action while also ensuring that teachers can promote safety in our classrooms and schools and protect the safety of students, which I would remind the committee is the scope of this. The scope of this bill is about protecting students, and that's what teachers seek to have amended through this. Again, this is near and dear to our hearts, to protect students. That's what we all want.

It's important to recognize that pursuant to Nova Scotia's Education Act, and likely other acts in other provinces, teachers have the legal duty to protect students and to maintain safe classrooms. In order to do that, we must have protections in the Criminal Code that allow us to use reasonable force only when necessary to ensure that our classrooms are safe. Without a school safety amendment, the NSTU anticipates that there would be an increase in the number of assault charges filed and prosecuted. The NSTU would have to advise Nova Scotia teachers, as a precaution, not to physically intervene in the situations noted above. This would result in more injuries and more severe injuries to students, and it would result in schools being less safe.

One thing that I think has come out here is that teachers need to be able to act reasonably without doing a risk-reward analysis of section 265. We're not lawyers. As a teacher, I need to be able to grab a student who's running out into the street. I need to be able to pull on someone's hand if they're running towards an altercation, and I need to be doing that without weighing the risk of common-law defences or doing some legal analysis in my head. I need to be able to act reasonably in situations, just as a reasonable, loving parent or teacher would, and that's what we're really asking for today.

Thank you for having me here. I look forward to responding to your questions.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you for representing teachers. You are all doing it very well.

I asked the question anyway because in a way, you are experts in children’s education. Certain broad principles you would apply could also apply to anyone participating in children’s education, be they a parent, an uncle, an aunt, or an educator entrusted with supervising a five-year-old boy for a weekend, for example.

At the end of the day, shouldn’t all these people be treated the same way?

Shouldn’t we all make sure that anyone can intervene effectively when parents entrust them with supervising a child, one way or another? I share your opinion on the matter.

Since there must not be a lot of time left, I’d like to move on to a completely different subject.

We know that Bill C‑273 is the result of a call to action in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. You talked about it earlier and you’re familiar with the report itself.

Do you have an opinion on the way that repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code could help improve the situation of indigenous communities in Canada?

We understand that abuses occurred in the past, and there’s no point in lingering on the subject. We all agree that it made no sense.

That said, how will repealing this section today help indigenous communities in Canada to flourish?

Can you give me some comments on that issue?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Ms. Fiddler, Ms. Yetman and Mr. Joly, I thank you for being here with us today.

I don’t know if it was announced at the start, but for the sake of the cause, I’d like to point out that we have interpretation service. You may speak in English or in French as you wish. Everyone will hear your testimony correctly.

I am happy to see you today. Our children’s safety and education are indeed significant concerns. It is quite obvious that violence against children must end and we must do what is necessary, as legislators, so that it is not authorized in any way.

After a brief overview of jurisprudence and events in other jurisdictions, it seemed obvious to me that corporal punishment was widely prohibited. In fact, it’s largely the case almost everywhere. I am wondering, however, if we aren’t confusing two different things, meaning corporal punishment and the use of force to ensure children’s safety and education. It can be a matter of protecting them, but also of protecting their environment, for instance, from other classmates. That is what I’m concerned about as we conduct our study of Bill C‑273. I think what you told us this morning is interesting. It goes along the lines of what I had in mind from the beginning.

Mr. Housefather asked if this type of exception might be useful in the case of workers, specifically health workers. I wonder if this might also apply to parents. Shouldn’t they be on the same footing, perhaps by making the required adaptations? We’re talking here about any person with parental authority or delegated authority, regardless of whether they are a teacher, parent or someone else.

What is your opinion on that?

I might invite Mr. Joly to answer first. Ms. Yetman or Ms. Fiddler could perhaps respond afterwards.

[Sébastien Joly, Executive Director, Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Sébastien Joly, and I am the executive director for the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers, or QPAT.

QPAT represents the 8,000 teachers working within the network of Quebec’s anglophone public schools. QPAT is also a member of the Canadian Teachers’ Federation, or CTF, and negotiates as a group with the Fédération des syndicats de l’enseignement du Québec.

Members of the committee, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present Quebec’s point of view, as well as the reality of the teachers we represent, as part of the study of Bill C-273, which proposes to repeal section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

From the outset, I would say that repealing this section is cause for great concern for both QPAT and for the Canadian Teachers’ Federation. Knowing that this bill flows from the 94 recommendations and calls to action put forth by the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation of Canada, it is imperative to say the intent of QPAT’s position does not minimize in any way the years of abuse indigenous people in Canada experienced in residential schools. Nor does it call into question the highly symbolic value of repealing section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which symbolizes the past reality of practising corporal punishment, both institutionally and domestically. On the contrary, QPAT fully supports the spirit of the measures recommended by the Commission. In fact, QPAT participated actively in the curriculum review process in line with calls to action 62 and 63, under the title of “Education for Reconciliation.” This resulted in the revision of the history and civic education programs in Quebec.

Furthermore, like the CTF, QPAT has opposed the practice of any form of corporal punishment for several decades.

While we are fully aware of the intent behind the introduction of this bill, it is essential to ensure that its adoption does not result in unintended and unfortunate consequences for the teachers we represent.

In this sense, we are convinced, following the advice of our legal experts, 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, given the context and conditions in which they practise their profession on a daily basis.

Indeed, the increasingly heavy and complex composition of the classrooms in the context of a glaring lack of professional and specialized support resources, as well as the constant progression of violence in our schools, whether in or out of class, means that teachers are confronted on a regular basis with issues that could require the use of reasonable force towards a student with the sole objective of fulfilling their responsibility to ensure a safe school environment for the students. The legal vacuum thus created would necessarily expose them to an increased risk of criminal charges, prosecution or even convictions for interventions carried out in the course of their duties. These interventions would automatically be considered assault under subsection 265(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

As executive director of QPAT, I am directly responsible for following up on all cases related to criminal allegations filed against teachers who are members of our local unions throughout Quebec, working closely with the law firm Battista Turcot Israel from Montreal, which represents our members in such cases.

As such, I can confirm that the existence of section 43, the scope of which was significantly redefined by the 2004 Supreme Court decision, can no longer be used as a defence for teachers charged with assault within the meaning of the law. Nevertheless, I can confirm that it is the very existence of section 43 that allows the various stakeholders involved—police investigators, prosecutors and judges—to exercise a certain level of discretion in such cases, particularly when it is clear, following an investigation, that an educator used reasonable force for the purpose of ensuring a safe school environment for their students. As a result, many cases do not proceed to trial. According to our legal experts, the complete repeal of section 43 would result in the disappearance of this level of discretion and an increase in the number of charges, prosecutions and convictions, with all the impact that this implies for the individuals concerned and their families.

Finally, we are also concerned that this increased risk for teachers could cause additional unfortunate and unintended consequences, including making our schools less safe but also discouraging potential future teachers from choosing this beautiful profession and making a career out of it, thereby further exacerbating the teacher recruitment and retention crisis facing our public school systems in Quebec and across the country.

It will be my pleasure to answer any questions you might have and develop more of the elements presented in the brief submitted by QPAT.

Thank you.

[Tesa Fiddler, Member, Advisory Committee on Indigenous Education, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

Meegwetch, Heidi.

Tesa Fiddler, nindizhinikaaz. I am a first nations educator, registered to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug in Treaty 9. I'm also connected through my father to the traditional territory of Onigaming First Nation in Treaty 3. My family and I have lived and worked in Thunder Bay, Ontario, for the last 26 years, and we raise our family there.

First, I would like to acknowledge that I'm grateful to the Anishinabe Algonquin people, whose land I'm visiting here, for being caretakers of this territory since time immemorial and for allowing us to do this work here.

As an indigenous educator with close to 30 years of experience—I couldn't believe it when I read that—and as someone who is deeply committed to supporting the act of reconciliation, I'm here to speak about the necessity of amending Bill C-273.

I want to assure the committee and other individuals who are committed to repealing section 43 that I also recognize the significance and the importance of making this important change to the Criminal Code.

I personally honour and respect the calls to action. As a second-generation survivor of residential schools—my mother attended Poplar Hill, and my father attended Cecilia Jeffrey—the calls to action have significance to me both personally and professionally. As a witness to violence myself, I would never condone any form of violence in homes, classrooms or other institutions. I have the utmost respect for the Honourable Murray Sinclair and the many individuals who courageously led the TRC and provided this country with a guide to improving relations between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

I am not here to disagree with the repeal of section 43. I am here to request that you consider the suggestions that teaching experts bring forward, suggestions that will continue to protect students and their educators.

Over my career, I've worked with students who have complex needs, and I've been a mentor to many teachers and educators who deal with complex classroom issues. We have students with autism and FASD, students with problems regulating temper, students with histories of violence and exposure to trauma. In an ideal world, there would be more support for students in difficult situations, and educators would get the support we need to deal with these complex student profiles and situations in the classroom. The sad reality is that it is not there, so passing Bill C-273 without an amendment will make an already challenging job more challenging.

These are the realities that all educators, including indigenous educators, are facing. We have very complex community situations right now. We are in crisis with the well-being of our children. As a parent of a child with complex special needs, I recognize the challenges that our communities and our families are facing. It really is a disadvantage to children and to educators to repeal this section and not be making the amendments that are needed to protect children.

Meegwetch.

[Heidi Yetman, President, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm pleased to be speaking today as a representative of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, an organization comprising teachers' unions in every province and territory. I am a teacher with over 20 years of experience in the classroom.

I would like to acknowledge that I work and play on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

As you know, I'm here to talk about Bill C-273, a bill that seeks to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. With this, I need to state first and foremost that the federation fully endorses all TRC calls to action, including call to action number six. We also fully condemn any form of corporal punishment.

That being said, 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.

I'm sharing my time today with teacher colleague Tesa Fiddler. Tesa is a member of the federation's advisory committee on indigenous education, and she's also a member of Education International's indigenous reference group, so I'm really pleased to present Tesa.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

We're talking about a private member's bill, Bill C-273, that would ban corporal punishment by repealing section 43. We heard in earlier testimony today that section 43 is a codification of the common law of defence for parents and teachers who would discipline their children.

Mr. Zekveld, in your testimony, you quoted from paragraph 62 of the Supreme Court of Canada decision of 2004, which actually upheld the constitutionality of section 43. I'm just going to reread one sentence from there and ask you to comment on it. This is what the chief justice said: “The reality is that 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’”.

To use the example from the lively exchange between my colleague Mr. Caputo and the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Julian, a gentle slap on the wrist would be criminalized given the broad wording of section 265 of the Criminal Code. Can you comment on that? Are we casting the net too widely by eliminating the section 43 defence altogether?

[Dr. Kate Butler]

In these opening remarks, I’m going to speak about why Bill C-273 is an important step toward Canada meeting its international human rights obligations.

This colonial law allowing corporal punishment dates from 1892 and is a clear violation of children's protection rights, yet it remains in the Criminal Code. Canada has fallen behind the other 65 countries globally that have met their Convention on the Rights of the Child's obligations by prohibiting physical punishment in all contexts.

I speak to you today in my role as past chair of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children and as a recognized children's rights expert with a Ph.D. in sociology. I've authored numerous articles and reports on children's rights in Canada and globally, with a specialization in protection rights.

The CCRC is a national umbrella group of organizations and individuals across Canada who promote the rights of children and the full implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have led the civil society role in each of the four UN reviews of Canada under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including leading the youth engagement part of the most recent UN review. We engaged hundreds of young people on behalf of the federal government. These young people, who are not here today, told us that violence in the home is an incredibly important issue to them. I wanted to bring along their voice with me today.

Members of the CCRC include such organizations as UNICEF Canada, which currently co-chairs the coalition, along with academics from all disciplines, indigenous groups, health groups and faith organizations.

As you've heard, corporal punishment refers to any form of punishment that is intended to cause physical pain to a person. It's the most common form of violence against children.

[Dr. Kate Butler, Past Chair, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for having me today to speak about Bill C-273. I'm so sorry not to be there in person. Instead, I'm calling from Toronto, which is on the traditional lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit—

[Daniel Zekveld, Policy Analyst, Association for Reformed Political Action Canada]

Good morning. Thank you for inviting us to speak to you today regarding Bill C-273.

ARPA Canada believes Parliament must not repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. I want to address this topic of corporal discipline in three brief points.

The first point, which underlies the rest of the conversation on corporal discipline, is about parental authority. The family has both natural and pre-political authority. That's why the Canadian Bill of Rights refers to “the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions”, and why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls the family “the natural and fundamental group unit of society”. Respecting parental authority and family integrity means not interfering in families, particularly through the criminal law, without clearly compelling reasons.

Professor Melissa Moschella uses the analogy of intervening by force in another sovereign nation. She explains that the international community must respect the authority of sovereign states, but also has an obligation to help their people when they need it. Coercive interference in any circumstance requires extremely strong justification, such as serious human rights abuses or threatening the peace of other sovereign states. Likewise, every political community consists of families with their own authority. Although parental authority may be imperfect at times, the state must not intervene coercively, except in cases of serious abuse and neglect where parents are clearly failing to fulfill their role.

As mentioned already, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004, said:

...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.

My second point is that there is no adequate evidence that parents who use careful, measured corporal discipline are failing in their role as parents in a way that would merit state intrusion or prosecution of parents, which would cause serious disruption and harm children. Studies on corporal discipline often confuse the cause-and-effect relationship between corporal discipline and children's outcomes. Some studies assume that corporal discipline causes aggressive behaviour based on a correlation. However, it could be that aggressive children were disciplined more because they were more aggressive, rather than the reverse. Many studies fail to distinguish between harsh physical punishment and the measured physical discipline permitted by Canadian law. Not all forms of physical discipline are the same or have the same effects.

Before criminalizing corporal discipline, lawmakers should at least have strong evidence to demonstrate that it is much less effective than other methods. However, some studies have shown that physical discipline within reasonable limits is as good as or better than many other disciplinary tactics. The outcomes for children who receive corporal discipline depend on the type of discipline and on whether the family has a consistent set of guidelines for when and how corporal discipline is used.

Finally, other jurisdictions reveal that banning corporal discipline causes problems. For example, one Swedish psychiatrist argues that banning corporal discipline may make parents less willing to discipline or correct their children in any way. Since Sweden banned spanking, its rate of assaults of minors has increased dramatically. Examples from Austria and Germany show that parents who thought mild forms of corporal discipline were legal were less likely to resort to severe punishment than those who thought it was illegal. When no corporal discipline is permitted, parents may be more lenient until they reach a breaking point. Prohibitions on corporal discipline may also increase verbal hostility by parents, or increase the number of parents who are unable to control their children's behaviour. As such, permitting corporal discipline within reasonable boundaries, as Canada does, may prevent negative consequences.

In conclusion, this committee should support retaining section 43 of the Criminal Code. Doing so would align with the Supreme Court of Canada in respecting the responsibility of parents and the different ways parents may choose to raise their children. That said, if the committee believes further clarity is needed in section 43, the Criminal Code could be amended to include the Supreme Court's clarification about what constitutes reasonable force. These limits strike an appropriate balance that allows parents to raise their children as they see fit while also ensuring children are protected.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. We're looking forward to any questions.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

To begin, I would like to say that we're meeting on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people. It's extremely important to recognize this because we're talking about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 6. So it's extremely important to take that into account at all times.

The purpose of Bill C-273 is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which gives justification to use “force by way of correction” towards children. Section 43 was codified in 1892, having descended from English common law, which allowed parents and schoolmasters to inflict physical punishment “for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child”.

Section 43 violates children's basic human rights to protection under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1991. Nine years ago, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called physical punishment “a relic of a discredited past [that] has no place in Canadian schools or homes”, and called for the repeal of section 43 to remove the green light that has enabled so much violence against children.

The research on physical punishment is robust. Physical punishment consistently predicts solely negative developmental outcomes: higher aggression, more mental health problems, slower intellectual development and weaker parent-child relationships. More than 75 peer-reviewed studies have indicated this, and after I testify today you will hear from Professor Durrant and Ms. Butler, who will speak more to that.

Mild physical punishment easily escalates into more severe violence. Children who are slapped or spanked are seven times more likely to experience severe violence than those who are not slapped or spanked. Section 43 tells us that hurting another person is an acceptable and justifiable way to resolve conflict. Children who are physically punished are more likely to engage in dating violence and partner violence in later life because they have learned to respond to conflict with physical aggression.

Parenting groups and teachers argue that section 43 serves as a protection when they need to physically restrain a child, but defences are already available to parents, teachers and caregivers when they use force to defend themselves or another person: section 34 of the Criminal Code to protect property, section 35 of the Criminal Code to prevent the immediate commission of an offence and section 27 of the Criminal Code in response to imminent peril or danger when there is no available legal alternative, which is the common law defence of necessity.

There's strong support for change. Seven hundred organizations across all sectors support the repeal of section 43. They include all major organizations in health care, dentists, doctors, nurses and all of the major organizations in Canada that have taken on the development of kids as their fundamental role.

To date, 65 countries and 18 other regions have prohibited all physical punishment of children. In countries where research has been carried out, there has been no increase in criminal prosecutions or child welfare apprehensions in minor cases. Decreases have been shown in the support for and use of physical punishment. That is important. Why are we lagging behind in banning the physical punishment of children?

My bill has also received support overseas. Members of this committee would have received from organizations in the past few weeks support for Bill C-273, including Human Rights Watch and the World Health Organization. We also have a number of international individuals who have written to this committee expressing support for Bill C-273. It's important to note that countries and regions like Wales, New Zealand and Ireland did not see an increase in prosecutions against parents and teachers since the passing of their legislation to ban physical punishment to children.

Finally, I'd like to quote the Honourable Murray Sinclair, who spoke to this issue seven years ago when we were looking at a previous iteration of the same bill. Murray Sinclair said the following:

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.

It's time to repeal section 43. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Madame Gladu.

(Motion agreed to)

That's unanimous. Thank you so much. I love this. I hope it will continue throughout the morning.

Welcome to meeting number 100 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 14, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study of Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne's Quest and the protection of children).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 15, 2023. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Those on Zoom have been tested for the sound, and it is in order.

First, I want to welcome Peter Julian, the member of Parliament for New Westminster-Burnaby and the sponsor of Bill C-273.

Welcome to the committee. You have five minutes to present to the committee, which will be followed by questions, in the normal course, from members of the committee.

Mr. Julian, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good morning, everyone.

I have one small item before we start the normal meeting. That is to approve the budget request for the study we are starting today on Bill C-273, which has been circulated to all members.

Children's Rights

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-273 passed, by a vote of 209 to 115, this week for a second reading in Parliament. I thank all those MPs who spoke up for this bill and for the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code.

Canada is finally taking our first steps in joining 65 other countries around the world that have banned the use of force against children. More than 700 organizations across Canada, including every major organization that works for children's health and well-being, have called for the repeal of this legalized use of force against children.

The repeal of this provision of the Criminal Code was one of the first recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Call to action no. 6 of the TRC calls for repeal of the provision, which legalizes the use of force against children. This provision was put in place in 1892, when all kinds of abuses were legal. It is high time to change that and time to repeal section 43.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry to interrupt the current affairs of the chamber. I am back again, this time with a tie and jacket on as per House rules. I tried to tell you before, when I was not dressed appropriately, that I had a technical issue on the last vote being held today, which was on Bill C-273, and my intention is to vote in favour.

Therefore, I am asking for unanimous consent from the House to register my vote in favour of Bill C-273, and I apologize for the delay that this has caused in House proceedings.

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑273 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from February 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne's Quest and the protection of children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Justice

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the question. This is an issue we are all concerned about.

I can assure everyone that the government is unwavering in its commitment to ensuring the protection and physical safety of children across the country. We therefore support Bill C‑273 and its important purpose of protecting our children against violence and abuse. We look forward to hearing the experts during study in committee of this important legislation that we will support in a few minutes.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after question period, every member will have the opportunity to rise to vote on the NDP's Bill C‑273 to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows an adult to use corporal punishment on a child for so-called educational purposes.

More than 65 countries in the world have done this and 27 others have initiated the process. It is what the UN committee on the protection of children has called for. Call to action 6 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada is calling for it, as is the Canadian Medical Association.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that his government will support this initiative to protect our children?

Criminal Code

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, tomorrow, we have an important task. We are going to hold a vote on the principle of Bill C-273, which seeks to ban corporal punishment of children in Canada and repeal the section of the Criminal Code that has existed since 1892 that allows for corporal punishment of children. One of my colleagues just said that this bill needs to be amended. Tomorrow, we will vote on the principle, but amendments can certainly be presented in committee.

In addition, it is important to mention, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre just did, that 700 organizations across the country want MPs from Quebec and across Canada to vote in favour of the bill tomorrow. Dozens of those organizations are in Quebec, such as 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, the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance au Québec, and many others. They want us to vote in favour because they understand the impact of these punishments. Corporal punishment is linked to widespread and lasting personal and societal harm. As the organizations point out, 75% of substantiated cases of physical abuse in Canada are linked to corporal punishment. These organizations make it abundantly clear that section 43 of the Criminal Code must be repealed.

Other countries are doing the same. It is important to point that out. Countries like Korea, Colombia, Japan, South Africa, France, Ireland, Argentina, Brazil, Poland and Spain have abolished corporal punishment of children. Tomorrow's vote in principle on the bill will allow us to join 65 countries around the world that have already held these debates and decided that section 43 of the Criminal Code should be abolished.

I wanted to shout out to Corinne's Quest; Kathy and John Lynn of New Westminster, British Columbia; and all the organizations that have called for the abolition of section 43 of the Criminal Code. They have done that as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission tells us to in its call to action 6. After the horrendous genocide that happened in residential schools, they are saying now is the time to move forward on call to action 6. As my colleagues have mentioned, it has been eight years since those calls to action were issued.

There has not been one call to action that has been advanced since 2022, and this means that members of Parliament tomorrow will have the ability to vote in principle on moving forward on call to action 6; removing section 43 of the Criminal Code, which dates back to 1892; and finally putting in place the kind of atmosphere for kids that we need to see in our country.

I mentioned earlier many of the national organizations that are calling on parliamentarians to abolish section 43. They include the Anglican Church of Canada, Big Brothers Big Sisters, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, occupational therapists, pediatric health centres, pediatric nurses, social workers, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Red Cross, the YMCA, the YWCA and more than 65 countries that have called for the same thing, because they know that 75% of substantiated physical abuse cases in Canada arise from incidents of physical punishment.

They say very clearly that it is time for Canada to move beyond an aspect of the Criminal Code that was put in place in 1892. It is time to heed the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is time to put in place call to action 6. It is time to learn from the past.

Tomorrow, members of Parliament will have an important vote, the vote in principle to move forward from this aspect of the Criminal Code that justifies physical punishment of children.

I hope that all those voices are heard and I hope that members of Parliament vote yes on Bill C-273.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by noting that, this evening and in past debate, we have heard really clear calls for how important this bill is, in particular from our hon. colleague the member for Nunavut tonight. The member for Winnipeg Centre further made clear that case.

With the limited time that I have, the contribution I would like to make to this debate is really focused on the importance of listening to indigenous leaders, particularly with respect to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

In my view, Bill C-273 is an offer to all parliamentarians to move ahead with the TRC's calls to actions. For my part, I have committed to fully implementing them, as has the Green Party of Canada.

I will read out, once again, call to action 6: “We call upon the Government of Canada to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.”

This is exactly what Bill C-273 seeks to do.

As background, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued 94 calls to action back in 2015 and progress has been absurdly slow. At the current pace, the calls will not be completed until 2081, yet every party in this House of Commons has committed to fully implementing the calls.

I will summarize them now. In 2015, then-leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, now the Prime Minister, said, “On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our parliamentary caucus, I affirm our unwavering support for the TRC’s recommendations, and call on the Government of Canada to take immediate action to implement them.”

That is being applauded by a member from the governing party. I would remind that member that call to action 6 is exactly what this bill is calling for. I certainly hope that this government will be supporting Bill C-273.

As for the Conservative Party, in 2021, Erin O'Toole, then-leader of the Conservative Party, pledged a plan to implement all Truth and Reconciliation calls to action. I assume that included call to action 6.

As for the Bloc Québécois, in 2021, in their platform, Bloc MPs would pressure the federal government to implement all recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In the same campaign, 2021, the leader of the NDP committed to fully implement all outstanding recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. An NDP MP, in fact, is bringing forward a bill here to work toward doing so.

The leader of the Green Party of Canada, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, pledged the same thing.

In short, I hope that my colleagues follow through on the commitments of their parties and those that I know they personally, I am sure, have also made.

Certainly, I hope, at the very least, that this would get to committee. This is the second time now, in my time as an MP, that I am seeing this gap between commitments to follow the TRC calls to action and opportunities that MPs have to do so.

The last time was on Bill C-5. One of the TRC calls to action, call to action 32, is to remove mandatory minimum penalties. Of course, Bill C-5 removed some but not all of them. That was not what was in call to action 32. It was to follow through on removing all of them.

Once again, though, in this vote on Bill C-273, parliamentarians will have another opportunity. For those who have pledged to pressure the government to do so, this is now being offered. An MP has put forward a bill that would directly call to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. That is call to action 6.

I would hope that colleagues would support this bill and, in doing so, move us one very small step closer toward following through on all 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from back in 2015. We are now in 2024. We need to move more quickly. Here is one chance to do so.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to stand today to speak to Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

I want to thank my colleague, the MP for New Westminster—Burnaby, for putting forward this important legislation, as well as the MP for Nunavut, who spoke recently to the bill, and now my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. Both are incredibly strong voices in this chamber.

As we know, the physical punishment of children is still legal in Canada. I am a mother of two. My daughter, Makayla, is now 21, and my son is 16, so it hits my heart, and I believe it hits the hearts of many parents and people who care for children and youth across the country. Children should not have to live in fear of or experience physical punishment at home, at school or anywhere in our communities, and we know the detrimental impacts when they do.

Findings from a joint statement that was put forward by Canadians, and it sounds like my colleague was saying it was 700 organizations, including Family Service Canada, the Canadian Institute of Child Health and the Canadian Public Health Association, among others, show that there is no clear evidence that the use of physical punishment has any benefit to children and youth whatsoever. In fact, the findings show the opposite, that physical punishment on children places them at increased risk of not only physical harm but also poor mental health and increased negative impacts in areas such as moral values and challenges in adjusting into adulthood. I think our children and youth have a lot going on in today's world, and it is just an additional burden on so many children to have to deal with physical violence. To make matters worse, we know that physical punishment, regardless of the degree of the punishment, carries an increased risk of the escalation of violence.

There are 60 countries around the world that have banned the practice of physical punishment on children and youth, and this number continues to grow. Despite this, Canada is lagging behind on essential legislation to protect children.

This is not new. We know that Corinne Robertshaw, a lawyer for the federal government, saw first-hand the impacts of allowing physical punishment of children, with the death and injury of children in the 1970s and 1980s. Her advocacy continues today through dedicated volunteers for Corinne's Quest, which works to protect children and advocate for the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Section 43 of the Criminal Code 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.”

Now, I am certain many in this chamber today are having the same response to this section of the Criminal Code that I am. Again, the wording “force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances” is so far from clear. Also, with “force by way of correction”, there is so much room for interpretation, and it is leaving our children and youth at risk as a result.

We are seeing the devastating impacts of this outdated section of the Criminal Code across the country. For example, we see reports as well as evidence of horrific abuses of children and youth in schools from the very people entrusted to care for our children. We have seen reports of children being isolated and inappropriately restrained, causing physical and emotional harm, with little to no consequences for those who committed these acts. We know that this section of the Criminal Code does nothing to protect our children.

I would like to clarify that we are not talking about the actions required to protect children from themselves or others in school, for example. We are talking about physical acts of punishment, which we know clearly have no benefit for children.

I worked in schools for many years. Unfortunately, the stories that we often do not want to share are about the fact that sometimes there are circumstances in which a child is a potential harm to themselves and we have to do our duty as the adults and as educators.

As an example, I was working with a youth who was struggling and unable to make the judgment to not run into traffic. I had to, with care, hold on to his arm to ensure that he did not harm himself and run into traffic. There are examples where, of course, there needs to be carefully thought-out care provided to children, but this is not what we are talking about.

What we are talking about today is physical punishment. I want to make sure that is very clear. There are so many educational professionals across the country who go above and beyond to keep our kids safe and happy and their brains and bodies active. Educators need the capacity to keep children safe. I know that first-hand. At the same time, this section is causing more problems than it is good.

Of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations, specifically recommendation no. 6 is an exact recommendation within this report. We know that only 13 of 94 calls to action have actually been moved forward on to date. These calls to action were brought forward because of the bravery of residential school survivors and their families who shared their stories and experiences. It is time to see the government move forward with these recommendations. It is an insult to indigenous people and to all Canadians, the pace at which these recommendations are being actioned by the Liberal government. They need to be actioned today. This motion is a way to move forward in putting into action another recommendation.

My colleague, the MP for Nunavut, recently highlighted in the House the history and justification of harms towards indigenous children, which remain a shameful part of Canada's past and continue today as a result of government inaction on necessary changes in the Criminal Code, such as to section 43, being debated today. I want to highlight her words in her recent speech on this exact bill, because I feel they are important.

Canada's reconciliation with indigenous peoples still requires dedicated, well-invested and true commitment. Indigenous peoples have yet to experience active reconciliation. Banning the physical punishment of children would be a positive step. Justification for harming children can end. It can be the 44th Parliament that achieves this.

My hope is that we will all come together as members in the House to support this bill and do what is needed to protect children and youth. We know that this not a partisan issue. This is a much-overdue and necessary change to an outdated section of the Criminal Code. Despite our differences in this House, my hope is that we will all put partisanship to the side and do what is in the best interests of children and youth.

I want to point out that this is important work to move forward with big and necessary steps, but in addition to this, families require the supports and resources necessary to prevent and stop the cycle of violence. I cannot reiterate enough how vitally important it is that we have a government that is truly investing in people, as too many are struggling to make ends meet and too many are not getting the supports they need. These are ingredients for increased violence and need to be addressed and invested in appropriately.

Instead of providing justification for the physical punishment of our children, we must all come together to ensure that the human rights of children and youth are respected by repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code and supporting my colleague's bill, Bill C-273.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-273, which was put forward by my wonderful colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby and seconded by my colleague from Nunavut.

As we have heard, the goal of this bill is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, “Correction of child by force”, which 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.”

We are now in 2024. I was a long-time ECE teacher. I taught in the faculty of education at the University of Winnipeg training pre-service teachers entering schools. We know there is no benefit to using physical force against a student. In my time as a teacher, often working with students at risk, never once did I have to lay a hand on a student to remain in control.

It is not surprising that in my riding in Manitoba, the Aurora Family Therapy Centre supports the repeal of section 43, in addition to the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents. The very heads of schools in Manitoba support the repeal, along with Manitoba child care associations, experts in the field who understand very well that there is no place for using physical force against children.

In addition to this bill, one of the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to repeal section 43. We know of the harms that were done to children in residential schools. We know of the permanent damage and emotional scars that utilizing physical force against children had. That is why I am not surprised that over 700 organizations, including school superintendents, are supporting the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code.

I remember it was in my grade 2 class that I began hating on school. There was a time in my education where I do not think any teacher ever believed I would graduate from high school. My grade 2 teacher, whose name I still remember, Mr. Camilo, used to kick kids who were out of line to get them back in line. I remember one kid who was clearly struggling. Looking back, he probably had all sorts of stuff going on in his life, maybe even violence in his own home. He was kicked daily by Mr. Camilo to get him back in line.

I never saw any improvement in behaviour in his young boy. In fact, there was a growing resentment between the student and Mr. Camilo. I remember, as a little girl, how much I hated Mr. Camilo. My father was a psychologist with the department of education and worked with some of the most difficult kids who were having the most difficulties in the classroom, and we would talk about this.

I remember my dad advocating to end violence against kids in schools and physical punishment in school, having suffered his own physical punishment from adults trying to keep him in line when he was in hiding during the Holocaust. He remembered the emotional scars that caused, so I am not surprised that nearly 700 organizations and academics have endorsed a joint statement on the physical punishment of children and youth, stating that the physical punishment of children can no longer be justified by the Criminal Code of Canada. Seven hundred is no small number of experts, academics and folks like me, people who actually train pre-service teachers, who are saying there is no room to punish kids physically in institutions.

In fact, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that governments “must protect children from violence”. We are obliged, as members of Parliament, to uphold UN conventions, including that governments must protect children from violence and, I would argue, protect children from violence and abuse and being neglected by anyone who looks after them. I would argue that this bill is one more occasion when we can uphold human rights laws that impact children. There are over 65 countries around the world that have already banned the practice of physically punishing children. If Canada is to be a leader in human rights, it must repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code.

I have to say that I am disappointed, especially with the release of the truth and reconciliation report that came out in 2015, that we still live in a time when we can justify any sort of physical punishment of children, especially in child care institutions and schools. I can say, as somebody who spent over 30 years in the field of education, whether as an ECE, as a teacher or in training pre-service teachers at the university, that I never had to physically restrain some of the kids who had a lot of difficulties in the classroom, so I find this really hard.

It is often targeted at kids with special needs, including kids, for example, with ADHD, kids like my son, who had to have an individualized education program because he had difficulty staying in his seat. The teacher managed to integrate him into the classroom by putting tape on the floor to remind my wonderful son Jacob, my courageous, brilliant son Jacob, that he had to stay in the square. This teacher allowed my son to stand up at his desk and rock back and forth, because he could not manage himself sitting at his desk. He wrote all this beautiful poetry, and he got “outstanding” in science, and all it took was having him stand up. We need to find better and more creative ways to manage behaviour in the classroom and institutions, rather than physically restraining kids to make them follow the rules and toe the line even though we know that kids have differences.

Therefore, I am very proud to rise with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby to bring this issue to light and to have the courage to say that maybe we need to do things a little better; maybe we need to be a little kinder, a little more gentle and a little more tender; and maybe we need to raise a new generation of children who practise non-violence because that non-violence was practised toward them.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again in the House to speak to Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code. Introduced by my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the bill proposes to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code.

It is an undeniable fact that all children have the right to be protected from violence and abuse. As adults are, children are protected from a range of general criminal offences, including assault.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Health, where we study how to best support the physical, mental and emotional well-being of children across Canada. A big part of that goal is fostering healthy, safe environments in which children learn, evolve and grow.

I have also heard from parents in my riding of Richmond Hill about their concerns for their children’s safety, not only at school but also on their way to and from school. I have had one parent personally reach out to my office to ask for assistance in securing the safety of his daughter because of the ongoing harassment she faced at school. Cases such as these serve as crucial reminders for us to take action on enhancing the protection of children in our communities, in our education system and across Canada. This starts with making the necessary amendments to our current legal provisions on this matter.

Bill C-273 delves into deeply sensitive matters, including parental authority, children's rights, the government's appropriate involvement and delineating between acceptable parental discipline and instances of child abuse. I would like to start by outlining section 43 of the Criminal Code, which the bill addresses, and a few of the important perspectives we have heard on it.

The bill before us specifically addresses section 43 of the Criminal Code, which provides a defence to a criminal charge of assault in situations where parents, guardians or teachers use corporal punishment with the intent of educating or correcting a child. This means that parents can use mild physical force, such as spanking or light hitting, to discipline a child in their care. Section 43 also applies to allow parents to use physical control to restrain or remove a child in appropriate circumstances. The same provision also applies to situations where a parent or a teacher uses reasonable physical force to restrain or expel a child from a classroom when appropriate.

We know that Canadians hold a wide range of opinions regarding what should be deemed a suitable degree of physical discipline when parenting or teaching a child. These differing perspectives have sparked discussions regarding which behaviours reach a level of harm necessitating prohibition, all while recognizing that parental choices are deeply personal. I appreciate the chance offered by Bill C-273 to reflect on these significant questions.

Our government supports Bill C-273 and its crucial goal of safeguarding children from violence and abuse. Nonetheless, we have received feedback from parents, particularly those from overpoliced communities, and educators. They have expressed apprehension that they may face criminalization for reasonable actions, such as minor instances of physical intervention that do not result in harm.

It is worth noting that section 43 has been a component of the Criminal Code since 1892, remaining largely untouched. Its origins flow from the parental duty to protect and educate children. The defence typically applies in relation to assault charges, because assault is broadly defined in the Criminal Code as the non-consensual application of force. This definition captures non-consensual touching or even threats against another person, regardless of their age or whether physical harm or injury occurs.

Section 43 was enacted by Parliament to prevent the criminalization of specific behaviours by teachers, parents and caregivers. However, its current application is not designed to safeguard against abusive or harmful behaviour.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its 2004 decision Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, found that section 43 is consistent with sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and clarified that the defence applies only to parents who impose minor corporal punishment of a transitory or trifling nature. The court also set certain parameters on the defence. For example, the defence applies only where the child is aged two to 12 and is capable of learning from the situation. No object may be used when applying force. The child’s head must not be slapped. There can be no physical harm or reasonable prospect of harm, and the adult must not be acting out of frustration or anger.

The court has restricted the scope of the defence, particularly concerning educators, who are constrained to employing judicious physical intervention solely for the purpose of upholding discipline or enforcing school regulations, such as relocating a student from a classroom or ensuring adherence to instructions. The court underscored that corporal punishment administered by teachers is unequivocally prohibited. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling nearly two decades ago, advancing research and insights into the adverse effects linked to the physical disciplining of children have led to heightened calls for the reform or repeal of section 43.

The government is steadfast in its dedication to realizing all recommendations outlined in the 2015 final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The repeal of section 43 would constitute another stride toward fulfilling this commitment, aligning with call to action 6. This particular call is substantiated by documented instances of pervasive corporal punishment and child mistreatment by personnel within the residential school system, as highlighted in the commission's final report: “The failure to develop, implement, and monitor effective discipline sent an unspoken message that there were no real limits on what could be done to Aboriginal children within the walls of a residential school.”

Advocates for the complete repeal of section 43, including numerous civil society entities and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, contend that the existing criminal legislation fails to afford children equal protection to that which is afforded to adults. Moreover, a growing body of medical and social science studies suggests that corporal punishment adversely impacts children. Such disciplinary measures expose children to the risks of physical harm, abuse, compromised mental well-being, strained parent-child relationships, heightened childhood aggression, anti-social conduct and increased violence and criminal behaviour as adults, thereby perpetuating cycles of violence. More than 650 organizations across Canada have endorsed the stance that physical discipline of children and youth yields no beneficial outcomes, and have called for the same protection from assault for children as that given to adults.

However, the complete repeal of section 43 raises concerns in some sectors. For instance, various religious groups, legal scholars and teacher representation bodies, including the Canadian Teachers' Federation, have expressed reservations regarding the complete repeal of section 43. They contend that a complete repeal could expose teachers and parents to potential criminal charges for minor and inconsequential physical interactions with children such as intervening in sibling disputes or relocating a student from a classroom in the interest of the safety of the other students. In the absence of a legal safeguard for parents, educators and caregivers who apply reasonable physical force to children in their care, the assault provisions may apply. This is due to the broad scope of the assault provisions, encompassing minor instances of force that do not culminate in physical harm. For instance, this could encompass scenarios such as a parent restraining a child to ensure they are properly placed in a car seat.

As I alluded to earlier, it may also have an unintended negative impact on populations that are already proven to be overpoliced and overrepresented in the criminal justice and child welfare systems, including the indigenous and Black communities, as well as members of other racialized groups.

In closing—

The House resumed from November 27, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne’s Quest and the protection of children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Children

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we started debate on Bill C-273, which aims to protect children by ending the legalized physical punishment of kids. Canada would join 65 other countries worldwide by adopting the bill. This is an important step. It would implement call to action number 6 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is a start, but we can do much more in a country as wealthy as Canada.

We support children also by supporting their families. Every child and everyone should have a home and a roof over their head at night. Every child and everyone should have safe drinking water, good, safe schools and great health care, including dental care and mental health supports. Children should not have to worry about whether their family can afford medication that keeps their loved one in good health, whether they or their family will have to go into debt for decades for them to go to university or whether this planet will be burned beyond repair by climate change because no one took action.

The NDP believes that every child deserves love and support and deserves to be able to fulfill their full potential. We will continue to fight to build a Canada where every child matters and no child is left behind.

Criminal Code

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am proud to support Bill C-273. I thank my NDP colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, for introducing this bill in honour of Corinne's Quest. Bill C-273 will do great things if it is allowed to pass. It will protect children. It will end allowing adults to physically punish children. It will implement call to action number six from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In my statement, I remind Canada that since 1892, the Criminal Code still allows for the physical punishment of children. I outline why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would have introduced call to action number six. I remind Canadians about international law and conclude with Corinne's Quest to ensure her story remains alive as long as the physical punishment of children is legally allowed.

Spanking or hitting children as a form of punishment should never have been legally allowed in the first place. Section 43 of the Criminal Code allows it, and that is why, through Bill C-273, this section of the Criminal Code must be repealed. The current law in Canada 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.

Instead of protecting children, this section creates arguments for adults to make justifications for physically punishing children. Canada's history of making justifications for hitting children is deeply rooted. For indigenous peoples, it remains a part of federal genocidal policies.

For more than 150 years, Inuit, first nations and Métis were taken from their parents, families, homes and familiar environments and sent to attend schools run by churches. According to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, the first church-run Indian residential school was opened in 1831. By the 1880s, the federal government was funding church-run residential schools. The aim, as we all know, was to “take the Indian out of the child”. Indigenous children were beaten, sexually abused and forced to be ashamed of who they were. They were beaten if they spoke even a word of any of their first nations, Métis or Inuit languages.

Survivors of residential schools only recently, in the last few years, have started openly sharing their experiences. We must honour their stories. I still remember vividly experiences shared with me from former students like Monica lttusardjuat, Ernie Bernhardt, Marie-Lucie Uviluq and Marius Tungilik, just to name a few. Horrid traumas were inflicted on them. Their stories guide me to this day.

I remind members that these stories were only allowed to be shared because of the great work of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which was so cruelly cut by the Conservative Party. This is at a time when so much healing is still much needed to this day.

In 2020, the University of Manitoba Press said that records showed everything from speaking one's aboriginal language to bed-wetting to running away provoked whippings, strappings, beatings and other forms of abuse and humiliation. This pattern continues in the foster care system. According to Indigenous Services Canada, 53.8% of children in foster care are indigenous, despite the fact that they make up only 7.7% of the Canadian population.

In November 2018, the University of Toronto said that, in many of these situations, children are taken from their home communities and raised elsewhere without regard for their language and culture. It also said that reports of maltreatment, neglect and abuse in the foster care system are rampant and that indigenous children are more than 3.4 times more likely to have a substantiated case of maltreatment in comparison to non-indigenous children. Also, the sixties scoop has been well know by indigenous peoples for generations. This phenomenon is only now becoming understood by mainstream Canada and reported by academics.

Canada's reconciliation with indigenous peoples still requires dedicated, well-invested and true commitment. Indigenous peoples have yet to experience active reconciliation. Banning the physical punishment of children would be a positive step. Justification for harming children can end. It can be the 44th Parliament that achieves this.

According to Indigenous Watchdog, a federally registered non-profit organization dedicated to monitoring and reporting on reconciliation, the government has only completed 13 of the 92 Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. It is obvious that reconciliation is not a commitment of this and past governments. Passing Bill C-273 would be a step in the right direction. It would be a small but important signal toward reconciliation.

In 1989, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Canada signed on shortly thereafter. The convention states, among other things:

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

The Library of Parliament published “The ‘Spanking’ Law: Section 43 of the Criminal Code”, under its “HillStudies”, in June 2016. I note:

By maintaining Section 43 on the books, Canada is clearly in violation of a treaty it signed, and Canada has been repeatedly reminded of this fact by the UN. This, and other reasons provides Canada with ample reasons to repeal s. 43.

Canada must do its part. Sweden was the first country to ban it, in 1979, France banned it in 2018 and Scotland in 2019. Even China proposed legislation in 2021.

The main driver behind Bill C-273 has been an organization called Corinne's Quest. Corinne's Quest was founded in 1991 by retired lawyer Corinne Robertshaw, who was concerned with reports of child injuries and deaths caused by parents and caregivers. She fought for decades to repeal section 43 and finally end the physical punishment of children. While Corinne sadly passed away in 2013, her legacy lives on as Corinne's Quest. It has grown into a national collective of lawyers, pediatricians, social workers and teachers. Corinne's inspiring work and that of so many others can be completed with the passage of Bill C-273.

For these reasons, I urge all parliamentarians to support this bill. It is unacceptable that the Criminal Code still justifies the physical punishment of children. I remind Canadians of our responsibility to have reconciliation with indigenous peoples and to complete the TRC's calls to action. We must respect international law, especially with Canada's adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We must finish Corinne's work to protect children. More than anything, we must protect the indigenous children who are still in the foster care system.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate in this place on the important issues that Canadians face. I do so today on Bill C-273, understanding the complexities surrounding the debate we are having here when it comes to the issues of reconciliation, parenting and parental rights, and ensuring children are given the best and every opportunity to succeed in our country.

As one approaches the important discussion we have here, it is meant to be taken seriously and with a full understanding of what the implications of such a bill would be. I note that it is very simple; it is one line that would repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. For those watching, who may not have the full breadth of understanding surrounding what section 43 of the Criminal Code is, it 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.

We have before us a bill that would take out something that has been the course of debate and a subject of debate in this country for the last half-century or so. In fact, I believe there have been around 30 bills brought forward endeavouring to accomplish this or something very similar to it.

I note first a process challenge that exists when it comes to this conversation taking place in the form of a private member's bill, and that is the limited time we have to address the many complexities surrounding this debate. Certainly, two hours of debate in this place and a short committee study is not nearly long enough to speak to the complexity that exists on a whole host of issues, which I will endeavour to get into during the course of this speech.

Let us be clear: Child abuse, as well as violence against children, is wrong and should always have been wrong. However, we have examples throughout our history where, unfortunately, it has been permitted and even state-sanctioned. What we have here is a disconnect, I would suggest, between what the bill purports to do and what the Criminal Code actually says. I emphasize this because there are no provisions in the Criminal Code that permit violence against children or child abuse.

I find it troubling that this has created a notion that one needs to support Bill C-273 in order to be opposed to violence against children. In reality, in terms of section 43, a number of Supreme Court challenges have taken place that brought forward the legitimacy of this. I note that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby failed to take into account some of the challenging nuances surrounding it, including some of the communities he referenced. That is part one.

I would also suggest that another important element is the process of reconciliation and how important it is to ensure that we continue to have that conversation in this country. In fact, I am very proud to be a part of the party that brought forward the apology for the government's role in the residential process, kicking off the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which led to this report. I am very proud that we have been able to be strong supporters of the process of reconciliation. There is a need for that process to continue in order to ensure it is done in a way that gives every opportunity for meaningful reconciliation to take place.

Specifically, when it comes to Bill C-273, there are nuances in this debate that indigenous communities are concerned about with regard to the possible implications if we do not take into account every aspect of what this would mean for children, parents and educators in our country. Some of my constituents with indigenous heritage have shared this with me. It is unfortunate that, as with many other issues faced in this place, the voices of parents are not being meaningfully heard.

We have seen attempts, time and time again, to diminish the role played not only by parents but also by the family as a fundamental building block of society. Any attempt to see that diminished would be wrong. We can see the implications of this over the course of our recent history. We need to be very careful, as the family has done so much to build this country.

I would suggest that, when it comes to the state's involvement in matters such as this, in terms of removing a parent's right to parent their children as they feel fit and the appropriateness around what is reasonable, there is a fair discussion to be had. One of the most challenging things, when I hear these debates taking place, is that we see that this is a response to, especially, the conversation surrounding reconciliation.

We see how the things that were sanctioned by the state ended up causing such significant harm, specifically to children. Now we have the inability to have a reasonable conversation around a parent's role in raising their children and what could take away some of the tools that are available for a parent to do so. We have the state, the possibility of taking and, in some cases, even criminalization.

In fact, there is a concern raised by many parents, parental groups and a number of teachers, including teachers' organizations. I know that the members raised a host of organizations that support this. I can tell us, very clearly, that the support is not unanimous.

The history of the debate that we are having today speaks to that very thing: We have to have that fulsome understanding of what the implications of this would be. As we endeavour to understand this, it comes back to the need to be able to trust our parents to raise children. That includes ensuring that the reconciliation process is undertaken.

I would note, just in terms of a process question, that there is a similar bill in the Senate. It has passed second reading on division. It has not yet been studied in committee there.

I would suggest that the discussion we are having here is of a limited nature, but the widespread consequences that it could bring about for our nation are profound. If we do not take that seriously, we are certainly not doing our job as parliamentarians.

I would just note that the courts have ruled on this. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada laid out very clear parameters for the use of physical correction and stated that section 43 does not extend to an application of force that results in harm or, and this is important, the prospect of harm.

I spoke before about how the Criminal Code has very clear and wide-reaching applications of what constitutes abuse and assault. To ensure that parents are able to have the full latitude required to raise healthy and productive citizens is absolutely fundamental.

I find it very concerning. Certainly, my constituents have reached out to me. Moreover, I have heard from a number of groups across the country, which have shared their concern that, if we allow section 43 to be removed without the appropriate conversations surrounding what the implications would be, we open ourselves up to allowing for further state control. This would not end up benefiting the children.

In conclusion, in fact, I noted that my Bloc colleagues and Liberal colleagues had noted a number of concerns that they have with the bill. However, I believe that the Liberals said that they would be supporting the bill going to committee. Those concerns should be taken very seriously. They necessitate further conversations and reasonable dialogue to ensure that we are doing what is best for our country and for the future of our children, as well as to ensure that we can have those reasonable and sometimes difficult conversations, so that we strike the right balance in this place.

I would simply say that I have followed this debate closely over both my years in Parliament and the years before as a parent. As somebody who cares deeply about our nation's future, my concern is that this bill simply does not facilitate the conversations that are required to have the meaningful dialogue about what raising children in Canada should look like in the future.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join second reading debate on Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to Corinne’s Quest and the protection of children, which was introduced by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby on May 19, 2022.

Bill C-273 proposes to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which provides a defence to parents, caregivers and teachers who apply reasonable force to children in their care. For parents and those exercising parental responsibilities, section 43 applies to the use of corporal punishment. This means that parents can use mild physical force, such as spanking or light hitting, to discipline a child in their care. Section 43 also allows parents to use physical control to restrain or remove a child in appropriate circumstances. The defence is more limited for teachers, who may never impose corporal punishment. Section 43 protects only the teacher who uses reasonable physical control to restrain or remove a child in appropriate circumstances.

Bill C-273 engages highly sensitive issues such as parental authority, children's rights, the appropriate role of government and the line between appropriate parental discipline and child abuse. We know that Canadians hold a wide range of views about what constitutes an acceptable level of physical discipline when parenting or teaching a child. These divergent views have prompted debates about what behaviours are harmful enough that they should be prohibited, while keeping in mind that how one chooses to parent their child is a deeply personal matter. I welcome the opportunity the bill before us has provided to consider these important questions.

The government supports Bill C-273 and its important objective of protecting children from violence and abuse. However, we have heard some concerns from parents, especially from over-policed demographics, and teachers that they may be criminalized for reasonable actions such as minor uses of physical control that do not cause harm.

Section 43 has been part of the Criminal Code, and largely unchanged, since 1892. Its origins flow from the parental duty to protect and educate children. The defence typically applies in relation to assault charges, because assault is broadly defined in the Criminal Code as the non-consensual application of force. This definition captures non-consensual touching or even threats against another person, regardless of their age or whether or not physical harm or injury occurs. Section 43 represents Parliament's attempt to avoid criminalizing certain conduct by teachers, parents and caregivers, but its application today is not intended to protect against abusive and harmful conduct.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its 2004 decision Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, found that section 43 is consistent with sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and clarified that the defence applies only to parents who impose minor corporal punishment “of a transitory and trifling nature”. The court also set certain parameters on the defence. For example, the defence applies only where the child is aged two to 12 and is capable of learning from the situation. No object may be used when applying force. The child's head must not be slapped. There can be no physical harm or reasonable prospect of harm and the adult must not be acting out of frustration or anger. The court limited the defence even further for teachers, who may use reasonable physical control only to maintain order or enforce school rules, such as removing a child from a classroom or securing compliance with instructions. The court emphasized that corporal punishment by teachers is never permitted. Since the Supreme Court of Canada decision almost 20 years ago, evolving research and information on the harms associated with the physical discipline of children has resulted in increased calls for the repeal or reform of section 43.

The government is committed to implementing all of the calls to action stemming from the 2015 final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Repealing section 43 would be one more step in accomplishing that commitment, as repealing it would be in alignment with call to action No. 6. This call to action was supported by documented evidence of widespread corporal punishment and abuse of children by staff in the residential school system, with the commission noting in its final report that “[t]he failure to develop, implement, and monitor effective discipline sent an unspoken message that there were no real limits on what could be done to Aboriginal children within the walls of a residential school.”

Those who favour the full repeal of section 43, including many civil society organizations and the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child, argue that the current criminal law does not provide children with the same protection as adults. Furthermore, a growing body of medical and social science research indicates that corporal punishment has a detrimental effect on children. Corporal punishment places children at risk of physical injury, physical abuse, impaired mental health, a poor parent-child relationship, increased childhood aggression and anti-social behaviour, and increased violence and criminal behaviour as adults, thus perpetuating cycles of violence. Over 650 organizations in Canada endorsed the position that the physical punishment of children and youth has no positive effects, and they called for the same protection from assault for children as that given to adults.

However, the complete repeal of section 43 raises concerns in some sectors. For instance, some religious organizations, legal experts and organizations representing teachers, such as the Canadian Teachers' Federation, have opposed the complete repeal of section 43, as it may leave teachers and parents vulnerable to charges for minor or trifling physical contact with children, such as preventing a fight between siblings or removing a student from a classroom for their own safety or that of other students. Without a defence for parents, teachers and caregivers who apply reasonable physical force to children in their care, the assault provisions may apply. This is because the assault provisions cover a very wide range of behaviour, which includes minor applications of force that do not result in physical injury. This could capture, for example, a parent restraining a child to put them in a car seat. As I alluded to earlier, it may also have an unintended negative impact on populations that are over-policed and that are overrepresented in the criminal justice and child welfare systems, including the indigenous and Black communities, as well as members of other racialized groups.

International responses to the question of corporal punishment reflect the divergent positions on this issue and the need to achieve a balanced approach. A growing number of countries, including Sweden, New Zealand, Scotland and Germany, have repealed legislative provisions that are similar to section 43, in order to prohibit corporal punishment. By contrast, some jurisdictions, such as Australia, for example, continue to provide protection to parents who use minor corrective force against their children.

It may be worth considering whether the defence could be tailored to address these various concerns by excluding from the scope corporal punishment, while allowing it for parents, caregivers and teachers who use minor physical force that is both transitory and trifling. In other words, forms of corporal punishment such as hitting and spanking would be excluded in all cases. Such an approach would also recognize the shifts in research and evidence regarding the harms that physical punishment poses for children, while trying to ensure that parents, caregivers and teachers can use minor, non-harmful physical force without being exposed to criminal liability. Changes in this area of the law would also impact provinces and territories, given their jurisdiction over the administration of justice, education and the provision of child welfare services. For this reason, it would be important to provide some time before reforms come into force, in order to allow the various parties to prepare for their effective implementation.

We all recognize the important role that education plays in encouraging safe and appropriate parenting practices. The current government has always and will always continue to support parenting education programs that promote the non-physical discipline of children and alternative disciplinary choices, and it regularly releases public education material targeted toward parents. Any reforms relating to section 43 would need to be accompanied by an educational campaign informing parents and teachers of the changes to the law and teaching alternatives to physical punishment. The Government of Canada is unwavering in its commitment to ensuring the protection and physical safety of children across the country. Bill C-273 would provide a valuable opportunity to develop a modern approach to the discipline of children, one which would ensure that children are protected from harm, while supporting reasonable choices by parents, teachers and caregivers.

I look forward to studying the bill at committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member will listen to what Quebec’s child care centres are saying. They are asking members to pass Bill C-273. This is also what the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, Quebec local community service centres and nursing homes, and the Association des médecins en protection de l’enfance du Québec are calling for. All of these organizations support this bill. I will not name them all, because I could spend 10 minutes listing all of the Quebec associations and francophone organizations across the country that support this bill.

Certain court rulings were mentioned, and this is important. However, the organizations say that the court rulings create even more confusion regarding the physical punishment of children. This is why all of these Quebec organizations are asking members to vote in favour of Bill C-273.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I am of course completely opposed to Bill C-273.

First, the bill seeks to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which deals with correcting a child. Section 43 clearly states that force must not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

I am a father and an educator, and I was a school principal for 20 years. If I had to put something like this to my teachers, things would not go well. We are talking about reining in children in a school environment like we do when they are running amok and have to be stopped. Section 43 does not take this approach at all. No harm is done provided that an intervention is reasonable. I find it rather absurd that this is being associated with physical punishment.

The current bill talks about physical punishment. The Criminal Code certainly has a lot of provisions to deal with physical punishment. Can my colleague draw the line between physical punishment and a reasonable measure?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

moved that Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne’s Quest and the protection of children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by acknowledging that Parliament is built on the unceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory. The peoples of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation have lived on this territory for a millennia. Their culture and presence have nurtured, and continue to nurture, this land, and we honour the people's land of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

That land acknowledgement is part of what we are attempting to do as a country in the reconciliation process of moving to put in place calls to action to ensure that we achieve lasting and meaningful reconciliation with first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. We know about the horrific conditions in the residential schools. We know about the cultural genocide that killed thousands of children. Therefore, we know that as a nation we must respond.

I note that eight years after the tabling of the landmark truth and reconciliation report, we have still to implement many of the calls to action. That is what is before us today, call to action 6 on education, as a result of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which reads as follows, “We call upon the Government of Canada to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.”

Section 43 is what permits physical punishment of children. It has yet to be implemented, which is fundamentally a repudiation of our attempts as a country to achieve that reconciliation. I believe that the adoption of this bill will take that meaningful step with respect to call to action 6 and its implementation, and it should be supported by all members of Parliament.

I reference that former senator Murray Sinclair believes that the death count that came from those residential schools could be five to 10 times higher than what was submitted and recorded as the number of children who died at the schools. The official figure is 4,100, but he believes it could be much higher.

I quote from the Toronto Star. It states:

When the churches and the government began the IRS system, the goal was to “kill the Indian in the child.” They aimed to assimilate these children into the new “dominant society...to suppress the Indigenous Peoples and begin appropriating the land and resources of this vast land. At the same time, the people suffered the loss of their most precious resource – their children.

It goes on to say, “To “kill the Indian in the child”” meant that it was “stolen from the children, literally cutting them off from everything they knew and should have learned. Corporal punishment is a polite “label” for the atrocities that were done to these children.”

Former national indigenous bishop Mark MacDonald of the Anglican Church of Canada has said this about section 43 of the Criminal Code, and the churches have responded, in their own drive for reconciliation, in supporting the idea that we would repeal section 43 once and for all and ban the legal physical punishment of people. He said:

Section 43 of the Criminal Code is a living and dangerous remnant of the system that caused such damage to Indigenous Peoples...Its repeal not only addresses the damage of the past, it safeguards the future of Indigenous children by removing the justification for the use of force in the discipline of children.

I note that on the website today, the Government of Canada, in its follow up to the 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it says with respect to call to action 6:

Next steps

The Government of Canada continues to explore how best to respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Call to Action 6 to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code.

The step forward is obvious; it is voting yes on Bill C-273. It is banning the use of physical punishment against children. It is taking that important step as a nation, and Parliament to do that in the next few weeks. In the vote that we will have in the New Year, all members of Parliament could join together to take that important step on reconciliation by voting yes to Bill C-273 to remove section 43, which permits the legalized use of force, the legalized use of physical punishment against children.

The bill is entitled, “Corinne’s Quest and the protection of children” because of Corinne Robertshaw. She passed away in 2013. As a lawyer working for the federal government, she was concerned about the reports of child injuries and deaths caused by parents and caregivers. She stated that the cause was physical punishment of children, and she was determined to end this practice. She founded Corinne's Quest.

Kathy and John Lynn from New Westminster, have been involved since the very beginning. Dawn Black, former member of Parliament of the House, is involved as well. Corinne's Quest has a network across the country.

The support in my community also comes from the Spirit of the Children Society. Ruth Weller, executive director wrote the following:

Good parenting begins by treating children with dignity and respect. In the past, Indigenous children were not given this right. Through the Residential Schools, a culture of pain and hurt was inflicted upon too many innocent children. These children were not given dignity nor respect. Instead, they were treated as property, forced to be bent to the will of the church and Government. Today, the Canadian Government has learned that this was wrong. Now, we can fix another wrong, by eliminating the pain-based behavior of child rearing. This is why we strongly support Bill C-273, as this is a Bill to meet the fundamental human needs to belong.

It is not just local organizations in my community that are calling on Parliament to adopt this bill. The joint statement on physical punishment of children and youth, which predates the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, was adopted 20 years ago, and continues to add signatories today.

Just some of the organizations that are calling on all members of Parliament to repeal section 43, just some of the organizations that are saying, “Let us ban physical punishment of children”, include: Amnesty International Canada; the Anglican Church of Canada; the Canadian Association for Community Living; 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 Centre for Child Protection; the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport; the Canadian Child Abuse Association; the Canadian Child Care Federation; the Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates; the Canadian Dental Association; the Canadian Federation of University Women; the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law; the Canadian Home and School Federation; the Canadian Institute of Child Health; the Canadian Medical Association; the Canadian Mental Health Association; the Canadian Nurses Association; the Canadian Psychological Association; the Canadian Public Health Association; the Canadian Red Cross; the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

Over 700 national organizations, important regional organizations, are calling on all members of Parliament to adopt this bill. This is not something that comes with only the support of child advocates, but it is a universal truth that organizations that understand the negative impacts of physical punishment are all calling on members of Parliament to adopt the bill.

It is not just in Canada where the debate is being held. Over the last couple of decades, we have seen a massive shift in how people perceive physical punishment of children.

The following countries have banned physical punishment of children include South Korea, Japan, South Africa, France, Argentina, Brazil, Poland, Costa Rica, Greece, Ukraine, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Scotland and Wales. Sixty-five countries and other regions around the world have all banned the physical punishment of children. By adopting this bill, Canada would become the 66th country internationally.

Some countries have refused to do this. I note that countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia still permit the physical punishment of children. However, when we look at our allies, when we look at democratic nations, they stand together in banning the physical punishment of children. Why? Because of numerous deep and profound research that has been done over the last few decades.

The American Psychological Association states:

Many studies have shown that physical punishment — including spanking, hitting and other means of causing pain — can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal makes the link “between “normative” physical punishment and child aggression, delinquency and spousal assault in later life.”

The Australian Institute of Family Studies states:

A meta-analysis involving over 160,000 children found that physical punishment can carry the risk of physical abuse...and can have similar negative outcomes for children: mental health and emotional challenges, lower cognitive ability, lower self-esteem, more aggression, more antisocial behaviour and negative relationships with parents.

The Canadian Child Care Federation talks about the “fear, anxiety, insecurity and anger” and the use of “aggression to solve problems” that come from physical punishment of children.

The evidence is very clear. Other countries, at a rate of one every four months, around the world are adopting a ban on physical punishment of children. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission clearly calls for it. Over 700 important national organizations are calling for it. Now is the time to adopt Bill C-273.

Bill C-273 constitutes an important initial follow-up on all of the work that has been done on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Call to action 6 calls for the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which currently legalizes the physical punishment of children. That is unacceptable, and it must be changed. Under this call to action, we have a responsibility to state very clearly that we need to eliminate this section of the Criminal Code that allows for the corporal punishment of children.

Over 700 national organizations are calling on the government to repeal section 43 in order to prevent the practice of physical punishment of children. That includes the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Association des CLSC et CHSLD du Québec and the Association des médecins en protection de l'enfance du Québec. It also includes school boards, such as the Center-East Catholic School Council, the Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario, the Conseil scolaire catholique Franco‑Nord de l'Ontario, the Conseil scolaire francophone provincial de Terre‑Neuve‑et‑Labrador and the Conseil scolaire publique du Nord‑Est de l'Ontario. All of these organizations want Canada to join the 65 other countries that have already banned the physical punishment of children, including France, Germany, Brazil and others.

Indeed, the World Health Organization said that, “Corporal punishment is linked to a range of negative outcomes for children across countries and cultures, including physical and mental ill-health, impaired cognitive and socio-emotional development, poor educational outcomes, increased aggression and perpetration of violence.” This has been shown by all the studies out there, and 65 countries have agreed this practice must be banned. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has asked us to do so, but this has been dragging on for eight years. Some 700 national organizations have asked the members of the House to vote in favour of Bill C-273.

I genuinely hope that all members will support this bill. This has been dragging on for eight years. Now is the time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne’s Quest and the protection of children).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this important legislation today, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to Corinne's Quest and the protection of children. I would like to give special thanks to my seconder, the dynamic member of Parliament for Nunavut.

As we well know, physical punishment of children is still legal in Canada, despite the fact that dozens and dozens of countries around the world have banned the practice. This bill seeks to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows for physical punishment of children.

Corinne's Quest comes from Corinne Robertshaw, a lawyer for the federal government who saw first-hand the results of allowing physical punishment of children and the death and injury of children throughout the 1970s and 1980s. She started Corinne's Quest and it continues today. Despite her death, Corinne's Quest continues to advocate on behalf of children.

I would like to give special thanks to Kathy and John Lynn, constituents of mine in New Westminster—Burnaby, who are shepherding the push to ban physical punishment of children and repeal section 43.

I hope that all members of Parliament will support this important legislation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)