Justice Committee on April 11th, 2024

[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.

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

I move a motion to approve it.

[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.

[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 very much.

We'll now begin the first round of questions.

Mr. Moore, the floor is yours.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Julian, for being here today to present for your private member's bill.

Unfortunately, it's at a time when there is skyrocketing violence in Canada. Car thefts are up 300% in Toronto alone. Gang homicides are up 100%. There is a dangerous opioid crisis, and just two days ago, a horrific case involving child sexual abuse was thrown out because of vacancies in the court system. Those are all matters for which motions have been put forward for study at this committee. Instead, we're studying a bill—your bill—that would criminalize the behaviour and actions of loving parents and teachers who are trying to provide a safe learning environment for their children.

There are a number of statements you made in your opening remarks, Mr. Julian, that I think could lead Canadians to the wrong conclusion about what the state of the law is in this country. What you neglected to mention is that section 43 of the Criminal Code, which applies to parents and teachers, was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the majority, stated:

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.

That was Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, when section 43 was constitutionally upheld by our Supreme Court of Canada.

You made a number of comments in your opening remarks and I think they are inflammatory.

You mentioned someone being slapped on the face. The Supreme Court, in considering section 43, said that slapping someone is not protected under section 43 of the Criminal Code.

You mentioned a quote from Sinclair about someone being punched in the face. That could lead someone to the conclusion that section 43 allows parents or teachers to punch children in the face. It does not. That would be a criminal action.

You mention physical correction by teachers. The Supreme Court of Canada, in considering section 43, specifically said that physical correction is available only to parents, not to teachers. Teachers are specifically prohibited from using physical correction on a student.

You have three pretty inflammatory statements in your opening. I think that underpins this whole discussion.

I'm sorry to take up time, but I want to get the record straight on what the Supreme Court said section 43 actually does.

It says that parents and caregivers can only use corrective force that is minor or “trifling” in nature. For example, spanking or slapping a child hard enough that it leaves a mark or bruise would not be considered trifling.

The court said that teachers cannot use force for physical punishment under any circumstances. A physical punishment cannot be used on children younger than two or older than 12 years old. Physical punishment cannot be used on a child in anger or retaliation for something a child did. Objects, such as belts or rulers, must never be used on a child and a child must never be hit or slapped on the face or head, which you mentioned in your comments. Also, any use of force on a child cannot be degrading, inhumane or result in harm or the prospect of harm.

Mr. Julian, what section 43 does is allow a parent whose child is repeatedly trying to put their hand on an oven top—which would result in serious burns—to maybe spank that child, if that's what the parent chooses, when the child refuses to obey any verbal commands.

It allows a teacher to break up a fight in their classroom. The teachers in my riding will tell you that there's increasing violence in the classroom. There are an increasing number of situations where teachers have to intervene in violent conduct of students.

Section 43 does not allow teachers to spank or strap students. In Canada, that is strictly prohibited. Your opening comments would lead someone to believe that teachers can punch a child in the face or strap them. That is criminal activity.

I don't know how much time I have left, Madam Chair. It took a bit of time to set the record straight on what the current state of the law is.

Section 43 is an important provision. It's in the Criminal Code for a reason, and it narrowly protects teachers who are trying to provide a safe learning environment and parents who are trying their best to raise their kids. Section 43 has been considered by the Supreme Court, has been found to be of significant value and has been constitutionally upheld.

Mr. Julian, I'll end by asking you a question. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said, “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”. Do you think Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has it all wrong and that you are right?

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

Madam Chair, how much time is left after that very long—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

You have 30 seconds.

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

Well, obviously that question was not intended to elicit information, but I'll say the following.

Mr. Moore, what you neglected to say was that it was a split decision. What you neglected to say was that since that decision, over 60 countries have banned the physical punishment of children. What you neglected to say as well was that both the Italian and Israeli supreme courts also ruled against corporal—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Chair, I asked a question and the question was—

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

You're not taking even more time. You took five and a half minutes out of six.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Julian, you're regurgitating what you've already said. The question I asked—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Moore, your time is up.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

—was this: Is Beverley McLachlin wrong and you are right? Just answer yes or no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Moore, the time is up.

I think, Mr. Julian, you're going to get a chance to answer. We're good.

I'll now go to Madame Dhillon.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Julian, and thank you so much for being here to testify about this bill.

Could you finish your thoughts from the previous question? Go ahead.

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

Thank you so much, Madame Dhillon. I appreciate that.

I believe that committees should ask questions and then allow time for a response. Perhaps I am old school that way.

Since the split decision of the Supreme Court more than 20 years ago, we have seen 60 countries ban physical force used against children. They include almost all of our major allies. I cited Wales, Scotland, Ireland and New Zealand earlier, but there's also Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany, France—I could go on and on and read the entire list of countries that have gone that way.

Call to action number 6 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is something that all parties around the table have committed to. They committed to implementing the calls to action.

The reason I quoted Murray Sinclair, who is renowned, is that he spoke about the impacts of section 43, which dates back to 1892. Again, we're not talking about fresh legislation; we're talking about something that comes from the 19th century. There's a reason there has been so much pressure to repeal section 43 from all the major organization in Canada, including all the major health care organizations and all the major organizations that are trying to facilitate development of our youth, and so much consensus. It's because, as we'll see in the second hour of the discussion, all the peer-reviewed science shows the negative impacts on children of allowing the use of physical force against children.

My final point, which I mentioned at the outset, is that there are a number of provisions in the Criminal Code that allow individuals who are protecting children, who are defending themselves or another person, or who are protecting property.... Those sections of the Criminal Code apply.

I find the argument of Mr. Moore—though I have a lot of respect for him—disingenuous, because the facts and the science prove otherwise.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We cannot deny that there is an increase in violence at schools, but something interesting you mentioned is that corporal punishment against children at a young age begets more violence, so these bullies at school come from somewhere. You don't start bullying out of nowhere.

Maybe you could speak a bit more about the effects of corporal punishment on small children and how they behave in society. I might run out of time, so you can have enough time to answer the question.

What tools can teachers use to manage this kind of violence? Do we have any lessons to learn from other countries?

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

Those are great questions.

First off, do we have lessons to learn from other countries? The 65 countries and 18 other regions around the world I cited that have banned the use of physical force against children did that because it is in the interest of children and youth to do so. We've seen that evolution over the last 20 years. It's been a considerable evolution to ensure that children can grow and prosper and that the loving support that comes from parents, teachers and caregivers can continue. The reality is, as you'll see from the many briefs this committee has received, the science is very clear: There is a range of other tools available to parents and caregivers that do not involve using physical force. There is no doubt this is in the interest of the child.

When we look at all the organizations that have expressed support for this, including the Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Dental Association, they have been very clear about the importance of taking this step. This relic from 1892 continues to be in our Criminal Code and the time has come to repeal it. There have been various initiatives over the years. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the most notable. It put this as one of its first calls to action—call to action 6—because of the legacy of residential schools.

Given the weight of the science and the testimony members of this committee are receiving from people who have done the studies and science on the impacts on children, I think it's fair to say that this committee, which is one of the leading committees in the House of Commons, should be looking to advance this legislation so we can repeal section 43.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Julian, you have 30 seconds left.

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

I want to cite some of the organizations.

Amnesty International Canada supports the repeal of section 43, as do the Anglican Church of Canada, the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, the Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates, the Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto and UNICEF Canada.

These organizations are all calling for a repeal of section 43.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Fortin, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Julian. Welcome to our committee.

Section 43 of the Criminal Code is quite short and simple to read. It talks about using force to correct a pupil or child. That's what you want to be able to accept a defence on. From what I understand of your argument and the references you've given us, correcting a child, imposing corporal punishment—I use the word “punishment”, since that is what we're talking about here—by spanking him, for example, is rejected these days by a large majority of governments. I'd say that I tend to agree with that.

However, we're talking about using force, and we are talking about fathers, mothers and teachers. Our colleague Mr. Moore talked about it, and I believe Ms. Dhillon also said that it couldn't be denied that there has been an increase in violence in our schools. We know that it may be useful or even essential for a teacher, or even a parent, to use force to control a pupil or child, rather than to correct it.

Could you tell us whether you think the use of force to control a child in certain circumstances may be useful or necessary? Once again, I'm not talking about punishment, since we agree on this issue, and it is therefore settled.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Fortin.

As I said in my opening remarks, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code related to the use of force. For example, section 34 of the Criminal Code provides for the use of force to defend oneself or another person. Section 35 provides for the use of force in defence of property. Section 27 deals with the use of force to prevent the commission of an offence. According to a common law defence, there is also the state of necessity. Force can also be used in cases where there is no legal recourse.

You're right that there are certain circumstances that require force, but the reality is that those provisions are already in the Criminal Code. In Canada and Quebec, a number of people have been calling for the removal of section 43 for a long time.

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

Mr. Julian, are you aware of the decision rendered by Justice Berg of the Ontario Court of Justice on December 20 in R. v. Bender?