Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to Mr. Julian for bringing forward this private member's bill. I appreciated his remarks at the outset.
I also want to thank the witnesses for their interventions and my colleagues across the table for their questions thus far.
I would submit to the witnesses that there is broad agreement among all parliamentarians and Canadians that children are among the most vulnerable populations in our country and must be protected. I would hope there's a very strong consensus that we must do our utmost to eliminate any violence towards them, whether it's physical, psychological, mental or otherwise. I take at face value that that's the objective of this bill.
Through the questions we've heard thus far, I think that as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision back in 2004 on section 43 of the Criminal Code, which codifies a statutory defence when someone is charged with assaulting a child, there have been further interpretations on the extent to which that defence might apply to someone. What I'd like to do in my remaining minutes is really focus on the lively debate about whether or not any physical force is appropriate or justified to protect the child and others they may harm for a variety of reasons, including themselves.
As I interpret the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, we are really talking about children between the ages of two and 12 where the force is “reasonable under the circumstances”—to use the language of the Supreme Court—and, furthermore, where the reasonable exercise of that force is trifling and transitory.
Dr. Durrant, in your opinion, is there any circumstance in which...? Setting aside the use of the term “punishment”—because I think that imports many of the concerns that you and other experts have in this field—is there any physical force that can be exerted on a child between the ages of two and 12 that is trifling and transitory for the purposes of protecting them or others around them?