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.

[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.