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]

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.