Justice Committee on April 11th, 2024

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

I know very little about it, but I would like to know more.

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

In short, Justice Berg accepted the defence, under section 43, of a schoolteacher who grabbed a child by the wrist to take the child to the back of the classroom and release the child once secure, because the child was becoming violent and there was a fear that the child would assault another pupil. The judge said that this was a good example of a situation where force could be used to control a child and prevent them from being a danger to themselves or others.

I imagine you agree with that decision.

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

Every year, in a few cases, provisions are used—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but, as you know, we don't have a lot of time.

Do you agree with that decision? Maybe you haven't read it.

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

What I'm saying is that it's not just section 43 that can be used. I believe that, in the vast majority of cases, sections 27, 34 and 35 are also used.

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

[ Inaudible—Editor ] of section 43, I want to know if you agree with that decision.

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

I was—

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

You're allowed to tell me that you haven't read it. I don't want to force you—

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

I haven't read it, but, in principle, in this type of decision, sections 27, 34 and 35 are also used. So it's not just section 43 that applies and is used.

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

Okay, thank you. I don't want to rush you, but you know how things work; our speaking time is limited.

If I understood correctly, you agree that, in certain circumstances, a teacher or parent can use reasonable force. Again, I'm not talking about punishment; I'm talking about the use of force to control a child. In your opinion, that is acceptable.

There is talk of repealing section 43, but, if I understand correctly, you don't intend to prohibit parents or teachers from using force in relation to a child, provided that the force doesn't exceed what is reasonable in the circumstances, as stated in section 43.

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

You're right, but what I'm saying is that other sections of the Criminal Code also apply. In the defence of these kinds of things, it's not just section 43 that applies. There are also sections 27, 34 and 35. That's the point I wanted to make.

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

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Garrison, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Julian for bringing this bill forward in the House of Commons. There are parent groups in my riding that were asking me to do the same thing, and Mr. Julian had already brought this bill forward, so I have significant community support in my riding for it.

Mr. Moore raised the Supreme Court decision from a case called the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, a decision from 2004, and he asked you whether you agreed with the Supreme Court.

I'm tempted to ask whether you agree with the three judges who disagreed with the chief justice in that case. It was a split decision, and there were certainly strong arguments made on both sides. Do you agree with the other judges?

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

I agreed with the minority in that split decision. I found their judgment very compelling.

I think you're asking a very good question, Mr. Garrison. If this were before the Supreme Court today, 20 years later, I believe there would be a very different decision made.

The Supreme Court has put it back to Parliament, and Parliament decided at second reading, by a clear majority, to move this bill forward. It is now before the justice committee—a very esteemed committee.

I think the approval in principle that came from the House of Commons directs the work of the Standing Committee on Justice. I would suggest that rather than going through the court system again, which would take a number of years and would, I believe, get a different result today, it makes sense for legislators who were given this mandate, a mandate by our constituents, to make the appropriate decision.

I was very gratified, as I believe most Canadians were, to see the second reading vote that allowed this bill to move forward to this committee.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I strongly believe that there have been changes in Canadian society over the last 20 years that would lead to a different outcome in the courts. I wonder if you could talk a bit about what you think has changed in our attitudes toward violence toward children.

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

That's a great question, Mr. Garrison.

First off is the science. We've seen numerous studies—75 in the last 20 years—that have clearly indicated the negative impact of using physical force against children. That's the first evolution.

Second is the number of countries around the world. There was only a handful in 2004. There are now over 65, plus 18 regions, including Wales and Scotland. These are our allies. These are fellow democracies that are all making the same decision. There's the decision of the Supreme Court of Italy and the decision of the Supreme Court of Israel. These are all indicators that are very clear and compelling, and 700 organizations—all the major health organizations and all the major organizations that work with children—have called upon Parliament to take this step and repeal section 43.

What has changed is the groundswell of support, the science and the international evolution of thoughts about the best way to ensure the development of our children and youth. All those things have changed since that split decision.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

You mentioned reconciliation early on in your presentation. I'll ask whether you share my concern that if we dismiss the arguments of first nations people about this bill, we are in fact doing damage to the process of reconciliation.

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

I think you have absolutely hit the nail on the head, Mr. Garrison.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission put forward calls to action, and it has been a number of years since the last call to action was implemented. This is a way for parliamentarians to step forward and ensure we are moving forward on the calls to action. It has been nine years since call to action 6 was published—nine years.

I cited Murray Sinclair. This was after TRC recommendation 6, the call to action that Parliament did not follow through on. Now Parliament has the opportunity to follow through on it. This would be a significant and important step for national reconciliation.

Given what we know now about residential schools, it is important symbolically and an important step for Parliament to take.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I know I have very little time, but I want to ask you about something that came up in my riding in discussions with police, who are forced to investigate family violence. One of the officers said to me that they found this section problematic for their investigations and that their investigations would be much easier if it was clear that violence against children is not acceptable.

In their investigations now, they have to consider the level of violence, whether it was appropriate and all sorts of factors that make their investigations much more difficult. That officer was a very strong proponent of your bill, saying that it would make their investigations clearer and their explanations to families much easier when violence takes place.

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

That is a very important point. Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

The reality is that child protection workers and police officers have found the very complicated nature of the split decision from 20 years ago difficult to enforce regarding child protection. The confusion that comes out of that is, I think, apparent to everyone. The TRC recommendation was to repeal section 43 to eliminate that confusion and really start the process of reconciliation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to our second round. We'll begin with Mr. Caputo for five minutes.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Julian, for being here.

Frankly, if this law were to pass, it wouldn't impact me as a parent, but I'm not here as me. I'm here as somebody who's trying to ask you questions from a legitimate point of inquiry.

I want to get to the bottom of what you believe should be criminalized. Right now, to be candid, I think we're talking about lots of extremes. For instance, you said there was a minority judgment, 6-3. I'm not sure which of the three minority judgments—or dissenting judges, if we want to be technical—you prefer. Do you have a preference as to which one you thought was right?

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

As to the split decision, when you read the decisions of the minority of the Supreme Court, it is very clear that the belief was that section 43 is not justified in today's society.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Well, when I read them, I look at them as three very different decisions. One said it was too vague. Another said it couldn't be saved in relation to teachers, but not to parents. Then one said it did offend the charter. One of the reasons is that it was broad in relation to a very slight use of force.

With all due respect, I don't think we can say the minority or the dissenters all got it right, because they got to very different places in very different ways. If we are going to correct the record, then let's be clear on that.

I want to ask you, Mr. Julian, about somebody symbolically correcting behaviour, which is what the Supreme Court talked about and what one of the dissenting judges talked about. I'm going to give you an example. Again, I just want to figure out what you believe should be covered. If a parent symbolically taps a wrist with two fingers, would that offend the criminal law, in your view? I'm sorry; I'll be more clear. Should that conduct be criminalized?