Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being with us today.
First I want to say that we've heard a lot today about people being choked or strangled, or children being assaulted or killed, and I want it to be clear on the record that these things are already illegal in Canada today. Regardless of what happens with section 43, those things are already illegal.
What we're talking about with section 43 is what kind of protection ought to be offered to parents and teachers in the reasonable raising of children. Look at the Supreme Court decision that upheld section 43 in 2004 and listen to what it had to say. I'm going to read from a study:
...the use of force must be sober and reasoned, address actual behaviour and be intended to restrain, control or express symbolic disapproval. They also noted that the child must have the capacity to understand and benefit from the correction, which means that section 43 does not justify force against children under the age of two or those with certain disabilities.
It goes on:
According to the [SCC] decision, reasonableness further implies that force may not be administered to teenagers, as this can induce aggressive or antisocial behaviour. Moreover, force may not involve objects, such as rulers or belts, and it may not be applied to the head.
We know that when courts make decisions, they always talk about precedent cases, and they don't just talk about the law; they talk about the interpretation that people gave in those precedent cases. I believe the Supreme Court's interpretation, which was accepted in the majority...and honestly, from the views we've heard of the dissenters, even the dissenters would like what I just read to you.
My question is for ARPA. Do you think the private member's bill is necessary, considering that the Supreme Court has already upheld this?