Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Julian, for being here today to present for your private member's bill.
Unfortunately, it's at a time when there is skyrocketing violence in Canada. Car thefts are up 300% in Toronto alone. Gang homicides are up 100%. There is a dangerous opioid crisis, and just two days ago, a horrific case involving child sexual abuse was thrown out because of vacancies in the court system. Those are all matters for which motions have been put forward for study at this committee. Instead, we're studying a bill—your bill—that would criminalize the behaviour and actions of loving parents and teachers who are trying to provide a safe learning environment for their children.
There are a number of statements you made in your opening remarks, Mr. Julian, that I think could lead Canadians to the wrong conclusion about what the state of the law is in this country. What you neglected to mention is that section 43 of the Criminal Code, which applies to parents and teachers, was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the majority, stated:
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.
That was Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, when section 43 was constitutionally upheld by our Supreme Court of Canada.
You made a number of comments in your opening remarks and I think they are inflammatory.
You mentioned someone being slapped on the face. The Supreme Court, in considering section 43, said that slapping someone is not protected under section 43 of the Criminal Code.
You mentioned a quote from Sinclair about someone being punched in the face. That could lead someone to the conclusion that section 43 allows parents or teachers to punch children in the face. It does not. That would be a criminal action.
You mention physical correction by teachers. The Supreme Court of Canada, in considering section 43, specifically said that physical correction is available only to parents, not to teachers. Teachers are specifically prohibited from using physical correction on a student.
You have three pretty inflammatory statements in your opening. I think that underpins this whole discussion.
I'm sorry to take up time, but I want to get the record straight on what the Supreme Court said section 43 actually does.
It says that parents and caregivers can only use corrective force that is minor or “trifling” in nature. For example, spanking or slapping a child hard enough that it leaves a mark or bruise would not be considered trifling.
The court said that teachers cannot use force for physical punishment under any circumstances. A physical punishment cannot be used on children younger than two or older than 12 years old. Physical punishment cannot be used on a child in anger or retaliation for something a child did. Objects, such as belts or rulers, must never be used on a child and a child must never be hit or slapped on the face or head, which you mentioned in your comments. Also, any use of force on a child cannot be degrading, inhumane or result in harm or the prospect of harm.
Mr. Julian, what section 43 does is allow a parent whose child is repeatedly trying to put their hand on an oven top—which would result in serious burns—to maybe spank that child, if that's what the parent chooses, when the child refuses to obey any verbal commands.
It allows a teacher to break up a fight in their classroom. The teachers in my riding will tell you that there's increasing violence in the classroom. There are an increasing number of situations where teachers have to intervene in violent conduct of students.
Section 43 does not allow teachers to spank or strap students. In Canada, that is strictly prohibited. Your opening comments would lead someone to believe that teachers can punch a child in the face or strap them. That is criminal activity.
I don't know how much time I have left, Madam Chair. It took a bit of time to set the record straight on what the current state of the law is.
Section 43 is an important provision. It's in the Criminal Code for a reason, and it narrowly protects teachers who are trying to provide a safe learning environment and parents who are trying their best to raise their kids. Section 43 has been considered by the Supreme Court, has been found to be of significant value and has been constitutionally upheld.
Mr. Julian, I'll end by asking you a question. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said, “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”. Do you think Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has it all wrong and that you are right?