First of all, I think section 43 needs to be removed because of its legacy, because it justified the use of force to correct a child.
Second, I'm a parent myself and I'm also a former correctional officer. My current life partner is a special needs teacher. So I am very aware of the reality of having children and the need to use force. I often have discussions with my partner, who sometimes needs to use force. Personally, I have reservations about that, but if it is deemed necessary, it should really be subject to a separate section of the act. My reservations are based on the fact that the Criminal Code already contains provisions governing the use of force in cases where a person presents a danger to themselves or others, disturbs the peace or presents a danger to property.
I used force as a security officer. When I was a nursing student, I worked in a hospital setting, and force was used regularly to restrain people. I have never heard of anyone being criminally charged for using force in a hospital setting. I've used force in a correctional setting many, many times. I've used it in my personal life. I even used it in civilian life. Indeed, as a citizen, you can use force to intervene in a fight or when you see a person being assaulted. I've had situations where I've had to tie someone up and detain them. I was never charged since there was no justification. Our legislation is sufficient in this area.
Now things are different in the case of a child. Let's take the case of a child with a mental disorder or a different perception of reality, such as an autistic child. If he goes onto the street and poses a danger to himself or to others, our current legislation gives someone the right to use force to protect him. However, if that same child started running in a field, where he does not pose a danger to himself or to others, and someone ran behind him and tackled him with great force, it would be a matter of debate.