Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
I come from a family of teachers. My mother was a teacher, and my daughter teaches now on Six Nations. I'm very happy to hear your comments today.
One of the discussions we've had in the testimony we have heard so far is that we have clarified that it's already illegal to abuse a child or do violence to a child. Certainly, the Supreme Court decision, as Mr. Joly mentioned, with their interpretation, added:
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.... According to the 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.
I think we've heard from you today that there are not that many complaints being brought forward, because people understand the protections under section 43.
My question, then, is this: Do you think section 43, as written, does provide you needed protection today?
We'll start with Mr. Joly.