Lawyers and schoolteachers are asking Parliament to reject private member’s bills that try to ban the spanking of children.

Both the Canadian Teachers Federation (CTF) and the Quebec Defense lawyers Association (AQAAD) have written to the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee to say a proposed bill to repeal the corporal punishment provision of the Criminal Code of Canada would cause major problems for teachers. and parents.

Senate Bill S-251, sponsored by Senator Stan Kutcher, would repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which allows parents, teachers, and guardians to correct a child “if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

The teachers federation says there are times when teachers must use physical force to restrain children from violent or harmful behaviors, as first reported by Blacklock’s Reporter.

“We are concerned by the very real possibility that should Section 43 be repealed without a Safe Schools Amendment, classrooms will become more unsafe at a time when we are seeing increased violence in classrooms throughout Canada,” the CTF said in its brief to the Senate. .

The teachers pointed to a 2023 study by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario which found 80 percent of elementary teachers in the province had either experienced violence from students or witnessed students being violent against another staff member. Two thirds of teachers surveyed said the violence is getting worse.

“Almost all members are feeling the negative impacts on teaching and working conditions, with 87% of members agreeing that violence in elementary schools is ‘making teaching more difficult’ and 83% saying that violence ‘interferes with classroom management,'” said the survey. .

“Without replacement for Section 43, we anticipate an increase in the number of assault charges filed and prosecuted,” said the CTF.

“As a precaution, teachers would be advised not to intervene in situations noted above. This could result in more severe injuries to students and more calls to police.”

The CTF added that simply being charged could be career-ending for a teacher, even if acquitted.

The CTF said Section 43 of the Criminal Code has protected teachers who had to intervene in everything from breaking up fights to kids throwing toy blocks.

For its part, the Quebec Defense Lawyers Association told the Senate that passing Bill S-251 as is would expose parents and teachers to criminal convictions for even minimal amounts of force.

“It is impossible to imagine how a parent could successfully foster their child’s development without ever applying reasonable and minimal force to persuade, constrain or protect the child,” the association said in its brief.

The lawyers gave two examples of parents or guardians using minimal force in a challenging situation who could have been found guilty without the protection of Section 43.

“A court acquitted a father who had to grab his teenage daughter by the arms and force her onto the sofa to calm her down when she was breaking an electronic device in a fit of anger,” said the association.

“In another case, a primary schoolteacher seeking to properly manage her class pulled an overexcited pupil from the classroom by the arm. Without this defense, the father and the teacher would have been found guilty.”

Groups also wrote to the Senate in favor of banning corporal punishment altogether and supporting Bill S-251.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) said it supports banning spanking, pointing to the fact that corporal punishment was used in the residential school system.

“For context, the TRC’s (Truth and Reconciliation commission) Call to Action 6 explicitly calls for the repeal of section 43.2 The specter of residential schools looms large behind this Call, as Indigenous children suffered severe beatings in residential schools,” said the brief.

The group added that parents or caregivers using reasonable levels of force – such as restraining an uncooperative child in a car seat – would be very unlikely to be charged.

“These concerns are likely unwarranted, given the context. These types of necessary protective actions are not corporal punishments, and moreover are unlikely to be considered assault in the circumstances. They would therefore be unlikely to result in criminal charges against parents,” said the NWAC.

The Quebec lawyers are not as sure that would be the case.

“Prosecutorial discretion is subject to internal guidelines that are not enacted by Parliament and that vary across the provinces and territories. The result would be inconsistent application of criminal law across the country,” the lawyers said. “Furthermore, prosecutors are not required to give reasons for their quasi judicial decisions to approve laying a charge.”

Bill S-251 has passed second reading in the Senate, while an identical bill, C-273, is awaiting third reading in the Commons.

New Democrat MP Peter Julian is sponsoring Bill C-273, and has told the Commons that countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia still allow physical punishment of children.

Mr. Julian said his own parents “believed very strongly that physical punishment was not justified. It was a blessing to be in that family,” he said.

His bill passed second reading on Feb. 14 by a 208 to 115 vote, with Conservative and Bloc Québécois MPs opposed.

The Supreme Court in 2004 upheld the current law as constitutional.