Should Canadian parents be allowed to physically discipline their children or should the government criminalize the practice? As ARPA Canada noted in a recent article, two Canadian politicians have introduced bills which would ban corporal discipline.

Status of Bills

Bill C-273, introduced by MP Peter Julian, is titled An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne’s Quest and the Protection of Children). The name comes from a federal government lawyer named Corinne Robertshaw who, as MP Julian notes, “saw first-hand the results of allowing physical punishment of children and the death and injury of children throughout the 1970s and 1980s.” Bill C-273 has not yet reached 2^nd reading in the House of Commons.

In the Senate, Senator Stan Kutcher introduced Bill S-251, An Act to Repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6). Both bills would remove a criminal code provision that permits limited physical discipline of children. Bill S-251 has passed 2^nd reading in the Senate and is being studied by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. ARPA Canada recently submitted a brief to that committee to urge them to respect parents’ responsibility to discipline their children. ARPA Canada recommends either leaving the law unchanged or simply making clarifying amendments. You can read ARPA Canada’s brief here.

Evidence

Physical abuse is illegal. Canada’s Criminal Code only allows parents to use force for the purpose of correction that “does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Criminal Code provision permitting reasonable corrective force did not violate children’s rights under the Charter. The Court also clarified what is and is not permitted. For example, force may not be used on a teenager or a child under the age of 2, must address actual behaviour, and may not involve the use of objects such as rulers or belts.

Proponents of bans argue that corporal discipline is ineffective in correcting behaviour and harms children. They also point out that several developed nations have banned the practice.

However, the purported evidence against corporal discipline confuses the cause-and-effect relationship between discipline and children’s outcomes. Research that appropriately considers the different factors involved in discipline of children suggests that mild conditional discipline is as good as, or better than, other forms of discipline, and reduces anti-social behaviour and noncompliance in children.

Sweden was the first country to ban corporal discipline in 1979 and is often heralded as an example to emulate. However, evidence from Sweden indicates that criminalizing mild corporal discipline has resulted in profound negative consequences for children and families, and that allowing parents to use physical corrective force (as Canada currently does) may prevent other negative outcomes in children.

Ultimately, this evidence reinforces the foundational principle that parents, not the civil government, are in the best position to raise children. The Canadian government ought to respect the institution of the family and the role of parents and not interfere except in cases of serious abuse or neglect. As such, Canada must respect parental discretion to discipline children within existing legal limits.

How Can You Get Involved?

The Canadian public and politicians continue to debate whether parents should be permitted to use corporal discipline. Maybe it’s also a discussion you’ve had with your spouse or with friends. ARPA Canada has just published a revised and updated Respectfully Submitted policy report on corporal discipline. In this report, we consider evidence and arguments for and against corporal discipline, ultimately concluding that Canada should not enact further restrictions. This report was first published in 2013 and updated in 2016. The recently updated version (2023) reflects new research on the issue.

Canadian MPs and Senators are actively considering what they should do about corporal discipline. We encourage you to read through the report and connect with your representatives to encourage them to read it as well. You can also send an EasyMail on this topic at easymail.staging.arpacanada.ca. At this point, the focus of the EasyMail is on Bill S-251, since the Senate bill has advanced further than the House of Commons Bill. Please contact us at [email protected] if you have any feedback, suggestions for improvement, or other questions on the report.

In the past 25 years, multiple attempts have been made to ban spanking and other forms of physical punishment in Canada. Prior to the current session of Parliament, the most recent attempt was in 2015 when a senator introduced a bill to ban spanking. Since that time, calls to ban spanking have grown. Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended that corporal discipline be banned, and in 2015 Prime Minister Trudeau promised to implement all of their recommendations. To date, over 65 countries around the world have entirely banned corporal discipline of children and the number seems to keep growing. In 2022, two separate bills were introduced in the House of Commons and the Senate to do the same in Canada. Bill C-273 was introduced in May 2022 but has not yet gone to 2^nd reading. Bill S-251, on the other hand, is actively being debated at 2^nd reading in the Senate.

Bill S-251

On June 16, 2022, Senator Stan Kutcher of Nova Scotia introduced Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6). The goal of the bill is to remove section 43 of the Criminal Code which states:  

“Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

Senator Kutcher’s bill is focused on Recommendation 6 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 calls to action which were released in 2015. The Commission calls on the government to repeal section 43 “in order to redress the legacy of residential schools and advance the process of Canadian reconciliation.”

Senator Kutcher argues that repealing section 43 is a small but necessary step on the path to reconciliation and that violence against children must be stopped. He also cites supposed evidence that spanking is harmful to children and even quotes the Bible, seeking to prove that Jesus “recognized the responsibility of kind and considerate parenting, and that did not include hitting children.”

What is Corporal Discipline?

Corporal discipline is broadly defined as any punishment in which physical force is used with the intention to cause some degree of discomfort and to bring about a change in behaviour.

Some of the language used by advocates against corporal discipline includes ‘hitting,’ ‘violence,’ or ‘assault.’ When language like, “we should ban child abuse” or “ban violence against children” is used, it’s hard to disagree. But child abuse and violence against children are (and ought to be) already illegal. What advocates for spanking bans fail to mention is that section 43 does not permit just any kind of physical punishment. In 2004, the Supreme Court clarified what section 43 means by the phrase “the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.” The force must be sober and reasoned, addressing actual behaviour, the child must have the capacity to understand and benefit from the correction (cannot be under the age of two), must not harm or degrade the child, may not be administered to teenagers, may not involve objects such as rulers or belts, and may not be applied to the head.

There is no element in our existing law that permits abuse or violence against children. Instead, corporal discipline must be seen as the use of reasonable, non-injurious physical force with the intention and purpose of correction or control of a child’s behaviour. Repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code will criminalize parents who discipline their children within the boundaries set by the current law.

Advocates of a spanking ban argue that spanking is harmful to children and that it increases the risk of violence and mental disorders in children. However, much of this research is faulty at best, failing to differentiate between different methods of physical discipline. Overall, controlled, non-abusive spanking actually tends to reduce negative behaviour in children compared to other disciplinary tactics.[1]

Conclusion

Parents ought to be able to raise their children as they see fit (within limits, of course). And those limits are already defined in Section 43 of the Criminal Code. Many parents believe they have the responsibility to discipline their children, not out of anger, but out of a desire to protect and train them to be good citizens. The government can never replace parents in the life of a child and must not try to do so by legislating how children ought to be raised.

We continue to follow this issue in the Senate and the House of Commons and will provide updates on any new developments.

[1] Robert E. Larzelere and Brett R. Kuhn, “Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: a meta-analysis,” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 8(1), 2005: 1-37.

Status: No longer active due to prorogation of Parliament.

Description: Repeals section 43 of the Criminal Code which permits parents to use force (e.g. spanking or hand-slapping) to correct a child as long as the force is reasonable under the circumstances.

Analysis: Parents must be free to effectively discipline their children. Scripture speaks of the rod as the instrument to discipline children, implying that physical punishment is not only a legitimate form of punishment but may be the best form of punishment in certain circumstances. By trying to ban a legitimate form of familial discipline, the federal government is illegitimately encroaching into the sphere of the family.

Article: Should the government criminalize spanking? Read ARPA Canada’s new and updated resources

Action Items:

By Mark Penninga, Vancouver Sun, May 12 2015: Vancouver-Quadra Member of Parliament Joyce Murray stood in the House of Commons this month to condemn spanking. “Shockingly, section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code still permits this cruel form of punishment, an archaic flaw in our legal system to say the least,” she sais. Murray proceeded to call on all MPs to ban physical punishment of children.

Canadian Parliamentarians have unsuccessfully introduced since 1997 eight private member’s bills to fully ban corporal punishment, also known as physical discipline or spanking.

A case challenging the legality of physical discipline went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The majority of Canada’s highest court ruled in 2004 the law Murray decries is constitutional. Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for the majority, took the opportunity to clarify what is and is not appropriate. Physical discipline may only be used for children between the ages of two and 12. It can’t include objects, or be directed at the head. Physical discipline must be sober and reasoned and address behaviour.

However, these restrictions aren’t enough for Murray and many others.

Given that about half of Canadian parents use physical discipline, this argument is not a minor or hypothetical matter. There are two key questions: is physical discipline really harmful or abusive, and who is the best situated to determine whether it is an acceptable form of discipline, the State or the parent?

(more…)

Update: Click here for an EasyMail letter that lets you contact your MP about this bill quickly and personally.

Our latest issue of Respectfully Submitted is on its way to all MPs and Senators and tackles the sensitive subject of corporal discipline, more commonly referred to as spanking. We strongly encourage you to give it a read (click on attachment below for the clean PDF) and ask your MP what they thought of it. Our donors will be receiving a copy in the mail soon and others will be able to pick up a copy at future ARPA events.  

Respectfully Submitted – Corporal Discipline – April 2013

Since 1997, Members of Parliament have introduced no fewer than eight private member’s bills to fully ban corporal punishment, also known as physical discipline, smacking, or spanking. Currently, Bill S-214, introduced by Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, awaits second reading in the Senate. Her previous effort in 2008 passed through the Senate but died when an election was called. And it’s not just Parliamentarians. A 2012 editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal make the same case: “It is time for Canada to remove this anachronistic excuse for poor parenting from the statute book.”

In 2004, a case proceeded all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. This case challenged section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows parents to use corporal discipline as a defence to a criminal charge of assault, on constitutional grounds. The majority of the Court ruled that the defence is valid and the law is constitutional, but they also took the opportunity to clarify what is and is not appropriate when it comes to spanking (see Chart 1).

(more…)

ARPA Note: This fall we plan to release the next issue of our Respectfully Submitted policy report on the topic of liberty and freedom. The issue after this is devoted to spanking and corporal punishment, in light of the growing pressure to ban it (see below). Combined, these reports directly and indrectly will explain why parents, not the civil government, must have the authority and means to raise their children, as long as the authority is not abused.

Globe and Mail, September 4, 2012: Canada’s most prestigious medical journal is calling on parents, lawmakers and doctors to put an end to the practice of spanking children. In an editorial published Tuesday, Canadian Medical Association Journal editor-in-chief John Fletcher adds his publication’s heft to a growing call to strike down Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which outlines legally allowable “corrective” physical punishment of children by their parents.

“It is time for Canada to remove this anachronistic excuse for poor parenting from the statute book,” he writes.

Section 43 states that a parent is “justified in using force by way of correction … if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

Dr. Fletcher says he’s not advocating for the criminalization of the occasional poor parenting choice. “If the aim is to improve parenting,” he writes, “then calling the police is the wrong approach.”

Instead, he’s hoping to shift the focus to how ineffective spanking actually is. Keep reading

QMI Agency, Sept 14 2011: A father convicted of assault after he spanked his six-year-old son has been granted a new trial by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.  In August 2009, the family was driving from Durham Bridge, N.B., to a museum in Fredericton, when the father — not identified — spanked his son for misbehaving.  Keep reading

National Post, Feb 4 2010: A judge in New Brunswick has overturned a lower court’s decision to sentence a man to probation for spanking his son hard enough to bruise the boy. Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Paulette Garnett, in a written decision issued on Monday, sentenced a Fredericton man to 45 days in jail for a May 2008 assault on his then-six-year-old son. [Read more here]

ARPA Note: Keep in mind that there is a private member’s bill in our Senate the proposes to criminalize most corporal punishment in Canada. Click here for more information and an action item.

National Post, January 6/2010: Young children spanked by their parents may perform better at school later on and grow up to be happier, according to a controversial new study that is drawing scorn from critics. [Click here to read more.]