[Home -- Accueil]
[Main Page -- Criminal Law / Page principale -- droit pénal]

updated and corrections / mise à jour et corrections: 3 January / 3 janvier 2012
 

- To assist researchers, please do not hesitate to suggest titles to these bibliographies.  Thank you.
- Pour le bénéfice de tous, n'hésitez pas à suggérer des ajouts aux bibliographies.  Merci.
flareau@rogers.com
 

by / par ©François Lareau, 2002-, Ottawa, Canada

Selected Bibliography on the
Discipline of Children
--------------------------------------------------
Bibliographie choisie sur la
discipline des enfants

------
See also /Voir aussi: Comparative Law / Droit comparé
------
 

I -- Canadian Law / Droit canadien
 

AMIEL, Barbara, "The Case for Corporal Punishment", The Gazette (Montreal), 28 March 1998, p. B5;

"There has developed a tendency in our times to look only at aberrant behaviour in formulating rules.  Our social workers, doctors and psychiatrists, who are faced with truly horrifying cases of child abuse perhaps by sadistic teachers as well as parents, lobbied against corporal punishment.  But they should remember the old legal maxim that hard cases make bad law.  If we take their view of life -- life from the gutter -- we see only the casualties of abnormal behaviour and forget that normal behaviour is different.  But then our legislators today are no George Orwell -- or M.W. Gibson of Kent."

ANAND, Sanjeev .S., "Criminal Law Course -- Class Notes -- Defenses -- Lectures", Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, see lecture 5 available at  http://www.law.ualberta.ca/courses/anand/criminal/index.htm (accessed on 28 March 2003);
 

___________Comments, "Reasonable Chastisement: A Critique of the Supreme Court of Canada's Decision in the 'Spanking' Case", (2004) 41(4) Alberta Law Review 871--878;
 

BAILEY, Martha, "The Corporal Punishment Debate in Canada", (October 2003) 41(4) Family Court Law Review 508-516;
 

BARANOWSKI, Krystyna, 1951-, L'effet de la mise en vigueur de la Charte Canadienne des droits et libertés sur l'abolition du châtiment corporel dans les écoles canadiennes,  Masters Thesis (M.ED.), Collège universitaire de St Boniface, Faculty of Education, 1992, vi, 106 p.; titre de thèse noté mais thèse pas encore consultée; copie à la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, Ottawa;

"Le but de cette étude est de démontrer que grâce à l'impact de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes, le droit des écoles publiques canadiennes d'utiliser le chatiment corporel risque l'abolition.

Le droit d'utiliser le châtiment corporel existe actuellement dans la majorité des provinces.  En vertu de l'article 43 du Code criminel du Canada, les enseignants ont l'autorité d'utiliser la force pour discipliner un élève.  Le Code criminel aurait force de droit sur les règlements des provinces mais la mise en vigueur de la Charte pourrait abroger les dispositions de l'article 43 du Code criminel.

On identifie les arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme à Strasbourg qui ont provoqué la décision d'abolir le châtiment corporel dans les écoles publiques de la Grande Bretagne.  Les implications pour le Canada sont traitées.

Il est clairement indiqué que l'interprétation rendue par les tribunaux des articles 7, 12 et 15 de la Charte confirme la tendance à protéger les droits de  l'individu.  Puisque la portée de la Charte vise toute personne, il reste douteux que les tribunaux tolèrent le droit à l'utilisation du châtiment corporel dans les écoles." (Masters Abstracts International, volume: 32-02, page: 0388).

BARREAU DU QUÉBEC, Lettre, "Objet: Projet de loi S-209, Loi modifiant le Code criminel (protection des enfants)", 30 mai 2008; disponible à http://www.barreau.qc.ca/pdf/medias/positions/2008/20080530-projet-loi-s209.pdf (vérifié le 19 juin 2008); projet de loi S-209 du Sénateur Hervieux-Payette, voir, infra, CANADA, Parliament, Senator Hervieux-Payette;

BATES, Frank, "Corporal Punishment in Legal, Historical and Social Context", (1982-83) 12 Manitoba Law Journal 337-355; does not deal with Canadian law, except for one page approximately;
 

BAYLIS, Françoise and Jocelyn Downie, "An Ethical and Criminal Law Framework for Research Involving Children in Canada", (1993) 1 Health Law Journal 39-64; not directly on point for this bibliography but relevant as to the way to do research with children;
 

BEAUDOIN, Lise I., "La force raisonnable pour corriger un enfant. Question qui ne fait pas l'unannimité", (1^er mars 2004) 37(4) Le Journal du Barreau 3; disponible à http://www.barreau.qc.ca/; discussion de l'arrêt de la Cour suprême du Canada, Canadian Foundation for Children c. Canada (Procureur général), 30 janvier 2004;
 

BENEDET, Janine, "Hierarchies of Harm in Canadian Criminal Law: The Marijuana Triology and the Forcible 'Correction' of Children", (2004) 24 The Supreme Court Law Review (2nd ed.) 217-241

BERNARD, Claire, 1961-, Le châtiment corporel comme moyen de corriger les enfants, Québec : Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 1998, 22 p.; disponible à http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:MyxLRpGRLzcC:www.cdpdj.qc.ca/htmfr/pdf/pdf_repertoire/chatiment_corporel.PDF+ogg-moss+&hl=en aussi publié en anglais / also published in English: Corporal punishment as a means of  correcting children, available at :    http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/htmfr/pdf/pdf_repertoire/corporal_punishment.PDF
 

BERNSTEIN, Bernard, "The Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada Upholding the Constitutionality of Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada: What This Decision Means to the Child Welfare Sector", (Spring 2004) 48(2) Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies 2-14; available at  http://www.oacas.org/resources/OACASJournals/2004June/decision.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2005);  with the same title in (January 2006) 44(1) Family Court Review 104-118;
 

BEZEAU, Lawrence M., "Bibliography of  Reported Corporal Punishment Cases in Canada" at  http://www.unb.ca/centres/nbcea/corpbib.html as seen on 31 January 2002;
 

BIDMAN, Stephen, "Ban corporal punishment in schools, not homes: law reform commission", The Ottawa Citizen, 5 March 1985;
 

BOURQUE, Sophie, "Les moyens de défense" dans Droit pénal (Infractions, moyens de défense et sentence), Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, 2000, aux pp. 163-188, voir "Les parents et les professeurs" aux pp. 179-180 (Collection; Collection de droit 1999-2000; vol. 11), ISBN: 289451333X; il existe sans nul doute une édition plus récente;
 

BRIDGES, Tom, My case against corporal punishment in the schools, St. Catharines, [Ont.] : Faculty of Education, Brock University, 1982, vi, 57 leaves, "Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education"; copy at Brock University, Faculty of Education, Instructional Resource Centre; title noted in my research but thesis not consulted yet; no summary in Dissertation Abstracts International;
 

BROWN, Anthony F., 1953-, Legal Handbook for School Administrators: A Compendium of Information for Administrators, Principals and Teachers, Scarborough, Ont. : Thomson Professional Pub., c1991, xvi, 286 p., ISBN:  0459556746 copy at the University of Ottawa, Law library, KEO 770 .Z82 B76 1991 FTX;  there is also a 3rd ed.: Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 1995 which I have not consulted yet;

"While section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides some protection for a teacher using corporal punishment, a number of individual boards have banned or severely restricted the use of corporal punishment and teachers should be aware of the policy of their board in this respect.  Given the movement towards greater protection for children from abuse, and given the potential impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it would not be surprising to see legal restrictions upon the use of corporal punishment by principals and teachers in the future." (p. 40, 1991 ed.)

BROWN, Jim, "Supreme Court to tackle contentious spanking law", The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, October 18, 2002, p. A3;
 

BRUNELLE, Christian, "La Charte québécoise et les sanctions de  l'employeur contre les auteurs d'actes criminels oeuvrant en milieu éducatif", (1995) 29 Revue juridique Thémis 313-376; disponible à  http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/themis/95vol29n2/BRUNELLE.html;  ne touche pas directement au sujet de cette bibliographie mais est pertinent néanmoins au sujet;
 

BURNS, Nanci M.,  in association with the Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse, Literature Review of Issues Related to the Use of Corrective Force against Children, Ottawa: Deptartment  of  Justice Canada, June 1993, xii, 54 p. (series; Research and Statistics Directorate; WD1993-6E); also published in French / aussi publié en français: de concert avec l'Institut pour la prévention de l'enfance maltraitée, Examen des travaux relatifs au châtiment corporel infligé aux enfants, Ottawa : Canada, Ministère de la justice, Secteur de la gestion, politiques et programmes ministériels, Direction générale de la recherche et de la statistique, 1993, xiii, 52 p. (Collection; Document de travail; WD1993-6f);
 

BYFIELD, Ted, "The legal authority of every parent is about to be quietly decided in Ottawa (Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law appeals Section 43)", (6 December 1999) 26(43) Alberta Report 60;
 

CAMPBELL, Debbie, About Discipline and Punishment: an Examination of Corporal Punishment and Child Development, Ottawa: Canadian Council on Children and Youth, 1989, v, 33 p. (series; Policies for children in the '90s), ISBN:  0920786243; copy at the National Library, Ottawa; title noted in my research but document not consulted yet;
 

CANADA, Department of Canadian Heritage, Aboriginal Peoples’ and Human Rights Programs Directorate, Convention on the Rights of the Child : second report of  Canada covering the period Jan. 1993 to Dec. 1997, [Ottawa : Canadian Heritage, c2001], 328 p., at pp. 36-37,  ISBN:  0662305094; available at  http://www.pch.gc.ca/ddp-hrd/docs/crc-2001/index_e.shtml; also published in French / aussi publié en français: Patrimoine Canada, Direction des programmes des autochtones et des droits de la personne, Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant : deuxième  rapport du Canada couvrant la période de janv. 1993 à  déc. 1997, [Ottawa : Patrimoine canadien, c2001], 363 p., ISBN : 0662858379; disponible à  http://www.pch.gc.ca/ddp-hrd/docs/crc-2001/index_f.shtml;
 

CANADA, Department of Justice Canada, "Advice for the Minister: Corporal Punishment", dated 19 November 1998, 2 p.; document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice Canada Access to Information file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages numbered 000432-000433;

"The issue of child abuse will be canvassed as part of the Department's Child Victimization Project.  This project is reviewing the need for reforms to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act relating to: children's testimony (including competency, hearsay evidence, videotaping and other assistance for child witnesses); minimum age of consent to sexual activity (including close-in-age exceptions); possible definition of specific offences against children (physical and emotional abuse, neglect, child homicide); and sentencing to provide better protection of children.  The Project will also include an F/P/T, multi sectoral review of fundamental child protection issues in order to discuss linkages between Criminal Code issues and early warning, prevention and enforcement stages of child protection as well as practical implications for the child welfare system." (p. 2)

CANADA, Department of Justice, Brief tabled by Mrs. Margaret Hughes, in CANADA, Parliament, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Child Abuse and Neglect: Report to the House of Commons, first session, thirtieth Parliament, 1974-75-76, infra, at pp. 48-50;  also published in French/aussi publié en français: Mémoire présenté par Mme Margaret Hughes, in CANADA, Parlement, Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la santé, du bien-être social et des affaires sociales, L'enfance maltraitée et négligée : rapport  à la Chambre des communes,infra, aux pp. 48-50;

"The issue [of the retention or abolition of s. 43 of the Criminal Code] raises the broader question of the legal position of the child in our society, particularly the philosophy of child rearing that the law wishes to encourage, and whether the law wishes to develop legal sanctions against the use of violence or physical force in the rearing, training or education of children." (p. 49)
------------------
"Ce point [l'abolition ou la rentention de l'article 43 du Code criminel] soulève la question générale du statut légal de l'enfant dans la société, surtout au point de vue de la philosophie d'éducation de l'enfant que cherche à encourager la loi et la question d'établir si la loi cherche à promouvoir des sanctions légales contre l'emploi de la violence dans l'éducation et la formation des enfants." (p. 49)

CANADA, Department of Justice Canada, "DRAFT - Corporal Punishment of Children - Communications Strategy", dated 31 August 1994, 5 p.; document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice Canada Access to Information file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages numbered 000103-000107;
 

CANADA, Department of Justice Canada, Key Policy Adjudicators /Advisers on this topic; CANADA, Minsitère de la Justice Canada, principaux décideurs / conseillers sur le sujet:

- The Honourable / l'honorable Irwin Cotler
   Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
   Ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada
   House of Commons / Chambre des communes
   Ottawa, ON,  K1A 0A6 (free postage / pas de frais de poste)

___________Letter of the Minsiter of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, The Hon. Allan Rock, to Dr. E.T. Barker, President, The Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Midland, Ontario, dated 19 July 1994, 2 p., Minister's File: 140006; 94-018309; document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice Canada Access to Information file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages numbered 000399-000400;

    "Many critics of section 43 have stated that the wording of it is ambiguous and, therefore, that children are not sufficiently protected from assault.  Some of these critics have also stated that section 43 ought to be amended to clarify what force can be applied to a child by way of correction without it being classified as assault.

    The other side of the argument is that Canadian courts are quite capable of interpreting the words 'reasonable in the circumstances' as they apply to section 43.  This term may not be specifically defined but it is certainly not meaningless, nor can it be interpreted in any way the courts please.  Furthermore, defining terms in the Criminal Code can present difficulties in the sense that the more precisely a term is defined, the more likely it is that an exception or gap will be found.

    If section 43 were removed from the Code, any parent who lightly spanked his or her child would have no defence to an assault charge.  This is not to say that you are mistaken in your concern; what I wish to stress is that this is a complicated issue on which people firmly hold diametrically opposed views.  In this matter, the general goal of increasing the protection of children from abuse, which I entirely support, must be balanced against the need to allow parents to raise and correct their children as they think fit, within limits acceptable to Canadian society.

    In conclusion, while I have no immediate plans to repeal section 43, please be assured that, as part of our commiments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, officials of my department are actively engaged in reviewing the question of whether any action with regard to section 43 is required." (pp. 1-2)

___________Department of Justice Canada, Letter of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, The Hon. Allan Rock, to Ms. Sheena Scott, Executive Director, Justice for Children and Youth, Canadian Foundation for Children Youth and the Law, Toronto, dated 26 February 1998, 1 p., Minister's File: 14006; 97-017581; document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of  July 14, 2000, Department of Justice Canada Acess to Information file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released page numbered 000415;

"Section 43 in no way condones or authorizes the physical abuse of children.  However, it does attempt to strike a balance by protecting children from abuse while still allowing  parents to correct their children within contemporary limits that are acceptable to Canadian society.

Section 43 is also supported by provincial child protection legislation which seeks to protect the child's best interests.  In conforming to this legislation, even if a particular incident does not result in criminal proceedings, child protection authorities may still intervene if parental discipline is inappropriate or excessive.  This form of state intervention, as opposed to criminal proceedings, may better protect the best interests of the child, as required by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  It can provide both the necessary care for the child as well as assistance and education for the parent on appropriate parenting and disciplinary skills.

For these reasons, the federal government has no current plans to initiate a repeal of section 43.  However, officials of my department will continue to monitor this issue and I have forwarded a copy of your revised position paper to them."

CANADA, Department of Justice Canada, Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code: A Consultation Paper, [Ottawa]; [Department of Justice Canada], [November 1994], v, 35 p.; available at my Digital Library, http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html; also published in French/aussi publié en français: Ministère de la Justice Canada, Projet de réforme de la Partie générale du Code criminel, [Ottawa], [Ministère de la Justice Canada], [Novembre 1994], v, 39 p.; disponible à ma bibliothèque digitale, http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html;
 

"What this consultation paper does not deal with
...
For a variety of reasons, this paper does not discuss a number of other General Part issues.  These include: ...the rules concerning people who have authority over children.
...
Finally, some General Part sections could be changed to simply modernize the language without changing their meaning.

Even though these issues are not discussed in this paper, your views on any of them are welcome." (p. 35)
----------------------------
"Quelles questions le présent document de consultation n'aborde-t-il pas?
[...]
Pour diverses raisons, le présent document ne traite pas des questions suivantes concernant la Partie générale: [...] la discipline des enfants.
[...]
De même certaines dispositions de la Partie générale pourraient être modifiées simplement pour en moderniser le libellé, sans toutefois en changer le sens.

Même si ces questions ne sont pas examinées dans le document de consultation, vos commentaires sont les bienvenus." (p. 39)

CANADA, Parliament, House of Commons, Mrs. Libby Davies, MP (Vancouver East, British Columbia, New Democratic Party), Bill C-273, First reading, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children), 27 October 1999; see Bill at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-273/C-273_1/C-273_cover-E.html  see statement by Mrs. Davies, Hansard at http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/012_1999-10-27/han012_1510-e.htm; also published in French / aussi publié en français: CANADA, Parlement, Chambre des communes,Mme Libby Davies, Député (Vancouver est, Colombie-Britannique, Nouveau parti démocratique), Projet de loi C-273, Première lecture, Loi modifiant le Code criminel (protection des enfants), le 27 octobre 1999; voir le projet de loi à   http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-273/C-273_1/C-273_cover-f.html; voir aussi la déclaration de Mme Davies lors du dépôt en première lecture dans les Débats de la Chambre des communes à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/012_1999-10-27/han012-f.htm#LINK152;

"This is the only section of the criminal code that is permissive in that it condones the use of force toward a child as a means of correction or discipline. The repeal of section 43 would make it clear that the use of physical force as a means of discipline is totally unacceptable and inappropriate for children and should not be sanctioned by law." (Hansard)
-------------------------
" Cet article du Code criminel est le seul qui soit permissif, en ce qu'il tolère le recours à la force pour corriger ou discipliner un enfant. L'abrogation de l'article 43 fera comprendre qu'il est
totalement inacceptable et inapproprié de recourir à la force physique lorsqu'il s'agit d'enfants et que cela ne devrait pas être toléré par la loi."

CANADA, Parliament, House of Commons, Mrs. Libby Davies, MP (Vancouver East, British Columbia, New Democratic Party), Bill C-276, First reading, An act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children), 5 November 1997; see Bill at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-273/C-273_1/C-273_cover-E.html; see also the statement by Mrs. Davies at First reading, Hansard, at http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/028_1997-11-05/HAN028-E.htm#LINK148; also published in French / aussi publié en français: CANADA, Chambre des Communes, Mme Libby Davies, Député (Vancouver est, Colombie-Britannique, Nouveau parti démocratique), Projet de loi C-276, Première lecture, Loi modifiant le Code criminel (protection des enfants), 5 novembre 1997; voir le projet de loi à   http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-276/C-276_1/C-276_cover-f.html; voir la déclaration de Mme Davies lors du dépôt en première lecture dans les Débats de la Chambre des communes à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/028_1997-11-05/han028-f.htm#LINK148;

"She said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a bill today, the purpose of which is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 43 allows corporal punishment of children by parents and teachers.

I believe that section 43 contravenes the charter of rights and freedoms and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We hear a lot about societal violence and abuse of children. This section of the Criminal Code legally sanctions corporal punishment which leads to the physical and emotional injury of children.

It is high time that this section of the Criminal Code was repealed to make it clear that this ancient law no longer has a place in a society that upholds and values the rights of children." (Hansard)
----------------------------
"—Monsieur le Président, j'ai l'honneur de déposer aujourd'hui un projet de loi visant à abroger l'article 43 du Code criminel du Canada, qui autorise les parents et les instituteurs à employer la force physique pour corriger un élève ou un enfant.

J'estime que l'article 43 enfreint la Charte des droits et libertés et la Convention des Nations Unies relative aux droits de l'enfant.

Nous entendons beaucoup parler de violence et de mauvais traitements infligés à des enfants dans la société. Cet article du Code criminel sanctionne le châtiment corporel qui est à l'origine de dommages corporels et moraux chez l'enfant.

Il est grand temps que cet article du Code criminel soit abrogé pour bien faire comprendre que cette ancienne loi n'a plus sa place dans une société qui respecte les droits de l'enfant et y attache beaucoup d'importance." (Débats)

CANADA, Parliament, House of Commons, Mr. Tony Ianno, MP (Trinity—Spadina, Liberal Party), Bill C-368, First reading,  An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Health (security of the child), 11 March 1998; see Bill at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-368/C-368_1/C-368_cover-E.html; see statement by Mr. Ianno at First reading, Hansard, at http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/071_1998-03-11/han071_1505-e.htm; also published in French / aussi publié en français: CANADA, Parlement, Chambre des communes, M. Tony Ianno, député, (Trinity—Spadina, Parti Libéral), Première lecture, Projet de loi C-368,  Loi modifiant le Code criminel et la Loi sur le ministère de la santé (sécurité de l'enfant) Santé (sécurité de l'enfant)", le 11 mars 1998; voir le projet de loi à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-368/C-368_1/C-368_cover-f.html; voir la déclaration de M. Ianno lors du dépôt en première lecture dans les Débats de la Chambre des communes à http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/071_1998-03-11/han071_1505-f.htm;

"He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and is an honour to introduce this enactment which removes the justification in the Criminal Code available to school teachers, parents and persons standing in the place of parents, of using force as a means of correction toward a pupil or child under their care.

It also clarifies the mandate of the Department of Health by specifying that the power to promote and preserve the physical, mental and social well-being of the people of Canada, includes the power to educate Canadians about the health and social risks associated with the corporal punishment of children, the alternative to its use, and the health and social benefit of respecting the right to security of children.

It further clarifies the mandate of the Department of Health respecting the co-ordination of efforts with provincial authorities to establish guidelines relating to the protection of children and law enforcement services for children." (Hansard)
----------------------------------
"—Monsieur le Président, j'ai l'honneur de présenter ce projet de loi qui vise à modifier le Code criminel de façon que les instituteurs, les parents et toutes les personnes qui remplacent les parents ne soient plus fondés à employer la force pour corriger un élève ou un enfant, selon le cas, confié à leurs soins.

De plus, cette mesure législative clarifie le mandat du ministère de la Santé en précisant que le pouvoir de favoriser le bien-être physique, mental et social des Canadiens comporte le pouvoir de les renseigner sur les risques sociaux et pour la santé que présente le châtiment corporel des enfants, les solutions de rechange à l'emploi de la force, et les avantages qu'il y a sur les plans social et de la santé à respecter le droit des enfants à la sécurité.

Elle clarifie également le mandat du ministère de la Santé en ce qui concerne la coordination avec les autorités provinciales des efforts en vue d'établir des lignes de conduite relatives à la protection des enfants et aux services chargés d'appliquer la loi à l'égard des enfants."

CANADA, Parliament, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Child Abuse and Neglect: Report to the House of Commons, first session, thirtieth Parliament, 1974-75-76, Ottawa : Queen's Printer, [1976], 90 p. (Chairman: Mr. Kenneth Robinson, 1914-, ), discusses the abolition of  s. 43 of the Criminal Code and recommends further study; also published in French / aussi publié en français: CANADA, Parlement, Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la santé, du bien-être social et des affaires sociales, L'enfance maltraitée et négligée : rapport  à la Chambre des communes, Ottawa : Imprimeur de la Reine, [1976], 90 p. (Président: M. Kenneth Robinson), discute de l'utilité d'abolir l'art 43 du Code criminel et recommande sa révision; note: texte en anglais et en français sur des colonnes parallèles;

“The deletion of Section 43 of the Criminal Code

    Section 43 of the Criminal Code was discussed by several witnesses in the context of child rearing, corporal punishment  in the schools, and as a reflection of cultural values.  The Committee is aware that some provincial legislation specifically forbids physical punishment of children.

    It is felt by many who have experience with the care of children in groups and with education and training of staff who provide group care, that the elimination of physical punishment encourages staff to develop more creative programs and more sensitive way of encouraging positive acceptable behaviour in children.  The result is an improvement in the relations between staff and child.

    The Committee considers that the relationship between parent and child needs to be considered separately from the relationship between a child and a teacher, nurse, child care worker or other person standing in the place of the parent.
......
    The Committee noted the evidence given by one witness who stated that ‘…use of physical punishment in very young children has to be regarded as a serious cause of child abuse and one needs to think about what society might do in order to provide sanctions against the use of physical punishment in relation to very young children’.  However, because some Committee members were concerned that repeal  of Section 43 (as recommended to the Committee in certain briefs ) might deprive parents and teachers of needed protection against unfounded complaints, the Committee is not prepared to recommend the repeal of Section 43 without further study.

    The Committee suggests that alternatives to physical force as a means of discipline be encouraged through studies and programmes of public education.  The Committee notes the current interest in both child management courses for parents provided bu adult education agencies and in courses provided by Children's Aid Societies for foster parents and group home parents -- often at the request of the latter.  The Committee would like to see increased emphasis in primary and secondary schools and in post-secondary educational institutions on courses in family relations and child care." (pp. 18-19)
------------------------
"Suppression de l'article 43 du Code criminel

    Plusieurs témoins se sont penchés sur l'article 43 du Code criminel, en rapport avec l'éducation des enfants et aux punistions corporelles qui leur sont infligées dans les écoles, ainsi qu'à titre de reflet des valeurs culturelles.  Le Comité est conscient que certaines lois provinciales interdisent formellement d'infliger toute punition physique aux enfants.

    Bon nombre des personnes ayant acquis une expérience dans le domaine des soins offerts à des groupes d'enfants et dans celui de l'instruction et de la formation du personnel chargé de la prestation de soins communautaires, estiment que la suppression des punitions corporelles encourage ce personnel à élaborer des programmes plus innovateurs et à trouver des moyens plus délicats de favoriser un comportement positif chez l'enfance.  Une telle attitude se traduit par l'amélioration des relations établies entre le personnel et les enfants.

    Le Comité est d'avis que les relations entre parents et enfants devraient être étudiées séparément des rapports unissant un enfant avec un enseignant, une infirmière, un spécialiste des soins à l'enfance ou toute autre personne remplaçant le parent.

    Le Comité recommande une étude plus poussée de l'article en question.
[...]
    Le Comité a pris note du témoignage d'un témoin qui a affirmé que '... L'imposition de châtiments corporels aux enfants en bas âge devrait être tenue pour un cas grave de mauvais traitement de l'enfance et qu'il fallait penser aux mesures que la société pourrait prendre afin d'établir des sanctions contre les auteurs de sévices infligés aux très jeunes enfants'.  Toutefois, certains membres du Comité s'étant préoccupés du fait que l'abrogation de l'article 43 (recommandée au Comité dans certains exposés) pouvait priver les parents et les enseignements de la protection nécessaire contre des plaintes mal fondées, le Comité n'est pas disposé à recommander l'abrogation dudit article, sans procéder à une étude plus approfondie de la question.

    Le Comité propose de favoriser, au moyen d'études et de programmes visant à renseigner le public, l'adoption de méthodes disciplinaires destinées à remplacer le recours à la force physique.  Le Comité remarque l'intérêt manifesté actuellement tant pour les cours d'éducation des enfants, destinés aux parents et offerts par des organismes de formation, qu'aux cours offerts par des sociétés d'aide à l'enfance, à l'intention des parents nouriciers et des foyers de groupe--souvent, à la demande de ces derniers.  Le Comité souhaite qu'une importance accrue soit accordée aux cours traitant des relations familiales et des soins à l'enfance, dans les écoles primaires et secondaires, ainsi que dans les maisons d'enseignement post-secondaire." (pp. 18-19)
 

"Authority over Children
...
The Sub-Committee is aware that there is a great deal of controversy in Canada over the merits of the existing law on this issue.  In the absence of testimony from experts in this area, the Sub-Committee is relunctant to make any recommendation as to whther the Criminal Code should permit the use of corrective force on children." (Report, First Principles, 11th issue, p. 74)
-----------------------------
"L'autorité sur un enfant
[...]
Le Sous-comité est conscient de la vive controverse qui règne, au Canada, sur la valeur des dispositions actuelles en cette matière.  N'ayant pas entendu de spécialistes sur cette question, le Sous-comité hésite à recommander que le Code criminel permette ou interdise l'emploi de la force pour corriger les enfants." (Rapport, Principes de base, 11e fascicule, p. 78)

CANADA, Parliament, Senate, Standing Committee on Human Rights, Children: The Silenced Citizens: Effective Implementation of Canada's International Obligations with Respect to the Rights of Children: Final report of the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights, Ottawa, 2007, xxv, 296 p., available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/huma-e/rep-e/rep10apr07-e.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2007); also published in French / aussi publié en français: CANADA, Parlement, Comié permanent des droits de la personne, Les enfants: des citoyens sans voix: mise en oeuvre efficace des obligations internationales du Canada relatives aux droits des enfants : rapport final  du Comité sénatorial des Droits de la personne, Ottawa, 2007, xxv, 322 p., disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-f/huma-f/rep-f/rep10apr07-f.pdf (site visité le 29 avril 2007);

___________Parliament, Senate, Standing Committee on Human Rights, Who’s in Charge Here?  Effective Implementation of Canada’s International Obligations with Respect to the
Rights of Children.  Interim Report, Ottawa, 2005, v, 212 p., available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/huma-e/rep-e/rep19nov05-e.pdf; also published in     aussi publié en français: CANADA, Parlement, Comié permanent des droits de la personne, Qui dirige ici?  Mise en oeuvre effcicace des obligations internationales du Canada relatives aux droits des enfants.  Rapport intérimaire, Ottawa, 2005, v, 216 p., disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-f/huma-f/rep-f/rep19nov05-f.pdf;

CANADA, Parliament, Senate, Senator Sharon Carstairs, First reading, Bill S-14, "Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Health Act (security of the child)", 12 Dec 1996; see  http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/scarstairs/FYI/June1997_e.asp#b; voir  http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/scarstairs/FYI/June1997_f.asp#b;
 

CANADA, Parliament, Senator Hervieux-Payette, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children) / Loi modifiant le Code criminel (protection des enfants), Bill S-21, first reading/première lecture, 2 December 2004; available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/bills/public/pdf/s-21_1.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2005); see the LegisInfo report (hearings etc.) on the bill at http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Lang=E&Chamber=S&StartList=2&EndList=1000&Session=13&Type=0&Scope=I&query=4368&List=toc  (accessed on 15 April 2006);

CANADA, Parliament, Senator Hervieux-Payette, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children) / Loi modifiant le Code criminel (protection des enfants), Bill S-207, first reading/première lecture, 5 April 2006; available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/bills/public/pdf/s-21_1.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2006); see the LegisInfo report (hearings etc.) on the bill at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Lang=E&Chamber=S&StartList=2&EndList=1000&Session=14&Type=0&Scope=I&query=4645&List=stat  (accessed on 15 April 2006);

CANADA, Parliament, Senator Hervieux-Payette, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children) / Loi modifiant le Code criminel (protection des enfants), Bill S-209, first reading/première lecture, 17 Octoberl 2007; available at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/Senate/Bills/392/public/pdf/s-209_1.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2008);

      -  2nd reading, debates, 13 March 2008, available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/2/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/pdf/043db_2008-03-13-E.pdf;
      -  2e lecture, débats, 13 mars 2008, disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/2/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-f/pdf/043db_2008-03-13-f.pdf;

       - Report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 12 June 2008, http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/lega-e/rep-e/rep14jun08-e.htm; recommendation of
          an amendment;
       - Rapport du Comité sénatorial permanent des affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, 12 juin 2008, http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-f/lega-F/rep-f/rep14jun08-f.htm
          recommandation d'une modification;

"We recommend that Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada entitled 'Correction of Children by Force' and similar provisions in provincial and territorial legislation be reconsidered by Federal, Provincial and Territrorial Governments in view of the sanction which this type of provision gives to the use of violence against children." (p. 72)
--------------------------
"Nous recommandons que l'article 43 du Code criminel du Canada intitulé 'Discipline des Enfants' et toute autre disposition qui soit semblable figurant dans les lois provinciales et territoriales soient revus par les gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux et territoriaux compte tenu de la sanction que ce type de disposition accorde au recours à la violence contre des enfants." (p. 80)

CANADA, Officials of the Department of Justice Canada and Members of the Law Reform Commission of Canada,  Toward a New General Part for the Criminal Code of Canada: A Framework Document on the Proposed New General Part of the Criminal Code for the Consideration of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], [1990], 137 p., see "Authority over Children" at pp. 76-77; available at my Digital Library, http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html; also published in French/aussi publié en français: Fonctionnaires du Ministère de la Justice Canada et des membres de la Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, Pour une nouvelle codification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Canada : document cadre sur la nouvelle partie générale proposée duCode criminel présenté pour examen au comité permanent de la justice et du solliciteur général, [Ottawa]: [Ministère de la Justice], [1990], 144 p., voir "Autorité sur un enfant" aux pp. 79-80; disponible à ma bibliothèque digitale, http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html;
 

"THE RATIONALE
Since society entrust the rearing of children to the parents, it should leave them free to use reasonable force in doing so and should not intrude into the privacy of family upbringing." (p. 76)
------------------------
"JUSTIFICATION
Étant donné que la société confie aux parents la tâche d'élever leurs enfants, elle devrait les laisser libres d'employer la force raisonnable et nécessaire à cette fin et ne devrait pas violer leur vie privée en s'infgétant dans l'éducation familiale" (p. 79)

CANADA/PROVINCES, Report of the Working Group on Chapter 3 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada Report 30, Vol. 1,  "Recodifying Criminal Law", [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], December 1987, vii, 80 p., see "Clause 3(14) Authority over Children" at pp. 68-71; Research Note:  this report is cited in the Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1988-1989 - 18th Annual Report, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1989 at p. 37, ISBN: 0662573013.  Chapter 3 of report 30  of the Law Reform Commission is entitled "Defences" and  includes a provision on "Authority over Children", clause 3(14).    This report of the working group was submitted to the Federal-Provincial Coordination Committee of Senior Justice Officials.  Members of the Working Group were from: the Department of Justice Canada, and from the following provincial Attorney General departments or Ministries/Departments of Justice: Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and  British Columbia. This report is available from the Department of Justice Canada.  It was obtained by François Lareau in 1998 under Access to Information Request to the Department of Justice Canada, number A98-00185. also available in French / aussi disponible en français: CANADA/PROVINCES, Rapport du Groupe de travail chargé de l'étude du chapitre 3 du Rapport no 30 de la Commission de réforme du droit du Canada "Pour une nouvelle codification du droit pénal" (Volume I), [Ottawa]: [Ministère de la Justice Canada],  décembre 1987, vii, 88 p., voir "Paragraphe 3(14) - Autorité sur un enfant" aux pp. 74-78; Note de recherche : ce rapport est mentionné dans Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1988-1989, Dix-huitième Rapport annuel,  Ottawa : Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1989, à la p. 40, ISBN: 0662573013.  Le chapitre 3 du rapport 30 a pour titre «Les moyens de défense» et comprend une disposition sur "[L']autorité sur un enfant", paragraphe 3(14).  Ce rapport du groupe de travail a été soumis au Comité fédéral-provincial de coordination composé de fonctionnaires de niveau supérieur de la justice.  Les membres du groupe de travail proviennent du Ministère de la Justice Canada et des ministères des procuereurs généraux /ministères provinciaux de la justice de: l'Ontario, Québec, Nouvelle-Écosse, Saskatchewan, Alberta et Columbie-Britannique. Ce rapport est disponible au Ministère de la Justice Canada.  Il a été obtenu par François Lareau en 1998 suite à une demande d'accès à l'information numéro A-98-00185;

"Recommendations

1.  Clause 3(14) [of the Law Reform Commission of Cnada, report 30] should be rejected as not being an improvement on present s. 43 (unanimous).

2.  Use of force by teachers should not be permitted (unanimous).

3.  There should be a provision permitting parents to apply reasonable force by way of correction (3 for, 2 against).

4.  In view of the split in Recommendation 3, this is a policy issue for Parliament to decide (unanimous)."  (p. 71)
----------------------
"Recommandations

1.  Le paragraphe 3(14) [de la Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, rapport 30] devrait être rejeté puisqu'il ne constitue pas une amélioration de l'article 43 actuel (à l'unanimité).

2.  Il n'y a pas lieu de permettre l'utilisation de la force par les enseignants (à l'unanimité).

3. Il y a lieu d'inclure une disposition permettant aux parents d'employer la force raisonnable pour corriger leurs enfants (3 pour, 2 contre).

4.  Étant donné la divergence des opinions exprimées à l'égard de la recommandation 3, la question de politique devrait être tranchée par le Parlement (à l'unanimité)." (pp. 77-78)

CANADA WIRE, "Mom on probation for spanking son", Winnipeg Free Press, Wednesday, November 29, 2000, p. D10; Sara Klassen found guilty of assault, paddling boy, Judge Saul Nosanchuk, Leamington, Ontario, November 28, 2000;
 

CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION,  CRIMINAL RECODIFICATION TASK FORCE, Principles of Criminal Liability: Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code - Report of the Criminal Recodification Task Force,  Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, [1992],  x, 190 p., ISBN: 0920742335; Research Note # 1: This book is also published in CANADA, House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General,  supra, Issue 5 of 2 and 18 November 1992 at pp. 5A:1-5A:194;  research note # 2: the important point is that the Canadian Bar Association Recodification Task Force does not deal with s. 43 or with the subject; the silence is relevant; also published in French / aussi publié en français: ASSOCIATION  DU BARREAU CANADIEN, GROUPE DE TRAVAIL SUR LA NOUVELLE CODIFICATION DU DROIT PÉNAL, Principes de responsabilité pénale: proposition de nouvelles dispositions générales du Code criminel du Canada: Rapport du Groupe de travail sur la nouvelle codification du droit pénal, Ottawa : Association du Barreau canadien, [1992], xiii, 206 p., ISBN: 0920742351; note de recherche numéro 1 : aussi publié dans CANADA, Chambre des Communes,  Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Sous-comité sur la Recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général, supra, fasicule 5 du  2 et 18 novembre 1992 aux pp. 5A:224-5A:434; note de recherche numéro 2 : le point important à remarquer est que le Groupe de travail sur la nouvelle codification du droit pénal de l'Association du Barreau canadien ne traite pas de l'art. 43 du Code criminel ni du sujet; ce silence est très pertinent;
 

CANADIAN COALITION FOR THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, "Discussion Paper for the Canadian Coaltion for the Rights of Children: Ending Physical Punishment of Children", 8 p. in  HAY, infra, Appendix C, Written Submissions; at the beginning of the discussion paper, there is the following acknowledgement: "Portions of this paper have been adapted from the booklet 'Hitting people is wrong - and children are people to.' published by the Association for the Protection of All Children, London, England for EPOCH Worldwide and Rädda Barnen.";
 

CANADIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Research and Information Division, Corporal punishment in Canadian schools : a report based on regulations and policy statements of Departments of Education and school boards, Toronto : CEA, 1967, 13 leaves; copy at University of Alberta, Cameron Library, LB/3025/C212/1967; title noted in my research but document not consulted yet; no copy in the Ottawa area libraries;
 

CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN , YOUTH AND THE LAW, Policy position on the use of corporal punishment : repeal section 43 February 17, 1993, Revised: October 1997, Toronto, Ont. : Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth  and the Law, 1997, 12 p.; copy at Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, Legislative Library of the N.W.T.;  copy was also obtained by  document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages 000419-000431;
 

___________Policy position on the use of corporal punishment : toward a repeal of section 43 (February 17, 1993), Toronto : Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, 1993, 7 p.; copy at the Library of Parliament, Ottawa, Br.B, HQ 770.4 J88 A35;
 

"Canadian oppose ban on spanking, poll finds", The Ottawa Citizen, Monday, February 11, 2002, p. A5; Leger marketing survey of 1,1516 respondents indicate that to the question "Should the government pass legislation to ban parents from spanking their children?", 70% said no, 21.9% yes, and 8.1% didn't know or refused to answer; contains also otherdata and criticism of survey by Joan Durrant, University of Manitoba, Family Studies Department; for survey, see Canadian Press / Leger Marketing, infra;
 

CANADIAN PAEDIATRIC SOCIETY (CPA), CPS Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee, "Effective discipline for children", position statement, 7 October 1996, 7 p., available at  http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/PP/pp96-01.htm  (as seen on 15 February 2002)  also published in French / aussi publié en français: SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE DE PÉDIATRIE (SCP), Comité de pédiatrie psychosociale, «Une discipline efficace auprès des enfants», énoncé de position, 7 octobre 1996, disponible à  http://www.cps.ca/francais/enonces/PP/pp96-01.htm (tel que vu le 15 février 2002);
 

___________Press release, "Make change-not punishment-goal of child discipline", available at http://www.cps.ca/english/publications/ReleasesAdvisories/EffectiveDiscipline.htm (as seen on 15 February 2002); also published in French / aussi publié en français:  voir le communiqué de presse, "Le changement, et non la punition, doit constituer l'objectif de la discipline auprès de l'enfant.  La Société canadienne de pédiatrie publie des lignes directrices sur une discipline efficace auprès des enfants" disponible à  http://www.cps.ca/francais/publications/Communiques/Changement.htm (constaté le 15 février 2002);
 

CANADIAN PRESS / LEGER MARKETING, Child Abuse, marketing survey, week of February 11, 2002, available at http://www.legermarketing.com/english/set.html, click under "Trends"(as seen on 12 February 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français: Presse canadienne/Léger Marketing, La violence faite aux enfants, 11 février 2002, disponible à  http://www.legermarketing.com/francais/set.html (vu le 12 février 2002);
 

CANADIAN TEACHER'S FEDERATION, "CTF News Release", 8 December 1999; http://www.ctf-fce.ca/e/press/pr51.htm; also published in French / aussi publié en français at http://www.ctf-fce.ca/F/COMMUNIQ/pr51.htm;
 

___________Harvey Weiner, Deputy Secretary General of the Canadian Teachers Federation (CTF), summary of his presention reported in Hay, infra, at p. 9;

"...spoke about some concerns of teachers regarding changes to Section 43.  The use of force with children in schools is not a simple question of right or wrong.  It may not be wise to repeal or amend Section 43 in our attempt to deal with all forms of violence. The situations covered by Section 43 go beyond corporal punishment.  CTF has taken an official stand to oppose corporal punishment in schools, but does not endorse a repeal of section 43.  In many instances, it is impossible to know at the time of intervention whether or not force or restraint may become necessary.

There are many ways children are treated differently than adults and some are clearly justified.  These are not inappropriate violations of children's rights.  For example, children are not permitted to buy cigarettes, drive a car, or decide whether or not to be vaccinated.  In some situations, use of restraint or force with children is appropriate and in their best interests.

The context for education today is also important.  Violence is increasing and there are many ways that society glorifies violence.  Teachers are educating against violence and promoting non-violent ways to solve problems.  There is a concern that changes to Section 43 would weaken the teacher's protection when intervening in potentially difficult situations.  This may lead to more police involvement in school matters, with police called in to deal with situations that the schools could be handling on their own.

It is important to remember that all students have a right to learn.  This means that teachers have to balance the individual right of the child with the collective rights of all children in a classroom or scholl.  The teacher provides order so that this right to learn is preserved.  A good teacher practices the same discipline as a kind judicious parent would.

There is concern that changing Section 43 would send the wrong message to students and teachers.  The effects on the educational environment could be opposite to what is intended.  Violence between students could increase with teachers more hesitant to intervene.  The right of students to learn could be compromised because teachers would not have appropriate means to maintain order.  Specific court cases were quoted supporting the use of Section 43 by teachers."

___________ "Toward Ending the Physical Punishment of Children: Assessing the 'Section 43' Strategy", 10 p., in HAY, infra, Appendix C, Written Submissions;
 

___________Web Site / Site web, available at / disponible à http://www.ctf-fce.ca/ (accessed on 16 July 2005); look under "issues" for "Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada" / regarder sous "dossiers" pour "L'article 43 du Code criminel";
 

CARTER, Mark, "Corporal punishment and prosecutorial discretion in Canada", (2004) 12 The International Journal of Children's Rights 41; title noted in my research but article not consulted yet (3 January 2012);

___________"The Corrective Force Defence (section 43) and Sexual Assault", (2000) 6(1) Canadian Criminal Law Review 35-70;
 

___________"Prosecutorial Discretion as a Complement to Legislative Reform: The Post-C.C. Section 43 Scenario" in Perspectives on legislation : essays from the 1999 Legal Dimensions Initiative, [Ottawa] : Law Commission of Canada, [2000], 256 p., at pp. 11-45, ISBN: 0662286782; available at  http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/JL2-9-2000E.pdf; also published in French/ aussi publié en français: "Le pouvoir discrétionnaire de poursuivre en tant que complément à la réforme législative : le scénario post-article 43 du Code criminel" dans La législation en question : mémoires du concours Perspectives juridiques, 1999, [Ottawa] : Commission du droit du Canada, [2000], 278 p., aux pp. 11-50, ISBN: 0662844432; disponible à http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/JL2-9-2000F.pdf;
 

CHAMBERLAIN, Wayne A., An analysis of the effects of selected variables on the attitudes of educators toward the use of corporal punishment in the schools, St. Catharines, [Ont.] : Faculty of Education, Brock University, 1982, vii, 76 leaves; copy at Brock University, Faculty of Education, Instructional Resource Centre; title noted in my research but thesis not consulted yet; no summary in Dissertation Abstracts International;
 

CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA (CWLA), "Consultation on Section 43: An Examination of physical interventions with children", 5 p., in  HAY, infra, Appendix C, Written Submissions;
 

CHIDLEY, Joey, Don Murray and Sharon Doyle Driedger, "Spanking on Trial", Maclean's, May 8, 1995, p. 24 (1 page only); discusses the case of David Peterson before Mr. Justice John Menzies, Ontario Court's Provincial Division;
 

CHURCH COUNCIL ON JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONS, THE, Letter of Lorraine Berzins, Coordinator: Program Analysis to Mr. Tom Hay, Ph.D., Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, dated 14 January, 1994, in  HAY, infra, Appendix C, Written Submissions;

"The essence of our concern has been to point out the dilemma of removing a provision which still 'permits' the assault of children without running the risk of wheeling the engines of law enforcement into the privacy of the home for every trivial slap or spanking.  We have indicated that other countries have changed their laws to discourage physical punishment of children, without taking a more punitive approach towards parents.  We have also indicated that removal of Section 43 from the criminal code would allow the child welfare legislation, comon sense and the usual standards of criminal law discretion to prevail, without enlisting the support of that criminal law in making children more vulnerable to assault than any other member of Canadian society.

Finally, we have pointed out that if we are to move towards being a more non-violent society, we must do everything possible to discourage parents, and persons acting on behalf of parents, from resorting to violence as a means of discipline.  Research shows a clear link between severe physical discipline and a variety of social problems and criminal behaviours.  Parents need to be encouraged to use non-violent means to discipline their children, and to recognize the rights of children to protection from ...'all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation including sexual abuse...' (Article 19 of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child)."

CHURCH OF GOD CHILDREN, Alymer, Province of Quebec case (Children Aid Society), July and August 2001, web site dedicated to the case, see http://www.childrentaken.com/
 

CLICHE, Marie-Aimée, " 'Est-ce une bonne méthode pour élever les enfants?'  Le débat sur les punitions corporelles dans les courriers du coeur au Québec de 1925 à 1969", (décembre 2001) 82(4) The Canadian Historical Review /  662-689;
 

___________" 'Est-ce vraiment pour son bien?' Évolution de la norme de raisonnabilité des punitions corporelles dans la jurisprudence québécoise et canadienne - 1864-1998", (2000) 34(2) La revue juridique Thémis 481-514; disponible à http://www.themis.umontreal.ca/pdf/rjtvol34num2/cliche.pdf (vérifié le 22 février 2008);
 

COALITION FOR FAMILY AUTONOMY (comprising the  following groups: Canada Family Action Coalition, REAL Women of Canada, the Home School Legal Defense Association of Canada, and Focus on the Family Canada), News Release, "Family Coalition Supports Discipline Choices"  dated November 15, 1999; as seen at  http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/article-pgs/DiscChoices.htm on 5 February 2002;
 

___________"News Release  - July 6, 2000.  Coalition for Family Autonomy - Ontario Superior Court rules in favor of parents" available at  http://www.hsldacanada.org/resource/newsrelease1.htm;
 

COHEN, L., "Debate about parents' right to spank causes divisions among MDs", (July 1995)  153 Canadian Medical Association Journal 73-75; article noted in my research but not consulted yet;

"[Abstract]  Does spanking involve child abuse, or is it an acceptable form of discipline in Canada? Section 43 of the Criminal Code allows "reasonable" force on the part of a teacher or parent as a disciplinary measure, but an advocacy group believes that this section of the code should be repealed. However, a recent court case indicates that abolition of corporal punishment is not a black-and-white issue." (available at   http://www.cmaj.ca/, accessed on 24 March 2005)

COLVIN, Eric, 1945 and Sanjeev Anand, Principles of Criminal Law, 3rd ed., Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2007, li, 599 p., ISBN: 978 0779813247;

THE COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, comments and recommendations regarding corporal punishment made about Canada:

 
Canada
"Further measures seem to be needed to effectively prevent and combat all forms of corporal punishment and ill-treatment of children in schools or in institutions where children may be placed. The Committee is also preoccupied by the existence of child abuse and violence within the family and the insufficient protection afforded by the existing legislation in that regard. "The Committee suggests that the State party examine the possibility of reviewing the penal legislation allowing corporal punishment of children by parents, in schools and in institutions where children may be placed. In this regard and in the light of the provisions set out in articles 3 and 19 of the Convention, the Committee  recommends that the physical punishment of children in families be prohibited. In connection with the child's right to physical integrity as recognized by the Convention,  namely in its articles 19, 28 and 37, and in the light of the best interests of the child, the Committee further suggests that the State party consider the possibility of introducing new legislation and follow-up mechanisms to prevent violence within the family, and that educational campaigns be launched with a view to changing attitudes in society on the use of physical punishment in the family and fostering the acceptance of its legal prohibition". (20 June 1995, CRC/C/15/Add.37, paras. 14 and 25); available at  http://endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/hrlaw/states_c.html#canada (as seen on 9 February 2002)

"Corporal Punishment: The Criminal Code Defence", (January 1993) EduLaw for Canadian Schools 38-40; copy at the National Library, Ottawa;
 

COURT DECISIONS / ARRÊTS DES TRIBUNAUX

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76;
 

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General) (January 15, 2002), Ontario Court of Appeal, 17 January 2002;
 

Ogg-Moss v. The Queen, [1984] 2 Supreme Court of Canada Reports 173-196; also available in French / aussi disponible en français: Ogg-Moss c. La Reine, [1984] 2 Recueil des arrêts de la Cour suprême du Canada 173-196;

"Section 43  authorizes the use of force 'by way of correction'. As Blackstone noted, such 'correction' of a child is countenanced by the law because it is 'for the benefit of his education'.  Section 43  is, in other words, a justification.  It exculpates a parent, schoolteacher or person standing in the place of a parent who uses force in the correction of a child, because it considers such an action not wrongful, but a rightful, one.  It follows that unless the force is 'by way of correction', that is, for the benefit of the education of the child, the use of force will not be justified.
...
Where the context does imply an educational responsibility, this same reasoning dermands that the person applying the force intended it for 'correction', and that the person being 'corrected' be capable of learning from the correction.  These stipulations are separate and distinct from the additional requirement, essentially a question of fact, that the force used be reasonable in the circumstances" (Judgment of the Court delivered by by Dickson, J., at pp. 193-194)
-----------------------------
"L'article 43autorise l'emploi de la force 'pour corriger'.  Comme l'a fait remarquer Blackstone, la loi approuve de tels procédés dans le cas d'un enfant parce que cela est 'pour le bien de l'éducation de l'enfant'.  Em d'autres termes, l'article 43 est une justification. Il a pour effet d'innocenter le père ou la mère, un instituteur ou une personne qui remplace le père ou la mère et qui a recours à la force pour corriger un enfant, la raison à cela étant qu'une telle action est considérée non comme mauvaise, mais comme légitime. Par conséquent, le recours à la force ne sera pas justifié, à moins que ce ne soit «pour corriger», c'est-à-dire qu'il ne s'inscrive dans le cadre de l'éducation de l'enfant.
[...]
Lorsque le contexte permet de conclure à l'existence d'une responsabilité éducative, il faut, suivant ce même raisonnement, que la personne qui recourt à la force le fasse pour «corriger», et que la personne ainsi «corrigée» soit capable d'en tirer une leçon. Ces conditions sont entièrement distinctes de l'exigence supplémentaire, qui est essentiellement une question de fait, que la force utilisée soit raisonnable dans les circonstances." ( Jugement de la Cour rendu par le juge Dickson, aux pp. 193-194)

COVELL, Katherine and R. Brian Howe, The Challenge of Children's Rights for Canada: Studies in Childhood and Family in Canada, Waterloo (Ontario) Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001, iii, 244 p., see Chapter 4, "The Rights of Protection" at pp. 69-99, ISBN: 0889203806;
 

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 43 / Code criminel, S.R.C. 1985, c. C-46, art. 43:

"43. [Correction of child by force]  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."
----------------------------
"43. [Discipline des enfants] Tout instituteur, père ou mère, ou toute personne qui remplace le père ou la mère, est fondé à employer la force pour corriger un élève ou un enfant, selon le cas, confié à ses soins, pourvu que la force ne dépasse pas la mesure raisonnable dans les circonstances."

Criminal Code -- Annotated codes used by practioners/ Code criminel --codes annotés utilisés par les practiciens

    in English (published every year) /en anglais:

GOLD, Allan D., The Practioner's Criminal Code, Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis Canada, 2008;

GREENSPAN, Edward L. and Marc Rosenberg, annotations by, Martin's Annual Criminal Code 2008, Aurora: Canada Law Book Inc.;

WATT, David and Michelle Fuerst, annotations by, The 2008 Annotated Tremeear's Criminal Code, Toronto: Carswell, A Thomson Company;

COURNOYER, Guy et Gilles Ouimet, Code criminel annoté 2008, Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, une société Thomson; note: législation bilingue/bilingual legislation;

CROSSROADS, FAMILY OF MINISTRIES, Children & Discipline, available at  http://crossroads.ca/response/child.htm (as seen on 5 February 2002);
 

DALEY, Bridget, "The unconstitutionality of section 43 of the Criminal Code : children -- second class citizens?", Halifax, N.S. : Dalhousie Law School, 1999, 24 p., 28 cm. (series; Student papers (Children and the law);  number 154; copy at Dalhousie University, Law Library, RESV KB 137 C562 no.154; copy noted in my research but paper not consulted (22 February 2003);
 

DeCOSTE, F.C., "On 'Educating Parents': State and Family in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (A.G.)", (2004) 41(4) Alberta Law Review 879-886;
 

DELEURY, Edith, Michèle Rivet et Jean-Marc Neault, "De la puissance paternelle à l'autorité paternelle: une institution en voie de trouver sa vraie finalité", (1974) 15 Cahiers de droit 779-870; copie à l'Université d'Ottawa, bibliothèque de droit, FTX périodiques, KEQ 5 .C434; droit civil mais pertinent pour l'évolution du droit;
 

DICKENS, Bernard, Case notes, "Parental Discipline. Re O.", (1978) 1 Canadian Journal of Family Law /Revue canadienne de droit familial 601-607; copy at the University of Ottawa, law library, FTX Periodicals, KE 532 .C343;
 

DIEBOLT, The Hon. William J., Chief Judge, The Provincial Court of British Columbia, Letter to Dr. Tom Hay, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, 2 p., in HAY, infra, Appendix C, Written Submissions;

     "Further to my letter of December 23, 1993, I referred the issue of corporal punishment of children to one of our most experienced family judges, The Honourable Judge Phil d'A Collings, who offered the following observations:

Debating the morality of corporal punishment of children may be a fruitless exercise, since prevailing or fashionable moral views have shifted dramatically in the last fifty years and may be expected to continue to do so.  Also, it may be necessary to recognize that besides the current 'violence is abhorrent' moral view, there are other views that:

i) parents should have the responsibility of bringing up their children according to their own choice of methods, barring excesses.  This seems to be the general effect of s. 43 of the Criminal Code;

ii) the 'violence is abhorrent' moral view may have less support outside of urban areas;

iii) corporal punishment may be necessary in a traditional family setting as a 'last resort' penalty where a child does something appalling and dangerous to others; and

iv) in group homes where juvelines may be more of a discipline problem than a criminal problem, assaults of group home workers occur repeatdly because the penalties for violence, if they are imposed at all, happen much later.  Prosecution of the assault charges is expensive and uses court time on matters that could have been dealt with inside the group home on an immediate basis.

    While Judge Collings' comments do not represent the views of the Provincial Court as a whole, I trust these will be helpful for the purpose of the consultation session in Ottawa." (pp. 1-2)

DRINAN, Robert F., The mobilization of shame : a world view of human rights, New Haven : Yale University Press, c2001, xiii, 240 p., ISBN: 0300088256, see part "A global revolution for children" as it may be relevant to the subject; title noted but book not consulted yet; no copy in Canadian libraries yet (as of 13 February 2002);
 

DUMAIS, Catherine, "La Cour suprême du Canada et l'imprécision: quand l'avertissement raisonnable devient sympolique", (2005-2206) 36(1-2) Revue de droit Université de Sherbrooke 289-307;

DURRANT, Joan E.,  Anders G. Broberg, and Linda Rose-Krasnor, "Predicting use of physical punishment during mother-child conflicts in Sweden and Canada", in  Caroline C. Piotrowski and Paul D. Hastings, editors, Conflict as a context for understanding maternal beliefs about child rearing and children's misbehavior, San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers, c1999, 95 p. at pp. 25-42 (series; New directions for child and adolescent development, ISSN 1520-3247; no. 86), (series; Jossey-Bass education series), ISBN: 0787912530; title noted but not located in a Canadian library;
 

DURRANT, Joan E., and G.M. Olsen, "Parenting and Public Policy: Contextualizing the Swedish Corporal Punishment Ban", (1997) 19 The Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 443; title noted but not read yet; no copy in the Ottawa area libraries; copy at UQAM - Université du Québec à Montreal,  copy at n 1- 1991- K10O89 (CaQMUQ)02-1331447;  ISSN 0964-9069 (published by Routledge);
 

DURRANT, Joan E. and Linda Rose-Krasnor, Corporal Punishment - Research Review and Policy Recommendations, [Ottawa] : Health Canada : Justice Canada, March 1995, ix, 62  p.; note: "The preparation of this report was funded by the Family Violence Prevention Division of Health Canada and the  Department of Justice Canada"; document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice Canada Access to Information file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages numbered 000181-000251; Professor Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D., CPsych is at the Department of Family Studies, University of Manitoba; Professor Linda Rose-Krasnor, Ph"D. is at the Department of Psychology, Brock University; research note: also published: Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1995;
 

DURRANT, Joan E., "The abolition of corporal punishment in Canada: Parents' versus children's rights.", (1994) 2 International Journal of Children's Rights 129-136; bibliography at pp. 50-62; Professor Durrant, Ph.D., is at the Department of Family Studies, University of Manitoba;  as of 25 February 2002, this periodical was on order at the University of Ottawa, location: MRT periodicals; article not consulted yet;
 

___________"Culture, Corporal Punishment and Child Abuse" in Katherine Covell, ed., Readings in Child Development: A Canadian Perspective, Toronto: Nelson Canada, 1995, ix, 366 p., at pp. 28-48, ISBN:  0176041931; copy at the National Library, Ottawa; article not consulted yet;
 

___________"Evaluating the success of Sweden's corporal punishment ban", (1999) 23 Child Abuse & Neglect 435-457; copy at University of Ottawa, HV 701 .C47  Location, MRT Periodicals;
 

___________A generation without smacking : the impact of Sweden's ban on physical punishment, London : Save the Children, 2000, 30 p ., ISBN: 1841870196; title noted in my research but document not consulted yet; no Canadian library seems to have this document; see the executive summary at  http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/development/global_pub/agws.pdf;
 

___________"Public Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment in Canada", 23 p.; published  in Detlev Frehsee, Wiebke Horn, and Kai-D. Bussmann, eds., Family Violence Against Children: A Challenge for Society, Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1996, viii, 204 p. (series;  Prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence; volume 19),  ISBN: 3110149966; no copy of this book in the Ottawa area libraries;
 

____________"Sparing the Rod: Manitobans' Attitudes Toward the Abolition of Physical Discipline and Implications for Policy Change", (1993-94) 41(4) Canada's Mental Health 2-6;  also published in French/aussi dans son équivalent français: Santé mentale au Canada;
 

EBERLEIN, Larry., "Corporal Punishment to be Banned in Canada?" (December 1986) 6(6) Canadian School Executive 15; copy at the University of Ottawa, MRT, LB 2890.C32;
 

EDITORIAL, "A reasonable option: The Supreme Court should not ban corporal punishment", The Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday, June 10, 2003, p. A14;
 

EDITORIAL, "Law shouldn't absolve adults who hit kids",  The Toronto Star, December 15, 1997, available at  http://silcon.com/~ptave/canada.htm (as seen on 9 February 2002);
 

Education & Law Journal;
 

EDWARDS, Steven, "UN: Ban physical discipline of children", The Ottawa Citizen, Wednsday, 8 October 2003, p. A5;
 

ENGMAN, Kathleen, "When Does Discipline Become Abuse? Each family draws a different line on whether physical force is appropriate in disciplining a child.  It's a question of whether the force is 'reasonable', but more and more people appear to be reassessing what that means", Edmonton Journal, 7 December 1996, p. G1;

"'As society evolves so does the interpretation of what is reasonable,' he said [Wayne Renke, University of Alberta criminal law professor].  'Part of the problem may be that judges tend to come from a bygone age themselves so they are not necessarily reflecting what current sensibilities are.'
......
'Corporal punishment is still probably a frequent occurence,' Albrecht [Edmonton Police Sgt. Dean Albreacht] said.  'However the brutality has changed.  It is no longer acceptable to beat your child.  There is a distinction between beating and punishment.'  The distinction, he said, is the level of physical harm."

FARRIS, Paul, "Bill S-21 An Act  to Amend the Criminal Code (protection of Children).  Brief to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs .  Presented by the Home School Legal defence Association of Canada A member for the Coalition for Family Autonomy",  hearings of 8 June 2005, 10 p., available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/lega-e/pdf/15issue.pdf  (accessed on 15 April 2005); also published in French / aussi publié en français: FARRIS, Paul, "Projet de loi S-21  Loi modifiant le Code criminel  (protection des enfants).  Mémoire présenté au Comité sénatorial permanent des affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles.  Présenté par la Home School Legal defence Association of Canada A member for the Coalition for Family Autonomy", audiences du 8 juin 2006, disponible à available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/lega-e/pdf/15issue.pdf  (consulté le 15 avril 2005);

FELLOWS, Ian, Case Note, "Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child: R. v. Graham [(15 August 1994), (N.B. Prov. Ct.)]", (1994-1995) 6 Education & Law Journal 203-206;
 

FERGUSON, Gerry, "Recent developments in Canadian criminal law", (2004) 28(2) Criminal Law Journal 93-109, see "CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN", at pp. 95-98;
 

FOLKEMA, Willemina, Parenting attitudes of Christians : discipline, corporal punishment and biblical literalism, 1994, ix, 71 leaves (series; M.Sw. research report / School of Social Work, McGill University); copy at McGill University, Montreal, Humanities and Social Sciences Library (McLennan/Redpath), AS42;M33;1994;F655 mcl; title noted in my research but document not consulted yet;
 

FOSS, Arthur E., The effects of changing societal attitudes on the use of corporal punishment in public schools and in our courts: an historical perspective, St. Catharines [Ont.] : Faculty of Education, Brock University, 1986, iv, 62 leaves (series; Brock University; Faculty of Education Master of Education project); notes: "Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education"; copy at Brock University, Faculty of Education, Instructional Resource Centre; title noted in my research but thesis not consulted yet; ; no summary in Dissertation Abstracts International;
 

FRIESEN-FORD, Cynthia Norine, Survey of parental attitudes and opinions concerning student discipline in Saskatchewan elementary schools, Masters Thesis (M.A.), The University of Regina, 1995, 159 p.; thesis director: P. Hemingway; copy also at the National Library Ottawa; thesis not consulted yet;

"[Abstract] The purpose of this study was to determine parental attitudes and opinions concerning student discipline in Saskatchewan elementary schools. Issues addressed included parental perceptions about: the present state of discipline in schools; how and when parents should be involved in and informed of discipline practices implemented with their child in school; the severity of misbehaviors and disciplinary practices; the appropriateness of disciplinary  practices for specific cases of misbehavior; and the appropriateness of corporal punishment as a practice of 'last resort'. Data were obtained from 143 of 392 parents, who received questionnaires. Findings revealed that parents wished to be involved in the disciplinary practices implemented with their child in school, preferred to be informed by telephone at the first sign of their child's behavior interfering with his/her ability to learn; marginally accepted corporal punishment as a disciplinary practice of "last resort", and were equally divided as to whether this practice should be banned from Saskatchewan elementary schools. Assault with a weapon, sniffing glue and vandalism were rated as the most severe misbehaviors that could be exhibited in an elementary school by  these parents, while excluding others from playground activities, rudeness, and tripping others were rated as least severe. Teacher-child conferencing was identified as the least severe disciplinary practice implemented in schools, with corporal punishment being viewed as the most severe disciplinary measure.  For misbehaviors associated with anti-social behavior, sexually-related behaviors, and behaviors which violate the rights of others, teacher-child conferencing was rated as the most appropriate practice; whereas note/call to parents was perceived as the most acceptable disciplinary practice for misbehaviors categorized as defiant, illegal, and physically dangerous. Removal of privileges was rated third in appropriateness with respect to all six categories of misbehavior, with corporal punishment identified as the least appropriate in all six cases." (Masters Abstracts International, volume: 35-03, page: 0642)

GOLD, Alan D., Notes and Comments, "Defences - Parental Authority. Ogg-Moss v. The Queen...; Nixon v. The Queen...", (1984-85) 27 The Criminal Law Quarterly 25-26;
 

GOLDBLOOM, Richard B., "Spare the Child", (April 2002)166 Canadian Medical Association Journal 1191; available at http://www.cmaj.ca/;
 

GOOD, Linnea, "Spanking: Why the Dragon Doesn't Get Tamed" (Fall1994) 11 Seeds and Sowers, Children; published by the United Church of Canada; title noted in my research but article not consulted yet;
 

GRANT, Isabel, Developments in Substantive Criminal Law: The 2003-2204 Term", (2004) 26 The Supreme Court Law Review (2nd series) 215-287; see Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, at pp. 266-285; see Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76;
 

GREENE, Sharon D., "The Unconstitutionality of Section 43 of the Criminal Code: Children's Right to be Protected from Physical Assault: Part I and Part II", (1998) 41 The Criminal Law Quarterly 288-317 (for Part I) and 462-484 (for Part II);
 

GROVER, Sonja, "A Commentary on Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General)", (June 2004) 11(2) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law; available at  http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n2/grover112.txt (accessed on 9 September 2005);
 

___________"Negating the Child’s Inclusive Right to Security of the Person: A Charter Analysis of the s. 43 Canadian Criminal Code Defense to Corporal
Punishment of a Minor", (December 2003) 10(4) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law; available at  http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n4/grover104.html#References_T (accessed on 9 September 2005);
 

HANCOCK Edward, "The Use of Force", (June 1998)  Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association Bulletin (NLTA Bulletin) available at  http://www.nlta.nf.ca/HTML_Files/html_pages/publications/bulletins/june98/force.html;
 

HARDY-DUSSAULT, "Un facteur contextuel, sous l'influence ou les pièges de la pertinence: Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law",  (2005-2206) 36(1-2) Revue de droit Université de Sherbrooke 327-354;

HARRIES, Kate, "When spanking is unacceptable: Judge", Toronto Star, March 4, 2003 at pp. A1 and A15; decision of Madam Justice Eleanor Schnall that Shelley West of Family and Children's Services was right in removing children;
 

HAY, Tom, Ph.D., C.Psych, [editor], prepared by, Final report, consultation on section 43, 31 March 1994, prepared  by Tom Hay ; submitted by the The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children; submitted to Catherine Swift - Director, Operations Children's Bureau, Health Canada ..., Ottawa : Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children,1994, 22, [70] p.; research note: "On January 19 and 20, 1994, the Canadian Coaltion for the Rights of Children hosted a consultation session in Ottawa to explore issues regarding corporal punishment and other physical interventions with children.  ... The session was sponsored by the Children's Bureau of Health Canada.  The Department of Justice participated as observers.  The stakeholder groups who were represented included youths, parents, educators, the faith community, the NGO community, child protection, police and law.  Representatives from the Children's Bureau and the Department of Justice also contributed and observed.  Over the two days, more than 50 people were involved in the discussions." (p. 1); copy at the Library of Parliament, Ottawa, Br.B, HQ 770.4 C3 A35; also published in French / aussi publié en français: Rapport final, consultation sur l'article 43, 31 mars 1994 / préparé par Tom Hay ; présenté à la Coalition canadienne pour les droits des enfants ; présenté à ... Bureau des enfants, Santé Canada, Ottawa : Coalition canadienne pour les droits des enfants, 1994, 24, [9] f.; à noter que la version française est sensiblement moins volumineuse que l'anglaise; je n'ai pas consulté la version française; copie à la Librairie du Parlement, Ottawa;

"Most participants agreed that some legislative changes would better protect children.  These changes could come about through a Supreme Court challenge of Section 43, or through a law reform process.  Some of the many concerns about this change included the ability of teachers and administrators to maintain order in schools, and not criminalizing parents for spanking a child.  Administrative, educational and social changes are also necessary to help parents and teachers find ways of correcting behaviour that promote the child's dignity, respect and self-discipline." (Tom Hay, p. 1)

Health Canada On Line / Santé Canada en direct , available at / disponible à  http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/
 

HESS, Henry, "Father's Spanking of Child Not a Crime, Judge  Rules Despite opposition to corporal punishment, 'this is not a court of social justice', U.S. man told as charges dismissed", Globe and Mail, 27 April 1995, p. A12;  case of David Peterson, Illinois, Ontario Court Provincial Division, Judge John Menzies, 26 April 1995;

[The article also states:] In Ottawa yesterday, Justice Minister Allan Rock said the federal government has no intention of changing the Criminal Code to outlaw spanking. ....
...Mr. Rock said his department reviewed the Criminal Code provision and found it acceptable."

HEWITT, Jean D. (Jean Dorothy), 1940-, Corporal punishment in education : the tip of  the authoritarian iceberg,  Thesis (Ph.D.), University of Toronto, 1981; 5 microfiches (486 fr.); copy at the National Library, Ottawa; thesis not consulted yet;

"[Abstract] The main concern in this enquiry into the use of corporal punishment in education is the matter of inconsistency. First, that which exists between the status of the child and the status of the adult in contemporary society, particularly in regard to the use of physical punishment. Second, that which exists between the rhetoric of education in a liberal democracy, such as Ontario, and the practice of control and punishment found within the school system. It is suggested that corporal punishment may be the visible tip of an iceberg of authoritarianism which dominates school organization and inter-personal interactions.  Historical and recent data are presented in order to bring out the rationales which have been popularly supported by proponents of corporal punishment over the years, and to indicate the extent and degree of this popular support. Included in this material is the London Study: a study into attitudes toward corporal punishment and discipline held by teachers, parents and students in London, Ontario in 1974. This study included the analysis of 1,100 teacher surveys, 12,000 parent surveys and 9,000 student surveys. Results of these surveys and the discussion generated by them are referred to throughout this thesis. However, the central discussion involves the traditional arguments given to justify punishment per se, namely retributivism, reformism and the deterrence principle, and their application to the punishment of children. It is argued that, while the punishment of children does not meet all the requirements set down in the legal/philosophical definition of punishment, nevertheless it is sufficiently similar to require that it be defended or rejected within one or more of the traditional positions. In that punishment is a legal and a socio-psychological concept as well as a moral one, these two aspects were discussed in some detail. Court decisions on cases involving corporal punishment from Canada, Britain and the United States are included to illustrate the extent to which the law has tended to uphold the conduct of teachers, in loco parentis, where such punishment was deemed to be "reasonable". Empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of physical punishment is taken mainly from the behavioural sciences. Data from laboratory and clinical studies of punishment is taken mainly from the behavioural sciences. Data from laboratory and clinical studies of punishment are presented, although the difficulty in extrapolating information from such sources and applying it to other moral circumstances is recognized and discussed. Finally, the relevance of corporal punishment to the school system is considered. It is suggested that such punishment is maintained, in the face of evidence which questions its value, because it is consistent with many other features of the underlying ethos of the school. It also proposed that this ethos is not that described in the educational rhetoric found in Ministry of Education documents, and that an alternative educational model may be needed if the rhetoric and the practice are to be consistent." (Dissertation Abstracts International, volume: 43-02, Section: A, page: 0429)

HINDLE, Donald W. (Donald William), Corporal punishment : the practice and opinions of Saskatchewan school administrators with middle years students, Thesis (M.Ed.), University of Regina, 1986, xiii, 150 leaves, copy at the National Library, Ottawa; no abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International; thesis not consulted yet;
 

"How to discipline Children : What is Effective, biblical discipline of children and how to do it?" as seen at  http://www.rohlin.com/pastors/Family/Children/chastise.htm
(as seen on 8 February 2002);
 

HOWE, R. Brian, "Do Parents have Fundamental Rights?", (Fall 2001) 36(3) Journal of Canadian Studies 61-78;

Abstract
"This article addresses the question of whether parents have fundamental rights in relations with their children.  Against the claim that parents have fundamental rights, and in reference to the evolution of Canadian public policy and Canada's ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is argued that it is children -- not parents -- who have basic rights.   In so far as parents have rights, they are conditional rights -- not fundamental rights -- and are connected to their obligations to provide for the rights and best interests of their children.  Such an understanding is justified in reference not only to the Convention but also to John Rawl's theory of justice."

HOY, Claire, "Spanking is not abuse", (16 June 2003) 14(21) Law Times 7;
 

HUNTER, Ian, "When it comes to spanking, let's keep an open mind", The Globe and Mail, Thursday July 26, 2001, p. A17;
 

HURLBERT, Earl Leroy, 1933-, and Margot Ann Hurlbert, 1964-, School Law Under  the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2nd ed, Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1992, xxvi, 256 p., see "Student Discipline" at pp. 194-215, ISBN: 1895176034; copy at the library of the Supreme Court of Canada, KF 4119 H87 1992; copy at the law library, University of Ottawa, FTX, KE 3805 .H868 1992;
 

INSTITUTE FOR THE PREVENTION OF CHILD ABUSE / INSTITUT POUR LA PRÉVENTION DE L'ENFANCE MALTRAITÉE, "Canadian  parents' approaches to discipline",  (Winter 1990) 4 Newsbrief /Actualités; ISSN: 0839-1963; copy at the National Library, Ottawa; title noted in my research but article not read yet;
 

___________Prevention of Child Abuse (1989), "Survey of  Canadian parental attitudes",  (1989) 3 Newsbrief/Actualités; ISSN: 0839-1963; copy at the National Library, Ottawa;  title noted in my research but article not read yet;
 

INSTITUTE OF THE FAMILY GUIDANCE, "Ten Reasons Not to Hit your Kids", web page at  http://www.gmcc.ab.ca/~scott/family/child.htm (accessed on 3 February 2002);
 

ISRAEL SUPREME COURT, Criminal Appeal 4596/98 Plonit v. A.G. 54(1) P.D. p. 145,  Unofficial Translation, available at  http://endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/Israel_Judgment.pdf (as seen on 9 February 2002); the judgment also covers Canadian law;
 

JAFFEY, John, "Ontario Court of Appeal upholds Code provision spanking children", (January 25, 2002), 21(35) The Lawyers Weekly 1-2;
 

JOBIN, Bernard, "La punition corporelle en milieu scolaire aux États-Unis: un débat inachevé" dans,  sous la direction de,  Denis Jeffrey et Claude Simard, Ennseigner et punir, Québec: Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 2000, xv, 203 p. aux pp. 173-186 (Collection; La vie dans la classe), ISBN: 2763777724; copie à l'Université d'Ottawa, MRT, LB 3025 .E59 2000;
 

JONAS, George, Editorial, "A verbal spanking for those who tell us how to raise our children", The Ottawa Citizen, Monday, February 18, 2002, p. A10;

"Glass ['arguing that we should license would-be parents'] and his soulmates have always relied on images of abused children to sell their programs, but what they really object to is what they call individuals 'owning' their children.  This seems to stand in the way of their own pet idea, namely that children should be owned by the state."

JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH, "Corporal Punishment: Constitutional Challenge to Section 43 of the Criminal Code", available at  http://www.jfcy.org/corporalp/corporalp.html;
 

___________Letter of Sheena Scott, Executive Director, Justice for Children and Youth, Canadian Foundation for Children Youth and the Law, to the Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, dated 12 November 1997, 2 p.; document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice Canada Access to Information file: A00-0098/ok and documents received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages numbered 000417-000418;

"Justice for Children and Youth is a legal clinic and the operating arm of the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law.  The clinic provides select legal representation to youth aged 17 and under in the areas of income maintenance, education, criminal law, family law, mental health law, health law, constitutional law and human rights.

The Foundation prepares policy/law reform positions on issues relating to the legal practice of the clinic based on the needs and experience of its clients.  The clinic also provides public legal education to youth and youth-serving agencies.

As you may be aware, we have received funding from the Court Challenges Program to challenge the constitutionlidity of s. 43 of the Criminal Code. ...

............

In light of these considerations, and of our intention to litigate this matter, we request that you introduce legislation repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code, or refer the matter to the courts by way of a constitutional reference by January 1998.  In the absence of one of these actions, we will draw the inference that there is an absence of intention on the part of  the government to take action on this issue, and will proceed with our application to the court."

KAILL, Derek., "Come to Canada, Smack a Kid!", (2004) 64(4) The Humanist 39-40; title noted in my research but document not consulted; no copy of this periodical in the Ottawa area libaries covered by the AMICUS catalogue of Library and Archives Canada (verification of 19 October 2004); see  http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/JulyAugust04.html (accessed on 20 October 2004);
 

KAMAT, Leena, "Pressure mounts to boot spanking", The Gazette, The Daily Student Newspaper at the University of Western Ontario, vol. 92, issue 76, Thursday, February 11, 1999 available at  http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/1999/February/11/News6.htm;
 

KAMMERMAYER, Fran, "Punishment or Discipline: Which Works Best", (Fall 2003) Newsletter -- BC Institute Against Family Violence; available at  http://www.bcifv.org/resources/newsletter/2003/fall/punishment.shtml (accessed on 14 August 2004); note: the author is a Certified Canadian Family Educator;
 

KEELER, B.T., A.K. Harrison, and E.C. Fraser,  Teachers' Rights, Responsibilities and Legal Liabilities, published the The Alberta Teachers' Association, as seen at  http://www.teachers.ab.ca/publications/monographs/rights/  on 27 January 2002;
 

KONDRO, Wayne, "Corporal punishment in classroom wins support in the courtroom - Academic's review of case law finds judges, more often than not, rule in favour of teachers", The Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, May 27, 2000, p. A7;
 

LAUCIUS, Joanne, "Spanking naughty children is 'assault,' and must be outlawed, CHEO declares", The Ottawa Citizen, Thursday, 30 September 2004, pp. A1 and A2;
 

___________" 'Thou shalt beat him with the rod':  Reforming corporal punishment laws has often run afoul of religious freedom", The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, January 30, 2004, p. A3;
 

LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA, Assault, Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada, [x], 59 p., see "Corporal Punishment of Children" at pp. 38-46 (series; Working Paper; 38), ISBN: 0662534174; infra is an is excerpt that I have found excellent at pp. 49-53; copy of the English version of this working paper is available in pdf format at my Digital Library -- Canadian Criminal Law; also published in French / aussi publié en français: Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, Les voies de fait, Ottawa: Ministère des Approvisionnements et Services Canada, 1984, [xi], 53 p., voir "Le châtiment corporel infligé aux enfants", aux pp. 44-53, (Collection; Document de travail; numéro 38), ISBN: 0662534174; /voici un extrait que je trouve remarquable aux pp. 49-53:

       "Opponents of corporal punishment attack section 43 on several grounds.  They see it as wrongly institutionalizing violence as a means of social control, as an archaic reflection of parental right surviving from a time when servants, apprentices, prisoners and others could be lawfully beaten, as contributing to the serious social problem of child abuse, and as blurring the basic message of the law that violence is off limits.  Violence in the home, they argue, begets violence in society – the battered child is likely to become a battering parent.  And corporal punishment in school, abolished in most European [next page, p. 43]  countries and rarely advocated today in Canada, is viewed as ineffective, unnecessary and counter-reproductive in that it fails to encourage student self-discipline and may conflict with parental views – in an age of compulsory education teachers cannot appropriately be regarded as delegates acting with the consent of the student’s parents.

      As against this. Those in favour of allowing corporal punishment put forward several arguments.  They contend that so far as parents are concerned, spanking is a widely accepted and supported form of family discipline.  Removing this right would constitute unwarranted interference with family privacy.  As to corporal punishment by teachers, they maintain that this is a necessary disciplinary measure of last resort, that many Canadian school boards would be wise not to ban the strap, and that corporal punishment is a traditional and practical system.

      In our view the ultimate question is whether corporal punishment is even necessary.  Clearly, unnecessary use of force is wrong and cannot be permitted by the law – this is the basic message of this chapter of the criminal law on crimes of violence.  Clearly as well, some use of force is sometimes justifiable, as observed earlier, under the doctrine of necessity.  How far could corporal punishment be defended under this principle?

      Here, we could argue, we must recollect the distinction mentioned earlier in discussing emergency.  On the one hand there may be cases where nothing short of physical force may bring a child to heel.  For example, nothing less may serve to stop the child from destroying the furniture or to prevent class disruption.  But these have nothing to do with the punishment or with section 43, and would be unaffected by its abolition.  They are emergency situations where the use of force is necessary, can obviously be justified [p. 44] in common sense and plainly has created no problems.  On the other hand there are cases where physical force is applied, not in an emergency, but after the event and simply as a punishment.  These cases are less easy to justify.  First, they lack the urgency aspect found in emergency situations and do not therefore fall under the general doctrine of necessity.  Second, common sense is no longer unanimous that corporal punishment is a necessary educational instrument or an obviously appropriate answer to child misbehaviour.

      In these circumstances, we consider that ideally a clear stand against violence should be taken by the criminal law.  Instead of prohibiting violence in general but then allowing it for punishment of children, the law should give a clear and unblurred message to the effect that all unnecessary violence is off limits.  Emergency situations in the home or school are covered already by the law of necessity.  All other situations should exclude  the use of force .  The rule in Criminal Code section 43 should be abolished.

      Would such abolition work in practice?  Would it undermine school discipline, teachers' control of pupils, and students' respect for authority?  Would it expose parents and families to undue policing and infringement of privacy?  To take a Charter analogy, if everyone has a right to freedom from violence, how far can limitation of this right be reasonably justifiable in a free and democratic society?

      As regards teachers, the answers to these questions are, in our opinion, somewhat easier.  First, as we have suggested earlier, a provision such as section 43 concerning schools and teachers in effect institutionalizes the use of force.  Second, apart from necessity situations (where force is used to prevent harm and not to punish), the use of force is never necessary - the ultimate essential sanction is not corporal punishment but removal of the child from school, by force if necessary but by  force used to remove a trespasser rather than chastisement.  Third, the abolition of school corporal punishment in most European countries manifests that in those free and democratic societies, school discipline can survive without it -- in short, that corporal punishment is seen as neither necessary nor justifiable.  This too was the view taken by most (though not all) of our consultants.  In our opinion, therefore, section 43 should be repealed as a defence for teachers.

      Less easy is the answer to the question when it comes to parents.  Initially, the Commission felt that for the reasons given earlier in discussing corporal punishment, section 43 should be completely repealed and corporal punishment should be rulesd out also for parents.  But in the light of our consultations on a prior draft of this Working Paper, a majority of Commissioners came round to the view that such repeal, if taken by itself, could have unfortunate consequences, consequences worse than those ensuing from retention of the section.  For it would, in principle if not always in practice, expose the family to the incursion of state law enforcement for every trial slap or spanking.  And is this the sort of society in which we would want to live?

       One answer given by opponents of corporal punishment and of its enshrinement as legally justifiable in section 43 is that, in practice, fear of such consequences is unrealistic. [p. 45]  In practice, they would argue, good sense and prosecutorial discretion would take care of the problem.  Accordingly, although in principle the parent giving his small child a trivial slap might be open to prosecution, in practice he would not be charged.

      Others, however, among whom a majority of Commissioners must be included, are not satisfied to rely simply on prosecutorial discretion.  In the first place, the rule of law requires the lawmaker to spell out clearly where a parent in such cases commits a crime, whether he has a defence and whether he is liable to state intervention authorized by law.  It cannot be satisfied by provisions that fudge the issue, saying one thing in principle but allowing another in practice.  Secondly, and although it has no doubts about the good sense of prosecutors, the majority feel that, when it comes to criminal law and rights such as the right of privacy, we should not have to rely on what people will do but should guard ourselves against what they may do.  Such after all is the whole trust of the call for "government of laws and not of men".

      The dilemma, then, is clear.  The Commission would like to remove from the law a provision which enshrines and licenses the use of force on children.  But, for the majority, the problem is how to do so without running the risk of wheeling the engines of law enforcement into the privacy of the home for every trivial slap or spanking.  A more satisfactory way must be found that by reliance on prosecutorial discretion.  Pending this, a majority of Commissioners recommends retaining a special exception for parents (and those acting with their permission) reasonably disciplining their children.

      There is, however, a minority view that such an exception cannot be justified by fears of over-zealous state intrusion into family life.  The Criminal Code contains an important message that force is not to be used as a means of resolving tensions that flow from personal relationships, whether inside or outside the family.  It recognizes no exception limiting sate reaction to other family assaults (for example, one spouse touching or hurting another against his or her will; or one sibling acting aggressively towards another). It does not limit state reaction to conduct that constitutes other criminal offences, such as theft, mischief and intimidation.  Nor does it offer more than a narow band of protection to parents who act 'by way of correction."  In practice, family relationships normally do evoke attitudes of tolerance toward offensive conduct, both on the part of those offended against, as well as those whose duty it is to respond officially.  As has elsewhere been observed in this Working Paper, experience suggests that there is probably too much, not too little, institutional tolerance toward domestic situations, and it is doubtful that a special exception in the Criminal Code is required to protect families against over-zealous enforcement.

      To the extent that a call for restraint in the use of the criminal power of the state is appropriate in these situations, the minority feels it should be addressed to enforcement attitudes, not to the letter of the law.  Beyond blunting the message of the criminal law, to embrace such a narrow exception calls into question the meaning of our constitutional standards.  The singling out of children, whether on the basis of age or a relationship of dependency, raises concerns about how far the state may go to deprive individuals of their 'security of the person,' and whether those embraced by the exception would enjoy the 'equal protection' of the Canadian criminal law.  The language and spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not without relevance to this issue, forcing each of us to examine our own bview of what can be 'demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.'

      In the end, this has a great deal to do with moral choices about how children should be treated in our society.  For the minority, to have an exception that codones the use of force, even for 'reasonably disciplining' a child, sets a national standard that can only heighten the potential for abuse that resides in all of us.  One person's discipline is another's abuse, and to perpetuate even this narrow exception to criminal responsibility, operating as it does within a system designed to reject responsibility for conduct whenever there is a 'reasonably doubt,' can encourage a climate for child abuse, and furnishes a slippery slope down which even the most well-meaning of disciplinarians may unwittingly slide."

-----------------------------------

      "Les détracteurs de la discipline corporelle attaquent les dispositions de l'article 43 sous plusieurs rapports.  Selon eux, ces dispositions sanctionnent à tort la violence comme mode de contrôle social, elles sont le reflet archaïque de droit parentaux datant d'une époque où les domestiques, les apprentis, les prisonniers et autres pouvaient légalement être battus, elles contribuent au problème très grave des mauvais traitements infligés aux enfants, et elles masquent l'esprit fondamental du droit, suivant lequel la violence doit être réprimée.  On prétend en effet que la violence au sein du foyer engendre la violence dans la société : l'enfant battu est susceptible de battre un jour ses propres enfants.  Pour ce qui est de la discipline corporelle dans les écoles, laquelle a été abolie dans la plupart des pays d'Europe et est rarement utilisée de nos jours au Canada, on considère qu'il [début p. 50] s'agit d'une méthode inefficace, inutile et rétrograde dans la mesure où elle décourage l'autodiscipline et peut éventuellement entrer en conflit avec la position des parents sur la question.  Depuis l'avènement de l'instruction obligatoire, on ne peut plus considérérer les instituteurs comme des fondés de pouvoir des parents.

      En revanche, ceux qui sont en faveur de la discipline corporelle opposent aux premiers plusieurs arguments.  Selon eux, une bonne fessée administrée par les parents demeure un mode de discipline reconu et accepté.  L'abolition de ce droit constituerait une immixition injustifiée dans la vie privée des familles.  Pour ce qui est des punitions corporelles infligées par les professeurs, on soutient qu'il s'agit d'une mesure disciplinaire à laquelle les instituteurs doivent être autorisés à recourir en dernier ressotrt, que les commissions scolaires canadiennes seraient bien avisées de ne pas les interdire, et qu'il s'agit d'une méthode traditionnelle et pratique.

      À notre avis, la question fondamentale est celle de savoir si le châtiment corporel répond à une nécessité véritable.  De toute évidence, il est répréhensible de recourir inutilement à la force et le droit ne peut sanctionner un pareil abus.  C'est là le message fondamental de ce chapitre du droit pénal portant sur les crimes de violence.  En revanche, il est tout aussi évident que l'emploi de la force, dans une certaine mesure, est parfois défendable, comme nous l'avons souligné auparavant, en vertu de la doctrine de la nécessité.  Mais dans quelle mesure le châtiment corporel peut-il être défendu au regarde de ce principe?

      Il conviendrait à ce sujet de revenir à la distinction établie ci-dessus.  D'une part, seul l'emploi de la force physique peut, dans certains cas, permettre de venir à bout d'un enfant; ainsi, ce peut être le seul moyen de maintenir l'ordre dans la classe ou d'empêcher l'enfant d'abîmer les meubles.  Mais de telles situations sont totalement étrangères à la notion de châtiment ou à l'article 43, et l'abrogation de cette disposition n'aurait aucune incidence à cet égard.  Il s'agit en fait de situations d'urgence où l'emploi de la force s'impose, peut être justifié par le bon sens et n'a manifestement jamais suscité de difficulté.  D'autre part, lorsque l'on recourt à la violence physique sans qu'il y ait urgence, après le fait, et simplement à titre de châtiment, l'emploi de la force devient moins défendable.  Car premièrement, vu l'absence de tout caractère d'urgence, on se saurait invoquer la doctrine générale de la nécessité.  Et deuxièmement, le châtiment corporel ne fait plus l'unanimité en tant qu'instrument indispensable d'éducation ou comme méthode optimale pour contenir un enfant dissispé.

      Aussi estimons-nous que le droit pénal doit refléter une prise de position sans équivoque contre la violence.  Au lieu d'interdire d'une manière générale l'emploi de la violence pour ensuite l'autoriser dans le cas des punitions infligées aux enfants, le droit devrait énoncer clairement, sans ambages, que toute violence inutile est illigitime.  Quant aus situations d'urgence, que ce soit à la maison ou à l'école, les règles relatives à la nécessité peuvent s'appliquer.  L'emploi de la force devrait être exclu dans tous les autres cas.  Il convient donc d'abroger la règle figurant à l'article 43 du Code criminel.

      Quel serait l'effet pratique de cette abrogation?  Risque-t-elle de miner la discipline à l'école, de saper l'autorité des professeurs sur leurs élèves?  Les parents et les familles [p.51] ne seraient-ils pas exposés alors à des contrôles abusifs, à des atteintes à l'intimité de leur vie privée?  Et, pour reprendre le langage de la Charte, si chacun  a le droit de ne pas être exposé à la violence, dans quelle mesure la limitation de ce droit peut-elle être considérée comme justifiée dans le cadre d'une société libre et démocratique?

      En ce qui concerne les professeurs, il est relativement facile à notre avis de répondre à ces questions.  En premier lieu, une disposition qui, à l'instar de l'article 43, vise les écoles et les professeurs a pour effet pratique, comme nous l'avons déjà souligné, d'institutionnaliser le recours à la force.  En deuxième lieu, l'emploi de la force n'est jamais indispensable, sauf dans les cas de nécessité (où l'on y recourt en vue d'empêcher qu'un préjudice soit infligé, et non à titre de punition) : la véritable sanction ultime ne réside pas dans le châtiment corporel, mais bien dans l'expulsion de l'enfant, par la force si c'est nécessaire; mais alors la force n'est pas employée comme châtiment.  En troisième lieu, labolition du châtiment corporel à l'école dans la plupart des pays européens montre bien que dans ces sociétés libres et démocratiques, la discipline peut-être maintenue par les professeurs sans qu'ils aient recours à de telles pratiques; bref, le châtiment corporel n'y est tenu ni pour nécessaire ni pour justifiable.  C'est également le point de vue exprimé par la plupart des personnes que nous avons consultées (à quelques exceptions près).  Nous sommes donc d'avis que les dispositions de l'article 43 devraient être abrogées, de façon à ne plus pouvoir être invoquées comme moyen de défense par les professeurs.

      Le problème devient plus épineux lorsqu'il s'agit des parents.  À l'origine, la Commission croyait que, pour les raisons données ci-dessus, les dispositions de l'article 43 devraient être totalement abrogées et que le châtiment corporel devrait être rendu illégal même pour les parents.  Mais à la lumière des consultations faites au sujet d'une version antérieure du présent document de travail, la majorité des commissaires ont changé d'avis, estimant qu'une telle abrogation risquerait par elle-même d'avoir des conséquences malheureuses, pires que celles pouvant découler du maintien de l'article en question.  En principe, en effet, sinon dans la pratique, la famille risquerait d'être exposée à la rigueur du droit pénal pour la moindre gifle, la fessée la plus anodine.  Est-ce là le type de société dans lequel nous voulons vivre?

      À cette objection, les adversaires du châtiment corporel et de sa légitimation par l'article 43 répondent que pareilles craintes ne sont pas fondées.  En pratique, plaident-ils, le bon sens prévaudra et aucune poursuite ne sera intentée à l'égard d'actes anodins.  Autrement dit, le parent qui donne une petite gifle à son petit enfant serait en principe passible de poursuites, mais dans les faits aucune accusation ne serait portée.

      Pour d'autres, cependant (parmi lesquels il faut ranger la majorité des commissaires), le pouvoir discrétionnaire sur l'engagement de poursuites ne constitue pas à lui seul une garantie suffisante.  En premier lieu, le principe de la suprématie du droit exige que le législateur dise clairement si, dans de tels cas, le parent commet une infraction, s'il peut invoquer un moyen de défense et s'il est exposé à une intervention de l'État, autorisée par la loi.  On ne peut se contenter à cet égard de dispositions qui viennent jeter la confusion, interdisant une chose en principe, mais l'autorisant en pratique.  En second lieu, la majorité des commissaires estiment (tout en étant convaincus du bon sens des [p. 52] poursuivants) qu'en matière de droit pénal et de droits fondamentaux, tel le droit à la vie privée, on ne peut se borner à faire confiance aux autorités chargées de l'application de la loi, mais que l'on doit au contraire se prémunir contre toute éventualité.  C'est en cela que consiste, après tout, le règne du droit.

       Le dilemme est donc clairement posé.  La Commission souhaiterait voir le législateur abroger une disposition légale qui consacre et cautionne l'emploi de la force contre les enfants.  Mais selon la majorité, il serait difficile de prendre une telle mesure sans risquer l'intervention du droit pénal dans la vie privée des familles pour la moindre correction.  Il n'est pas suffisant de s'en remettre au pouvoir discrétionnaire des poursuivants.  Jusqu'à ce qu'une meilleure solution soit proposée, la majorité des commissaires recommandent donc le maintien d'une exception spéciale concernant les parents (et les personnes agissant avec leur autorisation) qui corrigent leurs enfants d'une manière raisonnable.

      Selon le point de vue minoritaire, en revanche, cette exception ne peut être justifiée par les craintes d'intervention abusive de l'État dans la vie de la famille.  Le Code criminel comporte un message important : il est interdit de recourir à la force pour résoudre les tensions engendrées par les relations humaines, dans la famille ou à l'extérieur de celle-ci.  L'intervention de l'État n'est aucunement restreinte dans les cas d'autres voies de fait susceptibles de se produire au sein de la famille (par exemple, la personne qui frappe son conjoint ou lui inflige des douleurs physiques contre sa volonté, ou l'enfant qui agit d'une manière agressive envers son frère).  Aucune restriction ne figure non plus dans le Code au sujet de l'intervention de l'État à l'égard des conduites qui constituent d'autres infractions criminelles, par exemple le vol, le méfait et l'intimidation.  Enfin, la loi n'offre à vrai dire qu'une très légère protection aux parents qui 'corrigent' leurs enfants.  En pratique, les relations familiales sont normalement caractérisées par la tolérance, pour ce qui concerne les comportements agressifs, tant de la part des victimes que de la part des personnes chargées de réagir d'une manière officielle.  Et comme nous l'avons déjà souligné dans ce document de travail, tout porte à croire que la tolérance de la société quant à la violence au sein de la famille est déjà trop grande : il reste douteux, de ce fait, qu'une exception particulière soit nécessaire dans le Code criminel pour protéger les familles contre une application abusive des dispositions du droit pénal.

      Si tant est que la modération soit de mise dans ce domaine au regard des pouvoirs répressifs de l'État, la minorité des commissaires estiment que cette modération devrait être imposée sur le plan de l'application de la loi, et non inscrite dans le Code lui-même.   Non seulement l'existence d'une exception aussi particulière contribue à émousser le message du droit pénal, mais elle remet également en question le sens de nos garanties constitutionnelles.  Cette ségrégation, qu'elle soit fondée sur l'âge ou sur la situation de dépendance, soulève des questions délicates : jusqu'à quel point l'État peut-il priver les citoyens de la 'sécurité de leur personne'?  Et ceux qui font l'objet de cette exception peuvent-ils être considérés comme jouissant de 'la même protection' que les autres citoyens au regard du droit pénal canadien?  En effet, la lettre et l'esprit de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ont une certaine incidence sur ce problème et chacun de nous doit se demander ce qu'est une règle de droit 'dont la justification puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d'une société libre et démocratique'.

      [p,.53] En dernière analyse, il s’agit dans une large mesure de decider quel traitement l’on souhaite réserver aux enfants dans notre société.  Selon le point de vue minoritaire, le fait de sanctionner exceptionnellement l’emploi de la force à l’endroit de cette catégorie de personnes, fût-ce pour permettre les ‘corrections raisonnables’, équivaut à instituer une norme nationale qui accroît inévitablement le risque des abus auxquels chacun de nous peut être tenté de se livrer.  Ce qu’une personne tient pour de la discipline, une autre peut y voir un abus.  Cette exception en matière de responsabilité pénale, si limitée soit-elle, s’inscrit dans un système où la responsabilité  à l’égard d’une conduite est  écartée dès qu’il existe un ‘doute raisonnable’.  Son maintien risque donc de perpétuer un climat propice à la violence à l’endroit des enfants et, dans ce domaine, même les mieux intentionnés parmi les partisans de la discipline corporelle risquent de faire de faux pas."

____________The General Part - Liability and Defences, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canda, 1982, [xi], 204 p., see Appendix B, "Lawful Correction" at pp. 139-140 (series; Working Paper; number 29), ISBN: 0662514297; copy of the English version of this working paper is available in pdf format at my Digital Library -- Canadian Criminal Law; also published in French version/aussi publié en français: Commission de réforme du droit du Canada,  Partie générale - responsabilité et moyens de défense, Ottawa: Ministère des Approvisionnements et Services Canada, 1982, [xii], 239 p., voir l'annexe B, "Le droit de correction" aux pp. 159-160 (collection; Document de travail; numéro 29),  ISBN: 0662514297;

"Whether the law should take the final step of abolishing corporal punishment completely is a difficult question.  On the one hand champions of children's rights will stress the injustice of exempting children alone from physical force, the danger of child abuse and the inconsistency of meeting violence (or other wrongdoing) with violence.  As against this, others will emphasize parental need for sanctions of last resort, the problem of unruly students in the high schools and the risk of opening the door to wholesale intervention by the criminal justice system into the family situation.

This being so, the question posed concerning Cr.C. section 43 involves a need for policy evaluation in the light of empirical investigation.  In this regard the defence of lawful correction is unlike the defences of mistake of fact, duress and so on, and like the defences of immaturity, insanity and intoxication.  As compared with this latter category of defences, on which there has been considerable research and policy evaluation, the defence of lawful correction has been little examined to date.  Moreover, the problem of corporal punishment of children is not just a matter for the criminal law; it is a matter involving family, educational and indeed general societal considerations" ("Appendix 'B', Lawful Correction", pp. 139-140)
--------------------------------
"Faut-il passer à l'étape ultime et interdire, de façon absolue, le recours aux punitions corporelles?  La question est délicate.  D'une part, ceux qui se font les champions des droits de l'enfance dénoncent le caractère injuste de la loi à l'endroit des enfants qui sont les seules personnes contre lesquelles l'usage de la force physique est permis.  Ils soulignent en outre qu'on expose ainsi les enfants à des abus et à de mauvais traitements et s'élèvent contre l'absurdité de l'atitude qui consiste à répondre à la violence (ou à toute autre mauvaise action) par la violence.  D'autre part, certains revendiquent pour les parents le droit d'exercer une autorité absolue sur leurs enfants, invoquent les problèmes soulevés par les enfants indisciplinés dans les écoles secondaires et soulignent les dangers d'une ingérence intempestive de l'appareil judiciaire pénal dans l'intimité familiale.

Devant un tel dilemme, le problème soulevé par la règle contenue à l'article 43 C.cr. exige que l'on procède à des enquêtes approfondies afin de déterminer la position qu'il y a lieu d'adopter sur cette question.  à cet égard, le moyen de défense fondé sur le droit de correction diffère, d'une part, des autres moyens de défense comme l'erreur de fait et la contrainte morale, mais est analogue, d'autre part, à la minorité, à l'aliénation mentale et à l'intoxication.  Par rapport à cette dernière catégorie de moyens de défense, qui a fait l'objet de nombreuses études sur le plan des politiques, très peu de recherches ont été faites, jusqu'à maintenant, au sujet du droit de correction.  De plus, le problème des punitions corporelles infligées aux enfants ne relèvent pas seulement du droit pénal; il concerne également les institutions que sont la famille, le système d'éducation et, de façon générale, la société elle-même." ("Annexe 'B': Le droit de correction",  pp. 159-160).

__________Recodifying Criminal Law, vol. 1, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1986, [xiv], 117 p., see pp. 37-38 and 110, ISBN: 0662547322 (series; Report; number 30); copy of the English version of this report is available in pdf format at my Digital Library -- Canadian Criminal Law; also published in French version/aussi publié en fraçais: Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, Pour une nouvelle codification du droit pénal, vol. 1, Ottawa : Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1986, [xiv], 117 p. aux pp. 42 et 124 ,  ISBN: 0662547322 (collection; Rapport; numéro 30);
 

__________Recodifying Criminal Law (Revised and Enlarged Edition of Report 30),  Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1987, [16], 213 p., see p. 40 and 188 (series; Report; number 31), ISBN:0662547578; copy of the English version of this report is available in pdf format at my Digital Library -- Canadian Criminal Law; Research Note:  the Commission's recommendations in that  report were modified (but not on the subject of this bibliography) by a subsequent document: "A New General Part for the Criminal Code: Brief from the Law Reform Commission of Canada to the Subcommittee on the General Part" in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, supra, Issue 1 of : 25, 26, 30 March 1992, at the Appendix, pp. 1A:1 - 1A:17.  This report 31 was tabled in the House of Commons on 19 May 1988 (see House of Commons, Debates, 19 May 1988 at 15609); also published in French version/aussi publié en fraçais: Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, Pour une nouvelle codification du droit pénal (Édition révisée et augmentée du rapport n^o 30) , Ottawa: Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1987, [16], 233 p., voir les pp. 45 et 208, (Collection; rapports; numéro 31), ISBN: 0662547578; Note de recherche:  notons que les recommandations de la Commission (mais pas sur le sujet de cette bibliographie) ont été modifiées par le document "Pour une nouvelle codification de la Partie générale du Code criminel - Mémoire présenté au sous-comité sur la Partie générale par la Commission de Réforme du droit du Canada" dans Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Sous-comité sur la Recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur généra, supra,  fasicule numéro 1 du  25, 26, 30 mars 1992, aux  pp. 1A:29 - 1A:60.  Ce rapport 31 a été déposé à la Chambre des communes, le 19 mai 1988 (voir Chambre des communes, Débats, 19 mai 1988 à 15609);

 
"3(14) Authority over Children.  No one is liable who, being a parent, foster-parent or guardian or having the express permission of such a person , touches, hurts, threatens to hurt or confines a person under eighteen years of age in his custody in the reasionable exercise of authority over such person.
[Alternative - A minority of Commissioners would not perovide for such a defence]"  (p. 40)

"The new Code abandons the provisions regarding ...teachers.... Teachers may only use force if given express permission by parents so to do.  In addition, they may in appropriate cases rely on a defence of necessity... .

As for parents, the Commission was divided.  A minority felt that clause 3(14) blunts the general message of the criminal law on force, and singles out children as not meriting full personal security and equal legal protection.  The majority felt that such a provision should be retained to prevent the intrusion of law enforcement into the privacy of the home for every trivial slap or spanking." (p. 40)

--------------------------------

"3(14) Autorité sur un enfant.  N'est pas responsable le père, la mère, le tuteur, le père ou la mère de la famille d'accueil, ni la personne agissant avec l'autorisation expresse de l'un d'entre eux, qui touche une personne âgée de moins de dix-huit et placée sous sa garde, l'enferme, lui inflige une douleur ou menace de lui infliger une douleur, dans l'exercice raisonnable de son autorité sur cette personne.
[Autre possibilité : une minorité de commissaires n'est pas en faveur de ce moyen de défense.]" (p. 45)

"[L'instituteur] ne peut employer la force que s'il y est expressément autorisé par les parents.  Dans les cas qui le justifient, par ailleurs, il pourrait éventuellement se prévaloir du moyen de défense fondé sur la nécessité [...].

Pour ce qui est des parents, la Commission s'est trouvée divisée.  La minorité des commissaires estimait que le paragraphe 3(14) péchait contre l'un des objectifs fondamentraux du code pénal qui consiste à réprimer la violence et plaçait dans une catégorie spéciale les enfants qui sont privés à ce titre du droit à la sécurité de leur personne, dont bénéficient tous les autres citoyens.  En revanche, la majorité des commissaires s'est dite d'avis qu'une disposition de cette naturee était nécessaire pour empêcher l'intrusion des mécanismes d'application de la loi au sein de la famille pour la moindre gifle ou la moindre fessée." (p. 45)

___________Section 43 Criminal Code: Physical Punishment,  [Ottawa], 1974, 1 v., various pagings; copy at the University of Ottawa, Law Faculty Library, FTX,  KE8804.5 .C3 1974; miscellaneous contents, e.g., Canadian  case-law research, articles from newspapers, excerpts from articles;
 

LECKEY, Robert, "Embodied Dignity", (Summer 2005) 5(1) Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 63-83; discusses Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76;

LEGAL AID ONTARIO / AIDE JURIDIQUE ONTARIO -- LAO  LAW, Criminal law Memoranda, Toronto, catalogue current as of February 1, 2006; see http://www.lss.bc.ca/__shared/assets/LAOlawindex1225.pdf  and http://www.legalaid.on.ca/ (both sites accessed on 24 February 2006); see:
- O25-4, "Use of Corrective Force", 18 April 2003, 29 pages;  while I have not consulted this memorandum, from past experience on other memoranda consulted, I would not hesitate in recommending it for reading and research purposes;

LEVINE, Roslyn J., "In Harm's Way: The Limits to Legislating Criminal Law", (2004) 24 The Supreme Court Law Review (2nd ed.) 195-216, and see in particular "THE SPANKING CASE", at pp. 209-211;

LINDFIELD, James, Discipline, power and guidance : the parental cessation of corporal punishment, Thesis (M.A.), Simon Fraser University, 1997, x, 155 leaves; thesis dir.: Mike Manley-Casimir; title noted in my research but not consulted yet;

"[Abstract]  This study reports a qualitative investigation into 12 mothers and a single father who had decided, as a result of dissatisfaction, to cease using corporal punishment. Parents were from a range of cultural, religious and educational backgrounds. Their childrens' ages ranged from preschoolers to thirteen years.  Two parents discussed children who are now adult. Parents' use of corporal punishment ranged from 'mild' spanking to spanking causing bruising and/or with  implements. Parents were interviewed concerning their use of corporal punishment, the resources and processes used to develop alternatives; the effects of cessation on themselves, their children and the parent-child relationship.

In Chapter One I outline the legal background for corporal punishment of children and the nature of the associated risk factors. Chapter Two consists of a review of the literature concerning corporal punishment with respect to the effects on children and parents, parenting programs and connections between corporal punishment and physical child abuse. In Chapter Three I discuss methodology. I consider my interview protocol, issues of consistency and applicability, and the coding process which used the computer program HYPERRESEARCH. Chapter Four contains the results. Parents' use of corporal punishment was associated with parental distress and guilt, risk of harming child and aggression by the child. Parents expended considerable time and energy on both learning new strategies and carrying them out. After cessation parents reported increased sense of parenting competency and self regard, and reduction in negative affect. Children were more content and cooperative. This resulted in a more pleasurable and stronger parent-child bond. In Chapter Five these findings are related to other research. A theory of cessation of corporal punishment is proposed." (Masters Abstracts International, volume 36-03, page: 0730)

LUFT, Susan, Case Note, "Assault: Reasonable Force and Teachers: R. v. Ocampo [(November 27, 1997), Reinhardt Prov. J. (Ont. Prov. Ct.]", (1998-1999) 9 Education & Law Journal 145-148;
 

__________Case Note, "Ontario Superior Court of Justice Rules on the Constitutionality of Section 43 of the Criminal Code - Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth & the Law v. Canada", (2001) 11(1) Education & Law Journal  113-117;
 

MacKAY, A. Wayne, 1949-, and Lyle I. Sutherland, Teachers and the Law: A Practical Guide for Educators, Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 1992, xxi, 143 p., see "Liability for Corporal Punishment in Schools", at pp. 19-21, ISBN: 0920722431; copy at the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, KF 390 E3 M33 1992;

"The issue of corporal punishment in schools has largely been laid to rest by school board policies that prohibit its use." (p. 19)

"It is school policies, responding to public opinion, that have limited the use of force by teachers." (p. 21)

MacMILLAN, Harriet L., Michael H. Boyle, Maria Y.-Y. Wong, Eric K. Duku, Jan E. Fleming and  Christine A. Walsh, "Slapping and spanking in childhood and its association with lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general population sample", (1999) 161(7) Canadian Medical Association Journal 805-809; available at http://www.cmaj.ca/; Dr. MacMillan is from the Canadian Centre for Studies at Risk, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences and Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation; one of the rare Canadian studies on the subject:

"Interpretation:  There appears to be a linear association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems" (p. 805)

MARTIN, Yveline et Jacques A. Ulysse, L'Autorité parentale: un droit ou un devoir ... pour qui!, [Cowansville, Québec] : Y. Blais, c1985, 236 p., ISBN:  289073529X ; note: "1984 Prix Charles-Coderre"; copie à l'Université d'Ottawa, bibliothèque de droit, FTX général, KEQ 254 .A939 1985; droit civil;
 

MASON, Margie, "Mild spankings aren't harmful, report claims: 'We're not advocating this', but practice should not be banned, researchers say", The Ottawa Citizen, Saturday August 25, 2001, p. A11; note: on the study by Elizabeth Owens (the Institute of Human Development, University of California at Berkley) and Diana Baumrind;
 

MAYRAND, Albert, 1911-,  L'inviolabilité de la personne humaine, Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur, 1975, 228 p., voir "Les chatiments corporels" aux pp. 86-92; copie à l'Université d'Ottawa, bibliothèque de droit, FTX General,  KEQ 228 .M3 1975;
 

McCOLE WILSON, A Study of Attitudes Towards Corporal Punishment as an Educational Procedure From the Earliest Times to the Present, thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Education, University of Victoria, 1971, vi, 184, [2] leaves; copy available at  http://www.socsci.kun.nl/ped/whp/histeduc/wilson/index.html#con (as seen on 9 February 2002);
 

McFADDEN, Margaret, "Corporal Punishment: Legalized Child Abuse", (Fall 1987) 27(3) Education Canada 5-7; copy at the University of Ottawa, Periodicals, L11.C344;
 

McGILLIVRAY, Anne Elizabeth, The Criminalization of Child Abuse, LL.M. thesis, University of Toronto, 1988, 326 leaves; no abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International; thesis not consulted; may not deal with s. 43 of the Criminal Code;
 

___________"He'll Learn It on His Body': Disciplining Childhood in Canadian Law", (1997) 5 International Journal of Children's Rights 193-242; copy at Laval University; title noted in my research but article not consulted yet;

___________"Nowhere to Stand: Corrective Force in the Supreme Court of Canada" in Sanjeev Anand, ed., Children and the Law: Essays in Honour of Professor Nicholas Bala, Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011, viii, 298 p., at pp. 57-76, ISBN: 9781552212073 (pbk.); title noted but article not consulted yet; 
 

___________ "R. v. K.(M.): Legitimazing Brutality", (1993) 16 Criminal Reports (4th series) 125-132;
 

___________"Reconstructing Child Abuse: Western Definitions and Non-Western Experience" in Michael D.A. Freeman and Philip E.  Veerman, eds., The Ideologies of Children's Rights, Dordrecht; Boston : M. Nijhoff Publishers; Norwell, MA, c1992, ix, 369 p. (series; International studies in human rights; volume  23), ISBN:  0792318005; title noted in my research but article not read; no copy in the Ottawa area libraries;
 

McGOVERN, Celeste, "The little social engineers that could. Ottawa is using a UN treaty to expand Nanny Statism and end spanking", (8 August 1994) Western Report 26-29; copy at the University of Ottawa, FC 3651 .A44  Location, MRT Periodicals;

"There is an air of secretiveness about the whole anti-spanking crusade, says Saskatchewan Reform MP Garry Breitkreuz. ...

Asked if it is undemocratic to change laws against the will of the people, anti-spabking activist Corinne Robertshaw replied indignantly, 'I'm a lawyer.  I know what's undemocratic.' ...

'Nobody in their right mind likes to see a child abused,' responds Mrs. Landolt [from REAL Women], herself a lawyer.  'But most people distinguish between a spanking and child abuse.' It's not convenient for the anti-spankers to do the same, she adds, 'But their concern is not really the welfare of children.  It is concern for the power of the state to which they belong.  They view ordinary Canadians with contemptuous disdain.  They're saying they know how your children ought to be raised, and if you don't meet their expectations, then watch out.  They are arrogant, they are elitist, and they control the tools of the state to police private lives." (p. 28-29)

McGRATH, Robert Robin, 1970, The removal of corporal punishment from the school system: something lost or something gained?, Thesis (M.Ed.), Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1999, vi, 143 leaves; copy at the National Library, Ottawa; no abstract in Dissertation Abstract International; thesis not consulted yet;
 

McIlROY, Anne, "Doctors Cautious on Spanking Ban Pediatric group guidelines avoid calling for law against corporal punishment", The Globe and Mail, Newspaper, Toronto, 8 October 1996, p. A1; article refers to guidelines issued by the Canadian Pediatric Society on disciplining children which argue against spanking but does ask that spanking be made illegal; article based in part with an interview with doctor Emmett Francoeur, pediatrician and vice-president of the society;
 

McVEY, Peter, Corporal punishment and child protection : new attitudes, new approaches, Halifax, N.S. : Dalhousie Law School, 1993, 42 p. (series;  Student papers (Children and the law); number 50), notes: For Prof. Williams' course on Children and the Law; copy at Dalhousie University, Sir James Dunn Law Library, KB 137 C562 no.50; title noted in my research but document not consulted yet;
 

MILLER, Dallas, "Section 43 at the Ontario Trial Court", available at http://www.hslda.ca/article.aspx?artid=37 (accessed on 16 August 2005);
 

MITCHELL, Drew, "R. v. Kaur: Child Assault and Children's Rights after Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth & the Law v. Canada (Attorney General)", (2005) 27(2) Criminal Reports (6th) 230-239;
 

MITCHELL, Teresa, "Update: Disciplining Children", (April/May1996) 20(5) Law Now 5.; discusses the case of R. v. Wood, Alberta Provincial Court, Calgary, Judge Lamoureux, 5 October 1995;
 

MORBIA, R. and W. Gamedze, "Proposed Repeal of s. 43 and Amendment to s. 265 of the Criminal Code", University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, 1995 (cited by Greene, supra, p. 466); paper not consulted; paper not found in the University of Toronto library catalogue on the internet;
 

MORRIS, Chris, "Hand of God guided rod, ex-num says of beatings.  Commune leader testifies at her child assault trial", The Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday, 1 October 2002, p. A7; case of Lucille Polulin,. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island (Province of);
 

NADEAU, Alain-Robert, "La fessée I : une disposition anachronique", (15 novembre 2002) 34(19) Le Journal du Barreau 10;
 

___________"La fessée II: modifier le Code criminel", (1er décembre 2002) 34(20) Le Journal du Barreau 10;
 

NCACPS (National Coalition to Abolish Corporal Punishment in Schools), "Canadian Information" about where School Corporal Punishment is illegal and where it is legal, unless prohibited by school boards, available at  http://www.stophitting.com/NCACPS/NCACPS_facts_about_corporal_punishment.htm#Canadian;
 

NOONAN, Sheila, "Annotation: Ogg-Moss v. R. (1984) 41 C.R. (3d)  297 (S.C.C.)", (1984) 41 Criminal Reports (3d) 298-299;
 

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CHILDREN'S AID, "OACAS Position on Corporal Punishment.  OACAS Position Statement", (December 2001) 45(2) Ontario Association of Children's Aid Journal; available at  http://www.oacas.org/resources/OACASJournals/2001December/corporal.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2005);
 

___________Ontario Association of Children's Aid, web site as seen on 6 August 2000;
 

ONTARIO, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Life together: A Report on Human Rights in Ontario, [Toronto] : J.C. Thatcher, Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1977, 139 p.; copy at the University of Ottawa, MRT General, KEO 819 .A31 1977;

"Another brief argued that,

Children should have the same right to protection from assault as is enjoyed by adult members of the community.  Such protection does not exist in Ontario (or in other parts of Canada) because section 43 of the Criminal Code allows in effect, assaults upon children by schools teachers, parents or persons standing in loco parentis, for the purpose of 'correction' providing the force used against the child is 'reasonable'.⁷⁹

The Commission recommends that the Attorney-General's department give these questions careful consideration and also that it initiate discussions with the federal government to revise, aimed at eliminating such discriminatory provisions from the Criminal Code." (p. 68)
----------------------------
⁷⁹ Brief to the Code Review Committee of the Ontario Human Rights Commission from Corinne Robertshaw, Barrister and Solicitor, Volunteer Worker for the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, June 1976.

ONTARIO, Ministry of Education, Corporal punishment in the schools : background paper prepared by Ministry of Education Staff, Toronto : Minister of Education, Ontario : Ministry of Colleges and Universities, 1981, iii, [74] p. (series; Review and evaluation bulletins; v. 2, no.1), ISBN:  0774361921; copy at University of Toronto, Erindale College Library, Resource Sharing Department; LB/3025/C677; copy at the University of Ottawa, CA2 ON DE ON01975 MRT, 2 fiches, Onteris microfiche;
 

OTTAWA CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY (CAS), Mel Gill, Executive Director of the Ottawa Children's Aid Society (CAS),  summary of his presention reported in Hay, supra, at pp. 10-11;

"The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) positions, to which member organizations such as the Ottawa CAS subscribe, where summarized regarding use of force to restrain children and prevent harm.  The CWLA opposes the use of corporal punishment.  It is contrary to the Charter of Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

There are cautious that should be considered in attempts to change Section 43.  There are clear degrees of use of force.  Not all parents who use punishment will kill their children.  And not all uses of force require the intervention of child protection authorities.  Child protection is concerned with the safety of the child, not with the prevention of punishment.  There are guidelines for deciding when intervention is appropriate.  In a case dealt with by the Hamilton CAS, the mother had impulsively struck her child.  She belonged to a church that approved of corporal punishment.  These factors were considered because it is important to address issues such as whether the use of force was impulsive, whether it was done in a manner that was safe for the child, how ferequently such punishment was used, and whether it was done with compassion.

If we want to implement changes in the way children are protected we must look out for unintended consequences.  The experience of CAS's in dealing with sexual abuse can be instructive.  As the position developed that children never lie, a backlash also developped.  The message taken by some teachers was 'don't ever be alone with a child, don't ever touch or hug a child'.  There was a backlash from the public toward child protection and an unwillingness to provide the resources necessary to respond to the increased level of complaints.

The perception that CAS will intervene in every situation of corporal punishment was described as the single biggest drag on public perceptions regarding CAS.  The level of corporal punishment typically found in Canadian families is clearly better than removal of children from their family.  It would be a mistake to criminalize what might be considered 'normal' parenting, this could have worse effects than spanking.  In addition, Child Welfare organizations are not up to task of dealing with consequences of repeal, because around 67% of parents use physical discipline.

If there is an effort to amend Section 43, the focus should be on restraint, with more support for parent education programs.  Interested parties must work to implement a Children's Bill of Rights and lobby for resources in prevention/early intervention programs.  McGill expressed the view that is important to admit our animal nature, and the appropriate role of fear in teaching children how to behave.  Society should avoid creating a bad law that can't be enforced." (pp. 10-11)
 

"Most parents would agree that spanking is not the right tool for parents to use when raising children.  To legally ban spanking, however, is a step that puts the state squarely in the family rooms of the nation without a compelling reason."

OTTAWA POLICE, Staff Sergent Terry Lynch, summary of his presention reported in Hay, supra, at pp. 8-9;

"Mr. Lynch has been with the sexual assault and child abuse squad for four years.  When police in his department investigate situations of physical force against a child there are two major issues regarding the applicability of Section 43 - whether the force was reasonable under the circumstances and whether it was used for correcting the situation.  Police must make some determination of the purpose of force.

Other sections of the Criminal Code also deal with the use of force.  Use of force is covered under Sections 25 and 26.  Section 25 says that individuals who are required or authorized by law to use force are justified in using as much force as necessary.  This also implies that they should as little as necessary.  Section 26 makes individuals criminally responsible for using excessive force.

The use of force justified under Section 43 does not include actions taken out of anger or frustation, but to teach the child.  Police get a lot of reports of assaults against children.  In most cases, these are forwarded to the Children's Aid Society (CAS) for investigation.  The course of action is based on a Child Abuse Police/CAS protocol which has been in effect in Ottawa for six or seven years.  The protocol identifies the responsibilities of the CAS, Police, Hospital and Crown Attorneys.  Roles are also indicated for the school system, where applicable.  (Similar protocols are in effect in some other jurisdictions, especially in larger cities)

Often the CAS calls police to consult on the case, decide on what approach to take, assess why it happened, and evaluate the degree of injury to the child.  If the caseinvolves intrafamilial use of force, this is generally considered to be a risk factor in terms of the child's safety.  This requires a same day investigation if possible, and sometimes the removal of the alleged offender.

With regard to the degree of injury, photographic evidence may be collected by police or as part of the assessment at hospital.  Another consideration during the investigation is whether there are other children at home who may be at risk.  In some cases there is a joint investigation with police covering the criminal investigation and the CAS dealing with issues of support and family intervention.  Interviews with the child are routinely videotaped.

Police are also concerned with the protection of children in cases of domestic assault (between adult partners).  As part of the Ottawa Police investigations in such cases, a file goes to CAS regarding possible risk to children.

There is use of police discretion in laying charges.  Some of the factors considered include if there is a weapon (e.g. broom handle, belt, electrical cord) whether there are obvious injuries to the child (cuts, welts, bruising, etc.)  In cases where the alleged assault or abuse takes place in a school, police work with superintendent." (pp. 8-9)

OWENS, Anne Marie, "Spare the rod, make children less hostile: study.  Changing discipline methods key to lowering aggression", The Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday, October 26, 2004, at p. A5; about the Statistics Canada study: Agressive Behaviour Outcomes for Young Children;

"The study gives statistical backing for what child-development experts have been insisting for years -- strict discipline methods only teach children to be aggressive." (p. A5)

PACIOCCO, D. M. (David M.), "Ogg-Moss v. The Queen, Nixon v. The Queen:  Giving the Crown the Benefit of Reasonable Doubt", (1986) 11 Queen's Law Journal 198-215;
 

"Petition To End Legal Approval of Corporal Punishment of Children by Repealing Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada", available at  http://www.naturalchild.com/advocacy/canada/section_43.html (as seen on 9 February 2002);
 

PRÉFONTAINE, D.C. and D. Solberg, "The Use of Force to Correct Children", paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, Washginton, D.C., November 1981, 10 p.; this paper was obtained from the Department of Justice Canada;
 

PRITCHARD, Bryan W. (Bryan William), 1938-, A legal analysis of corporal punishment in schools, Master of Education (M.Ed.) thesis, University of Alberta, Department of Educational Administration, 1989, [xi], 129 leaves; copy at the National Library; no abstract in Dissertation Abstract International; title noted in my reserach but thesis not consulted yet;
 

PRITCHARD, Rolf and Alberta Debate and Speech Association, Corporal punishment : b.i.r.t. Alberta child welfare legislation concerning corporal punishment be significantly changed / research material prepared by Rolf Pritchard, [Edmonton?] : ADSA, [1983], 39 p.; copy at University of Alberta, Cameron Library,  KF 3735 Z9 P75 1983; title noted in my research but document not consulted;
 

PSYCHOSOCIAL PAEDIATRICS COMMITTEE, Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), "Effective discipline for children", (1997) 2(1) Paediatrics & Child Health 29-33; available at  http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/PP/pp96-01.htm#Disciplinary spanking (as seen on 3 February 2002);
 

QUÉBEC, Groupe de travail sur la révision du Manuel de référence sur la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, Manuel de référence sur la protection de la jeunesse, Québec: Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, 1998, 245 p., ISBN: 2550325923; copie à la Bibliothèque du Parlement, Ottawa, KEQ 723 M35;

"À propos de la correction physique

Jusqu'en 1994, les parents disposaient d'un 'droit de correction modérée et raisonnable' explicitement énoncé à l'article du CCQ [code civil du Québec]; cette disposition a été abrogée.

[...]

On s'interroge maintenant à propos de la signification du retrait, depuis janvier 1994, de toute mention explicite du droit de correction.  D'une part, le recours à la correction physique n'est pas interdit; d'autre part, l'évolution des pratiques éducatives et de la législation va clairement dans le sens d'une restriction du recours à la correction physique même s'il est possible de considérer encore ce moyen comme accessoire aux droits et aux devoirs de garde, de surveillance et d'éducation.

De toute évidence, le droit de correction avait une portée restrictive et n'était pas conçu comme un devoir contrairement aux autres responsabilités parentales.  En outre, l'usage abusif de la correction par les parents pouvait et peut encore donner lieu à divers recours:

. en vertu du CCQ:
- poursuite en responsabilité civile,
- retrait d'un attribut ou retrait de l'exercice d'un attribut de l'autorité parentale,
- déchéance de l'autorité parentale;

. en vertu de la LPJ [Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse], pour mauvais traitements physiques;

. en vertu du Code criminel, pour voies de fait.

L'usage de la correction physique par d'autres personnes que les parents, notamment par les moniteurs, les enseignants et les éducateurs, est aussi soumis à des restrictions importantes tant par la législation que par les normes reconnues.  Depuis le début des années 80, on ne retrouve plus dans le Code civil, un pouvoir explicite de délégation du droit de correction par les parents.

Dans le milieu scolaire, l'article 78 de la Loi sur l'instruction publique limite explicitement, depuis 1988, les pouvoirs des conseils d'orientation en matière de sanctions disciplinaires aux sanctions autres que l'expulsion de l'école et les punitions corporelles.  Cet article pourrait être interprété comme une interdiction légale d'infliger des punitions corporelles aux élèves.

Dans le réseau de la santé et des services sociaux, un protocole publié en 1988 inclut la correction physique dans la première catégorie de conduites inacceptables envers les jeunes.

'Toute utilisation, même mineure, de la douleur physique, directe ou indirecte, comme moyen de contrôle d'un mineur doit être bannie...Ni de façon statutaire, ni par perte de contrôle, ni par le jeu, ni par l'action d'autres jeunes à l'égard d'un pair, ni manuellement, ni à l'aide d'instruments, en somme, en aucune façon, le personnel n'est autorisé à sévir à l'endroit d'un bénéficaire, à le punir en lui imposant une souffrance, un mal ou une peine physique.  En vertu des lois québécoises et de l'éthique professionnelle acceptée chez nous, les châtiments corporels ne sont plus un mode d'intervention acceptable...'¹²

Il importe de dire, pour compléter le traitement de ce sujet, qu'il est essentiel de bien distinguer le 'droit de correction' de l' 'usage de la force' ou de la 'légitime défense'.  En effet, dans certaines circonstances, il peut être nécessaire d'intervenir physiquement auprès d'un jeune pour se protéger soi-même, protéger une autre personne ou, encore, pour protéger le jeune contre lui-même. [...]
----
12.  Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec, Protocoles d'intervention visant la prévention et la correction de conduites inacceptables envers les enfants et les adolescents, juin 1998, p. 20" (pp. 40 et, pour la note, p. 61)

REPEAL 43 COMMITTEE, Brief to Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Solicitor General, Minister of Health, Secretary of State for the Status of Women and the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs re: Section 43 of the Criminal Code and the corporal punishment of children / submitted by the Repeal 43 Committee, Committee to Repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, Toronto : Repeal 43 Committee : distributed by the Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse = L'Institut pour la prévention de l'enfance maltraitée, 1994, iii, 15, [22] p.; copy at the Library of Parliament, Ottawa, Br.B, HQ 770.4 R46 A35;
 

___________"Draft - Project to Repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code Submitted to the Laidlaw Foundation by Repeal 43 Committee.  Committee to Repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada", March 1994, 4p.; document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice Canada Access to Information file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages numbered 000338-000342; note on cover page: "The Repeal 43 Committee is a national, multi-disciplinary committee of professionals established with 7 members in February, 1994 to advocate the repeal of s. 43 of the Code.  There are presently 16 members from 6 provinces.  Members are listed in Appendix A to the April, 1994 brief to the Minister of Justice and other Ministers. (copy enclosed).  It is an unincorporated ad hoc committee."
 

___________"Reply by the Repeal 43 Committee to the Response by the Minister of Justice to the Petition Presented by Mr. Bill Graham, MP on May 3, 1996 Requesting Repeal of Section 43 of the Criminal Code", September 1996, 6 p.; document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice Canada Access to Information file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages numbered 000361-000366;
 

___________"Reply by the Repeal 43 Committee to the Response by the Minister of Justice to the Petition Presented by Mr. Paul Szabo, MP on December 4, 1995 Requesting Repeal of Section 43 of the Criminal Code", September 1996, 4 p.; document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice Canada Access to Information file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages numbered 000357-000360;
 

___________"Response of the Repeal 43 Committee to the Department of Justice Consultation Paper: Reforming the General part of the Criminal Code - Section 43 of the Code and Cultural/Religious Beliefs and Practices as Criminal Defences", Toronto: Repeal 43 Committee, 10 February 1995, 5 p.;  document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice Canada Access to Information file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages numbered 000329-000335;
 

___________Web Site/Site Web, available at  http://www.repeal43.org/index.html (accessed on 3 December 2004);
 

A report on corporal punishment in Canadian schools : based on regulations and policy statements of departments of  education and school boards,  [Toronto] : [s.n.], 1967, 13 leaves, (series; Information bulletin (Canadian Education Association.Research and Information Division)), copy at the National library;
 

ROBERTSHAW, Corinne, Brief to the Code Review Committee of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, see supra, Ontario, Ontario Human Rights Commission;
 

___________"Government Sponsored Reports Concerning Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada: 1976-1993.  Eighteen Years of Indecision", 11 p., in HAY, supra, Appendix C, Written Submissions;
 

___________"Judicial Decisions in Which s. 43 Was Successful Defence at Trial or Appeal; The Link Between Corporal Punishment and Child Abuse; Sentences in Cases where Section 43 of the Criminal Code was not a Valid Defence and Parents/Teachers were Guilty of Assaults on Children", 9 p.,  in HAY, supra, Appendix C, Written Submissions;

 

___________"Notes for a Presentation to the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children: Re: Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, Ottawa, January 19 and 20, 1994", 7 p., in HAY, supra, Appendix C, Written Submissions;

___________see http://www.repeal43.org

___________"Strike down s. 43", (16 June 2003) 14(21) Law Times 7;

ROSBOROUGH, Megan Elizabeth, The "Spanking Defence", An Analysis of Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada and the Future of  Reasonable Correction  of Children by Force  in Canada, LL.M. thesis, University  of Alberta, 2011, v, 160 p.; available at http://repository.library.ualberta.ca/dspace/bitstream/10048/1691/1/Rosborough_Megan_Spring2011.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2011);

ROY, Nicole, "L'autorité parentale et l'obligation alimentaire des parents envers leur enfant: deux institutions proposant une conception de l'intérêt de l'enfant et de la famille", (2001) 61 La Revue du Barreau 53-183; perspective de droit civil;
 

SASKATCHEWAN TEACHERS' FEDERATION, Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Alternatives to Corporal Punishment, Student discipline in Saskatchewan schools : report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Alternatives to Corporal Punishment, [Saskatoon] : Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1987, 20 p.; copy at the University of Regina, Dr. John Archer Library, LB 3012 S874 1987; title noted in my research but document not consulted yet;
 

SCHMITZ, Cristin, "Father's conduct in administering spanking was 'controlled, measured: Public Spanking Was for 'Corrective' Purpose:  Judge", Lawyers Weekly, June 2, 1995, p. 2; comments on the case of David Peterson, April 1995, Ontario Court (Provincial Division), Judge J.L. Menzies;
 

SCHMOLKA, Vicki, draft discussion paper, "Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada: An overview of the law on the use of force to correct a child - A public legal information paper prepared by the Family, Children and Youth Section Department of Justice Canada - July 1995", draft number 5, dated 3 July 1995, 12 p.; document obtained by François Lareau, under Access to Information Act request of July 14, 2000, Department of Justice file: A00-0098/ok and received under covering letter of Ms. Anne Brennan, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Office, December 28, 2000,  released pages 000345-000356; Ms. Schmolka was under contract with the Department of Justice Canada for the preparation of the document for the Family, Children & Youth Sectiuon of the Department of Justice Canada; research note: the Department of Justice Canada was planning to make public a discussion paper but at the end decided not to;
 

SCOTTON, Lindsay, "To spank or not to spank: It's hard to find parents who admit giving their kids a whack these days as lobbyists push for a ban on all physical punishment" (p. J1) and "Hitting is wrong, mom says" (p. J4), Toronto Star, 9 April 1994, pp. J1 and J4;

"Pastor LeRoy Pennell of Heritage Baptist Church in Barrie, raised his three sons that way.
......
He feels spanking has earned a bad name because of parents who, not knowing the 'when and how' of physical discipline, spank children in anger.
.....
The repeal of section 43 would be of great concern he says, for two reasons.

'First, I do not believe that appropriate spanking is abusive.  And also, as a preacher, I am commanded by God to preach the whole word of God.  If I cannot preach the parts of the Bible that recommend physical discipline, that would go way too far and would impinge on religious freedom.'...." (p. J4)

___________"Try other discipline, expert say", Toronto Star, 9 April 1994, p. J4;
 

SHALKA, Martin Bernard, The attitudes of pupils, parents, teachers and administrators toward corporal punishment in schools,  Thesis (M.Ed.), Department of Industrial and Vocational Education, University of Alberta, 1973, xiv, 229 leaves; title noted in my research but thesis not consulted yet (11 January 2003);
 

SILLARS, Les, "Spoiling a Country: Canadian rod-sparers press their cause in the courts" available at  http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/09-13-97/international_1.asp (as seen on 9 February 2002);
 

SILVER, Cindy, Protecting Parental Liberty in a Child - Centered Legal System, Centre for Cultural Renewal,  Discussion Paper # 3, available at  http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/disc/disc3.htm;
 

STEFFENHAGEN, Janet, "Dad Spares Rod After Charges; Issue of spanking children controversial", The Edmonton Journal, 5 February 1996, p. A4;

"...Kari simpson, executive director of the Citizens Research Institute in Vancouver. 'This issue goes far and beyond the ins and outs of spanking,' she said.  'This is about government intervention in families.  Do we want government directing and dictating how to raise our children?'

STEWART, Hamish, "Parents, Children, and the Law of Assault",  (2009) 32(1) Dalhousie Law Journal 1-33, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1547490 (accessed on 7 February 2010);

STONEHOUSE, David, "Ex-nun guilty of abuse.  P.E.I. commune leader used excessive force in disciplining childre, judge rules", The Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, October 26, 2002, p. A3; accused Lucille Poluin, convicted in Charlottetown, by P.E.I. Supreme Court Justice David Jenkins, 25 October, 2002;
 

STUART, Don, "Annotation: Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), (2002) 48(2) C.R. (5th) 218 (Ont. C.A.)",  (2002) 48(2) C.R. (5th)  222;

__________Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise, 5th ed.: Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2007, xix, 815 p., ISBN: 978 0779812950;
 

STRAUS, Murray A. 1926-, Editorial, "Is it time to ban corporal punishment of children?", (1999) 161(7) Canadian Medical Association Journal 821-822;
 

SYKES, Katie, "Bambi Meets Godzilla: Children's and Parents' Rights in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada", (Spring 2006) 51(1) McGill Law Journal 131-165;
 

THOMPSON, Elizabeth, "Senator's bill would outlaw spanking: Minority Parliament gives better chance, sponsor says", The Ottawa Citizen, Thursday, 2 December 2004; notes: Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette to table bill in Senate on 2 December 2004;
 

TIBBETTS, Janice, "Spanking law on trial in top court: Justice to rule if Charter overrides parents's right to discipline children", The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, January 30, 2004, p. A3;

"The Coalition for Family Autonomy, which wants to keep the Criminal Code defence, compiled a list of 118 cases in the last 38 years in which the courts have dealt with parents hitting kids and concluded that judges are 'more likely to acquit parents who are holding, moving, or pushing a child and less likely to acquit parents who hit, slap, or spank their children.' "

TIJERINO, Adamira, Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code and the constitutionality of the corporal punishment of children : legal and policy issues, Thesis, M.A. School of Criminology,  Simon Fraser University, 2000, x, 109 p.; available at  http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp01/MQ61506.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2006);
 

TROCMÉ, Nico and Joan Durrant, "Physical punishment and the response of the Canadian child welfare system: implications for legislative reform", (2003) 25(1) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 39-56;
 

TROCMÉ, Nico et Marc Tourigny, "Facteurs associés à la décision d'entreprendre des poursuites criminelles à la suite d'un signalement pour abus sexuels ou physique envers un enfant", (2000) 33(2) Criminologie 7-30, bibliographie aux pp. 28-30; disponible à http://www.erudit.org/erudit/crimino/v33n02/trocme/trocme.pdf  (constaté le 5 février 2002);
 

TURNER, Susan M., 1955-, Something to cry about : an argument against corporal punishment of children in Canada, Waterloo (Ontario): Wilfrid Laurier Press, 2002, xix, 317 p., (series; studies in childhood and Family in Canada), ISBN: 0889203822; Contents: Chapter 1: The terms of the corporal punishment debate; 2: A very short history of moral philosophy; 3: Morality and culture: when values collide; 4: Philosophical morality: happiness and harm; 5: Human adults and human children; 6: The paradox of child protection; 7: Corporal punishment: its defenders; 8: Corporal punishment and special defences in the law; 9. The legal challenge for section 43; 10. What about spanking?; 11: Child abuse and family statism revisited;
 

UHRYNIW, Don, "Ending Legal Assaults on Children", available at the United Church of Canada web site at http://www.uccan.org/seeds/ssc1904.htm;
 

UNITED NATIONS, Press Release, "Committee on the Rights of the Child Concludes Thirty-Fourth Session -- Adopts Conclusions on Reports of San Marino, Canada, New Zealand, Pakistan, Madagascar, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore, Bangladesh and Georgia", 3 October 2003; available at  http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm (accessed on 8 October 2003); also published in French/aussi publié en français à :  http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsfr/crc0338f.htm (visionné le 8 octobre 2003)

"CANADA ...

While welcoming the efforts being made by the State party to promote research on alternative methods of punishment of children, the Committee recommended that the State party adopt legislation to remove the existing authorization of the use of “reasonable force” in disciplining children and explicitly prohibit all forms of violence against children, however light, within the family, in schools and in other institutions where children might be placed. It also recommended that the State party undertake measures to ensure equal enjoyment of all children with the same quality of health services, with special attention to indigenous children in rural and remote areas."

___________Convention on the Rights of the Child / Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 20 November 1989; signed by Canada in 1989; came into force 2 September 1990, ratified by Canada in 1991; see United Nations web site for signatories;

"Article 19
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child

2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child
maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement."

"Article 28
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

  (a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

  (b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

  (c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;

  (d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

  (e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.

3. States Parties shall promote and encourage international co-operation in matters relating to education, in particular with a view to contributing to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge and modern teaching methods. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries."

"Article 37   States Parties shall ensure that:
 (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;

  (b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;

  (c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;

  (d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right toprompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action."

---------------

"Article 19
1. Tout enfant qui est temporairement ou définitivement privé de son milieu familial, ou qui dans son propre intérêt ne peut être laissé dans ce milieu, a droit à une protection et une aide spéciales de l'Etat.

2. Les Etats parties prévoient pour cet enfant une protection de remplacement conforme à leur législation nationale.

3. Cette protection de remplacement peut notamment avoir la forme du placement dans une famille, de la kafalahde droit islamique, de l'adoption ou, en cas de nécessité, du placement dans un établissement pour enfants approprié. Dans le choix entre ces solutions, il est dûment tenu compte de la nécessité d'une certaine continuité dans l'éducation de l'enfant, ainsi que de son origine ethnique, religieuse, culturelle et linguistique."

"Article 28
1. Les Etats parties reconnaissent le droit de l'enfant à l'éducation, et en particulier, en vue d'assurer l'exercice de ce droit progressivement et sur la base de l'égalité des chances :

a) Ils rendent l'enseignement primaire obligatoire et gratuit pour tous;

b) Ils encouragent l'organisation de différentes formes d'enseignement secondaire, tant général que professionnel, les rendent ouvertes et accessibles à tout enfant, et prennent des mesures appropriées, telles que l'instauration de la gratuité de l'ensiignement et l'offre d'une aide financière en cas de besoin;

c) Ils assurent à tous l'accès à l'enseignement supérieur, en fonction des capacités de chacun, par tous les moyens appropriés;

d) Ils rendent ouvertes et accessibles à tout enfant l'information et l'orientation scolaires et professionnelles;

e) Ils prennent des mesures pour encourager la régularité de la fréquentation scolaire et la réduction des taux d'abandon scolaire.

2. Les Etats parties prennent toutes les mesures appropriées pour veiller à ce que la discipline scolaire soit appliquée d'une manière compatible avec la dignité de l'enfant en tant qu'être humain et conformément à la présente Convention.

3. Les Etats parties favorisent et encouragent la coopération internationale dans le domaine de l'éducation, en vue notamment de contribuer à éliminer l'ignorance et l'analphabétisme dans le monde et de faciliter l'accès aux connaissances scientifiques et  techniques et aux méthodes d'enseignement modernes. A cet égard, il est tenu particulièrement compte des besoins des pays en développement."

"Article 37
Les Etats parties veillent à ce que :

a) Nul enfant ne soit soumis à la torture ni à des peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants. Ni la peine capitale ni l'emprisonnement à vie sans possibilité de libération ne doivent être prononcés pour les infractions commises par des personnes âgées de moins de dix-huit ans;

b) Nul enfant ne soit privé de liberté de façon illégale ou arbitraire. L'arrestation, la détention ou l'emprisonnement d'un enfant doit être en conformité avec la loi, n'être qu'une mesure de dernier ressort, et être d'une durée aussi brève que possible;

c) Tout enfant privé de liberté soit traité avec humanité et avec le respect dû à la dignité de la personne humaine, et d'une manière tenant compte des besoins des personnes de son âge. En particulier, tout enfant privé de liberté sera séparé des adultes, à moins que l'on estime préférable de ne pas le faire dans l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant, et il a le droit de rester en contact avec sa famille par la correspondance et par les visites, sauf circonstances exceptionnelles;

d) Les enfants privés de liberté aient le droit d'avoir rapidement accès à l'assistance juridique ou à toute autre assistance appropriée, ainsi que le droit de contester la légalité de leur privation de liberté devant un tribunal ou une autre autorité compétente, indépendante et impartiale, et à ce qu'une décision rapide soit prise en la matière."
 

VINCENT, Isabel, "Rather Spank Than Spoil Culture Gap /  Immigrants confused by hands-off discipline",  The Globe and Mail (a Toronto newspaper), 24  April 1996, p. A1;
 

WATKINSON, Ailsa and Anne McGillivray, "Child Corporal Punishment" (April 1998) Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association Bulletin (NLTA Bulletin)  28-30 available at  http://www.nlta.nf.ca/HTML_Files/html_pages/publications/bulletins/april98/punishmt.html;
 

WATKINSON, Alisa M. (Alisa Margaret), Education, Student Rights and the Charter, Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 1999, 224 p., see Chapter 11, Corporal Punishment" at pp. 171-192, ISBN: 1895830133; copy at the Library of Parliament, Br.B.,  KE3835 W57;
 

___________"Prohibiting Corporal Punishmernt: In the Name of the Charter, the Child and Societal Values" in Samuel M. Natale, ed., and Mark B. Fenton, assistant editor, Business education and training : a value-laden process, Lanham, Md. : University Press of America, c1997-; could be in v. 1. Education and value conflict, at p. 301 (ISBN: 0761805680 and 0761805699 (pbk.); or in  v. 3. Instilling values in the educational process, at p. 301; title noted in my research but article not consulted; no copy of these volumes in Ottawa's libraries according to my verification of the AMICUS catalogue (3 September 2003);
 

WEITZMAN, Lori Renée, "Public Defence" in National Criminal Law Program: Substantive Criminal Law, Winnipeg, Man. : The Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 1996, vol. 2 of 2, section 16.5, 14 p, see part on "Schoolteachers and Parents - S. 43" at pp. 9-13;  Note: The program was held at the  "University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, July 15 to 19, 1996"; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada;
 

WILSON, Jeffery, Wilson on Children and the Law, Toronto: LexisNexis & Butterworths, 1994-, looseleaf, ISBN: 040991476; copy at the Library of the Suprme Court of Canada, KF 479 W54 1994 -;
 

WILSON, Franklin C., A Look at Corporal Punishment and some Implications of its Use, Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, 1980; copy at Laurentian University, J.N. Desmarais Library/Université Laurentienne, Bibliothèque J.N. Desmarais, CA2 ON SM 80L51; title noted in my research but document not consulted yet; title not found in the Ottawa area libraries;
 

WINTERDYK, John and Kiara Okita, "This will Hurt me more than it will Hurt you", (June/July 2005) 29(6) Law Now 15-17;

[Home -- Accueil]
[Main Page -- Criminal Law / Page principale -- droit pénal]