Summary#

This bill repeals Section 43 of Canada’s Criminal Code, which has allowed parents and some caregivers to use “reasonable” physical force to correct a child. No new offence is created; the bill removes a legal defence that could be used in assault cases involving children. It takes effect 30 days after Royal Assent (Bill, s.1; Coming-into-force).

• Ends the legal defence that permitted physical discipline of children “by way of correction” (Bill, s.1).
• Applies nationwide to parents, people acting as parents, and teachers.
• After repeal, physical discipline could be treated as assault (intentional force without consent) if reported and prosecuted.
• Does not change provincial child protection laws or create new programs.
• Takes effect 30 days after Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

• Households (parents, guardians)

  • Physical discipline such as spanking, slapping, or other force used “to correct” a child would no longer have a special legal defence. You could face investigation or charges for assault (applying force without consent) if an incident is reported and pursued by authorities (Bill, s.1).
  • Non-corrective actions to keep a child safe in an emergency are not addressed by this bill. General Criminal Code defences not tied to “correction” are unchanged. Data on how these will be applied after repeal is unavailable.

• Teachers and school staff

  • You would not be able to rely on Section 43 for any use of force “by way of correction.” The Supreme Court had already limited teachers to restraining or removing a student, not corporal punishment (SCC 2004, Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (AG)). Repeal removes the correction defence entirely for all caregivers (Bill, s.1).
  • School policies that reference Section 43 will need legal review. Timeline: 30 days after Royal Assent.

• Police, prosecutors, courts

  • In cases involving physical discipline of children, Section 43 would no longer be available as a justification. Decisions to investigate, charge, or prosecute would proceed under general assault provisions and prosecutorial discretion. No changes to offences or penalties are made by this bill (Bill, s.1).

• Provinces and territories

  • Criminal law is federal. Child protection and education are provincial/territorial. This bill does not amend provincial laws but may prompt policy updates. Data on expected changes is unavailable.

• Timeline

  • Effective on the 30th day after Royal Assent. Until then, current law applies (Coming-into-force).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• The bill repeals a Criminal Code provision and includes no spending, staffing, or revenue measures (Bill, s.1; Coming-into-force).
• No federal fiscal note or cost estimate identified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Repeal gives children the same legal protection from assault as adults by removing a unique defence that applies only to force used against children (Bill, s.1).
• Current law, even as narrowed by the Supreme Court (e.g., no objects, not to the head, generally ages 2–12), still permits some corporal punishment; repeal closes that gap and reduces confusion (SCC 2004).
• Medical and child welfare groups report links between corporal punishment and negative outcomes (e.g., increased aggression and mental health problems), and advise against physical discipline; repeal supports those recommendations (Canadian Paediatric Society position statement, 2016/2019 update).
• International human rights bodies have urged Canada to prohibit corporal punishment in all settings; repeal aligns with those recommendations (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations, 2012/2022).
• Implementation is simple because it removes a defence and does not require new programs or funding (Bill, s.1).

Opponents' View#

• Removal of Section 43 could criminalize parents for mild, non-injurious physical correction, even when done in good faith; opponents argue the Supreme Court’s limits already protect children while allowing minimal discretion (SCC 2004).
• Risk of uneven enforcement and over-reporting, leading to investigations that strain families and social services; no data on the scale of potential impacts. Data unavailable.
• Possible legal uncertainty for caregivers and teachers about the line between permitted safety restraint and prohibited “correction,” which could chill necessary interventions. Data unavailable.
• Potential increase in police, court, and child welfare caseloads if reports rise after repeal; no government cost estimates provided. Data unavailable.
• Cultural and community concerns that long-standing disciplinary practices could lead to disproportionate impacts on certain groups; evidence on distributional effects is limited. Data unavailable.