Bill C-273

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne’s Quest and the protection of children)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to repeal a provision that authorizes the correction of a child by force if certain criteria are met.

[Ryan Lutes, President, Nova Scotia Teachers Union]

Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Ryan Lutes. I'm the president of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union. We represent approximately 10,000 teachers and educational specialists in Nova Scotia's public school system.

I'd like to acknowledge that I live and work on the unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq people.

Teachers are absolutely committed to reconciliation, and we support 100% the Government of Canada's commitment to enact all TRC calls to action. The NSTU is committed to this support, while also being committed to keeping our schools and classrooms safe places.

As such, the NSTU opposes Bill C-273 if it is passed without other amendments to the Criminal Code. This is simply because a repeal without amendment will lead to more unsafe classrooms. Student violence against other students, against themselves and against educators is on the rise. Now more than ever, we need laws in place to help teachers ensure that schools are safe for everyone. It is important that the views of teachers are reflected in your deliberations and decisions. Repealing section 43 is extremely important, but we have to get it right. Teachers on the ground in the classrooms of our country have not been afforded meaningful consultation, and teachers do not support the bill passing unamended.

As the NSTU president, I'm first and foremost a teacher. I'm a high school math teacher, and I can tell you that no teacher wants to physically intervene. As I think Mr. Caputo said, no one gets up in the morning wanting to break students apart, but unfortunately that need is increasing. I personally have been in situations where I've had to physically intervene to restrain students, and without me being able to do that, there may have been a violent assault in the halls of my school.

Unfortunately, this is not a unique situation. Numerous situations arise in the school context that require a teacher to respond. These responses might include a teacher placing their hands on a student's shoulder to guide them away from an altercation or restraining or redirecting a student to protect student safety. Under section 265 of the Criminal Code, these everyday actions could be subject to prosecution. The repeal of section 43 would put a chill on teachers trying to do their jobs. It may cause them to stop from ever intervening in difficult situations, and this will compromise the safety of our schools. The unfortunately reality is that 92% of Nova Scotia's teachers have witnessed violence in their schools and classrooms, and 55% have either been the victim of violence or been threatened with violence.

A school safety amendment would ensure the specific protection of teachers and educational staff within the Criminal Code in situations where reasonable physical intervention is necessary to protect the safety and well-being of our students, teachers and education workers across our country.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation draft language, which the NSTU supports, seeks to amend section 265 of the Criminal Code. The amendments would honour the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action while also ensuring that teachers can promote safety in our classrooms and schools and protect the safety of students, which I would remind the committee is the scope of this. The scope of this bill is about protecting students, and that's what teachers seek to have amended through this. Again, this is near and dear to our hearts, to protect students. That's what we all want.

It's important to recognize that pursuant to Nova Scotia's Education Act, and likely other acts in other provinces, teachers have the legal duty to protect students and to maintain safe classrooms. In order to do that, we must have protections in the Criminal Code that allow us to use reasonable force only when necessary to ensure that our classrooms are safe. Without a school safety amendment, the NSTU anticipates that there would be an increase in the number of assault charges filed and prosecuted. The NSTU would have to advise Nova Scotia teachers, as a precaution, not to physically intervene in the situations noted above. This would result in more injuries and more severe injuries to students, and it would result in schools being less safe.

One thing that I think has come out here is that teachers need to be able to act reasonably without doing a risk-reward analysis of section 265. We're not lawyers. As a teacher, I need to be able to grab a student who's running out into the street. I need to be able to pull on someone's hand if they're running towards an altercation, and I need to be doing that without weighing the risk of common-law defences or doing some legal analysis in my head. I need to be able to act reasonably in situations, just as a reasonable, loving parent or teacher would, and that's what we're really asking for today.

Thank you for having me here. I look forward to responding to your questions.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you for representing teachers. You are all doing it very well.

I asked the question anyway because in a way, you are experts in children’s education. Certain broad principles you would apply could also apply to anyone participating in children’s education, be they a parent, an uncle, an aunt, or an educator entrusted with supervising a five-year-old boy for a weekend, for example.

At the end of the day, shouldn’t all these people be treated the same way?

Shouldn’t we all make sure that anyone can intervene effectively when parents entrust them with supervising a child, one way or another? I share your opinion on the matter.

Since there must not be a lot of time left, I’d like to move on to a completely different subject.

We know that Bill C‑273 is the result of a call to action in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. You talked about it earlier and you’re familiar with the report itself.

Do you have an opinion on the way that repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code could help improve the situation of indigenous communities in Canada?

We understand that abuses occurred in the past, and there’s no point in lingering on the subject. We all agree that it made no sense.

That said, how will repealing this section today help indigenous communities in Canada to flourish?

Can you give me some comments on that issue?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Ms. Fiddler, Ms. Yetman and Mr. Joly, I thank you for being here with us today.

I don’t know if it was announced at the start, but for the sake of the cause, I’d like to point out that we have interpretation service. You may speak in English or in French as you wish. Everyone will hear your testimony correctly.

I am happy to see you today. Our children’s safety and education are indeed significant concerns. It is quite obvious that violence against children must end and we must do what is necessary, as legislators, so that it is not authorized in any way.

After a brief overview of jurisprudence and events in other jurisdictions, it seemed obvious to me that corporal punishment was widely prohibited. In fact, it’s largely the case almost everywhere. I am wondering, however, if we aren’t confusing two different things, meaning corporal punishment and the use of force to ensure children’s safety and education. It can be a matter of protecting them, but also of protecting their environment, for instance, from other classmates. That is what I’m concerned about as we conduct our study of Bill C‑273. I think what you told us this morning is interesting. It goes along the lines of what I had in mind from the beginning.

Mr. Housefather asked if this type of exception might be useful in the case of workers, specifically health workers. I wonder if this might also apply to parents. Shouldn’t they be on the same footing, perhaps by making the required adaptations? We’re talking here about any person with parental authority or delegated authority, regardless of whether they are a teacher, parent or someone else.

What is your opinion on that?

I might invite Mr. Joly to answer first. Ms. Yetman or Ms. Fiddler could perhaps respond afterwards.

[Sébastien Joly, Executive Director, Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Sébastien Joly, and I am the executive director for the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers, or QPAT.

QPAT represents the 8,000 teachers working within the network of Quebec’s anglophone public schools. QPAT is also a member of the Canadian Teachers’ Federation, or CTF, and negotiates as a group with the Fédération des syndicats de l’enseignement du Québec.

Members of the committee, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present Quebec’s point of view, as well as the reality of the teachers we represent, as part of the study of Bill C-273, which proposes to repeal section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

From the outset, I would say that repealing this section is cause for great concern for both QPAT and for the Canadian Teachers’ Federation. Knowing that this bill flows from the 94 recommendations and calls to action put forth by the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation of Canada, it is imperative to say the intent of QPAT’s position does not minimize in any way the years of abuse indigenous people in Canada experienced in residential schools. Nor does it call into question the highly symbolic value of repealing section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which symbolizes the past reality of practising corporal punishment, both institutionally and domestically. On the contrary, QPAT fully supports the spirit of the measures recommended by the Commission. In fact, QPAT participated actively in the curriculum review process in line with calls to action 62 and 63, under the title of “Education for Reconciliation.” This resulted in the revision of the history and civic education programs in Quebec.

Furthermore, like the CTF, QPAT has opposed the practice of any form of corporal punishment for several decades.

While we are fully aware of the intent behind the introduction of this bill, it is essential to ensure that its adoption does not result in unintended and unfortunate consequences for the teachers we represent.

In this sense, we are convinced, following the advice of our legal experts, that the removal of the elements of protection included in section 43, in the absence of an amendment to the Criminal Code to guarantee protections for school staff, would constitute a serious risk for teachers as well as other categories of school staff, given the context and conditions in which they practise their profession on a daily basis.

Indeed, the increasingly heavy and complex composition of the classrooms in the context of a glaring lack of professional and specialized support resources, as well as the constant progression of violence in our schools, whether in or out of class, means that teachers are confronted on a regular basis with issues that could require the use of reasonable force towards a student with the sole objective of fulfilling their responsibility to ensure a safe school environment for the students. The legal vacuum thus created would necessarily expose them to an increased risk of criminal charges, prosecution or even convictions for interventions carried out in the course of their duties. These interventions would automatically be considered assault under subsection 265(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

As executive director of QPAT, I am directly responsible for following up on all cases related to criminal allegations filed against teachers who are members of our local unions throughout Quebec, working closely with the law firm Battista Turcot Israel from Montreal, which represents our members in such cases.

As such, I can confirm that the existence of section 43, the scope of which was significantly redefined by the 2004 Supreme Court decision, can no longer be used as a defence for teachers charged with assault within the meaning of the law. Nevertheless, I can confirm that it is the very existence of section 43 that allows the various stakeholders involved—police investigators, prosecutors and judges—to exercise a certain level of discretion in such cases, particularly when it is clear, following an investigation, that an educator used reasonable force for the purpose of ensuring a safe school environment for their students. As a result, many cases do not proceed to trial. According to our legal experts, the complete repeal of section 43 would result in the disappearance of this level of discretion and an increase in the number of charges, prosecutions and convictions, with all the impact that this implies for the individuals concerned and their families.

Finally, we are also concerned that this increased risk for teachers could cause additional unfortunate and unintended consequences, including making our schools less safe but also discouraging potential future teachers from choosing this beautiful profession and making a career out of it, thereby further exacerbating the teacher recruitment and retention crisis facing our public school systems in Quebec and across the country.

It will be my pleasure to answer any questions you might have and develop more of the elements presented in the brief submitted by QPAT.

Thank you.

[Tesa Fiddler, Member, Advisory Committee on Indigenous Education, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

Meegwetch, Heidi.

Tesa Fiddler, nindizhinikaaz. I am a first nations educator, registered to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug in Treaty 9. I'm also connected through my father to the traditional territory of Onigaming First Nation in Treaty 3. My family and I have lived and worked in Thunder Bay, Ontario, for the last 26 years, and we raise our family there.

First, I would like to acknowledge that I'm grateful to the Anishinabe Algonquin people, whose land I'm visiting here, for being caretakers of this territory since time immemorial and for allowing us to do this work here.

As an indigenous educator with close to 30 years of experience—I couldn't believe it when I read that—and as someone who is deeply committed to supporting the act of reconciliation, I'm here to speak about the necessity of amending Bill C-273.

I want to assure the committee and other individuals who are committed to repealing section 43 that I also recognize the significance and the importance of making this important change to the Criminal Code.

I personally honour and respect the calls to action. As a second-generation survivor of residential schools—my mother attended Poplar Hill, and my father attended Cecilia Jeffrey—the calls to action have significance to me both personally and professionally. As a witness to violence myself, I would never condone any form of violence in homes, classrooms or other institutions. I have the utmost respect for the Honourable Murray Sinclair and the many individuals who courageously led the TRC and provided this country with a guide to improving relations between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

I am not here to disagree with the repeal of section 43. I am here to request that you consider the suggestions that teaching experts bring forward, suggestions that will continue to protect students and their educators.

Over my career, I've worked with students who have complex needs, and I've been a mentor to many teachers and educators who deal with complex classroom issues. We have students with autism and FASD, students with problems regulating temper, students with histories of violence and exposure to trauma. In an ideal world, there would be more support for students in difficult situations, and educators would get the support we need to deal with these complex student profiles and situations in the classroom. The sad reality is that it is not there, so passing Bill C-273 without an amendment will make an already challenging job more challenging.

These are the realities that all educators, including indigenous educators, are facing. We have very complex community situations right now. We are in crisis with the well-being of our children. As a parent of a child with complex special needs, I recognize the challenges that our communities and our families are facing. It really is a disadvantage to children and to educators to repeal this section and not be making the amendments that are needed to protect children.

Meegwetch.

[Heidi Yetman, President, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm pleased to be speaking today as a representative of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, an organization comprising teachers' unions in every province and territory. I am a teacher with over 20 years of experience in the classroom.

I would like to acknowledge that I work and play on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

As you know, I'm here to talk about Bill C-273, a bill that seeks to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. With this, I need to state first and foremost that the federation fully endorses all TRC calls to action, including call to action number six. We also fully condemn any form of corporal punishment.

That being said, the federation cannot support this legislation passing unamended. The risk of unintended consequences that could make classrooms more unsafe is too great. Teachers need to be able to physically intervene in certain classroom situations. This is the reality of dealing with complex classrooms with complex needs.

I'm sharing my time today with teacher colleague Tesa Fiddler. Tesa is a member of the federation's advisory committee on indigenous education, and she's also a member of Education International's indigenous reference group, so I'm really pleased to present Tesa.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

We're talking about a private member's bill, Bill C-273, that would ban corporal punishment by repealing section 43. We heard in earlier testimony today that section 43 is a codification of the common law of defence for parents and teachers who would discipline their children.

Mr. Zekveld, in your testimony, you quoted from paragraph 62 of the Supreme Court of Canada decision of 2004, which actually upheld the constitutionality of section 43. I'm just going to reread one sentence from there and ask you to comment on it. This is what the chief justice said: “The reality is that without s. 43, Canada’s broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment, like placing an unwilling child in a chair for a five-minute ‘time-out’”.

To use the example from the lively exchange between my colleague Mr. Caputo and the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Julian, a gentle slap on the wrist would be criminalized given the broad wording of section 265 of the Criminal Code. Can you comment on that? Are we casting the net too widely by eliminating the section 43 defence altogether?

[Dr. Kate Butler]

In these opening remarks, I’m going to speak about why Bill C-273 is an important step toward Canada meeting its international human rights obligations.

This colonial law allowing corporal punishment dates from 1892 and is a clear violation of children's protection rights, yet it remains in the Criminal Code. Canada has fallen behind the other 65 countries globally that have met their Convention on the Rights of the Child's obligations by prohibiting physical punishment in all contexts.

I speak to you today in my role as past chair of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children and as a recognized children's rights expert with a Ph.D. in sociology. I've authored numerous articles and reports on children's rights in Canada and globally, with a specialization in protection rights.

The CCRC is a national umbrella group of organizations and individuals across Canada who promote the rights of children and the full implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have led the civil society role in each of the four UN reviews of Canada under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including leading the youth engagement part of the most recent UN review. We engaged hundreds of young people on behalf of the federal government. These young people, who are not here today, told us that violence in the home is an incredibly important issue to them. I wanted to bring along their voice with me today.

Members of the CCRC include such organizations as UNICEF Canada, which currently co-chairs the coalition, along with academics from all disciplines, indigenous groups, health groups and faith organizations.

As you've heard, corporal punishment refers to any form of punishment that is intended to cause physical pain to a person. It's the most common form of violence against children.

[Dr. Kate Butler, Past Chair, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for having me today to speak about Bill C-273. I'm so sorry not to be there in person. Instead, I'm calling from Toronto, which is on the traditional lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit—

[Daniel Zekveld, Policy Analyst, Association for Reformed Political Action Canada]

Good morning. Thank you for inviting us to speak to you today regarding Bill C-273.

ARPA Canada believes Parliament must not repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. I want to address this topic of corporal discipline in three brief points.

The first point, which underlies the rest of the conversation on corporal discipline, is about parental authority. The family has both natural and pre-political authority. That's why the Canadian Bill of Rights refers to “the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions”, and why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls the family “the natural and fundamental group unit of society”. Respecting parental authority and family integrity means not interfering in families, particularly through the criminal law, without clearly compelling reasons.

Professor Melissa Moschella uses the analogy of intervening by force in another sovereign nation. She explains that the international community must respect the authority of sovereign states, but also has an obligation to help their people when they need it. Coercive interference in any circumstance requires extremely strong justification, such as serious human rights abuses or threatening the peace of other sovereign states. Likewise, every political community consists of families with their own authority. Although parental authority may be imperfect at times, the state must not intervene coercively, except in cases of serious abuse and neglect where parents are clearly failing to fulfill their role.

As mentioned already, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004, said:

...without s. 43, Canada’s broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment, like placing an unwilling child in a chair for a five-minute “time-out”. The decision not to criminalize such conduct is not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families—a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process.

My second point is that there is no adequate evidence that parents who use careful, measured corporal discipline are failing in their role as parents in a way that would merit state intrusion or prosecution of parents, which would cause serious disruption and harm children. Studies on corporal discipline often confuse the cause-and-effect relationship between corporal discipline and children's outcomes. Some studies assume that corporal discipline causes aggressive behaviour based on a correlation. However, it could be that aggressive children were disciplined more because they were more aggressive, rather than the reverse. Many studies fail to distinguish between harsh physical punishment and the measured physical discipline permitted by Canadian law. Not all forms of physical discipline are the same or have the same effects.

Before criminalizing corporal discipline, lawmakers should at least have strong evidence to demonstrate that it is much less effective than other methods. However, some studies have shown that physical discipline within reasonable limits is as good as or better than many other disciplinary tactics. The outcomes for children who receive corporal discipline depend on the type of discipline and on whether the family has a consistent set of guidelines for when and how corporal discipline is used.

Finally, other jurisdictions reveal that banning corporal discipline causes problems. For example, one Swedish psychiatrist argues that banning corporal discipline may make parents less willing to discipline or correct their children in any way. Since Sweden banned spanking, its rate of assaults of minors has increased dramatically. Examples from Austria and Germany show that parents who thought mild forms of corporal discipline were legal were less likely to resort to severe punishment than those who thought it was illegal. When no corporal discipline is permitted, parents may be more lenient until they reach a breaking point. Prohibitions on corporal discipline may also increase verbal hostility by parents, or increase the number of parents who are unable to control their children's behaviour. As such, permitting corporal discipline within reasonable boundaries, as Canada does, may prevent negative consequences.

In conclusion, this committee should support retaining section 43 of the Criminal Code. Doing so would align with the Supreme Court of Canada in respecting the responsibility of parents and the different ways parents may choose to raise their children. That said, if the committee believes further clarity is needed in section 43, the Criminal Code could be amended to include the Supreme Court's clarification about what constitutes reasonable force. These limits strike an appropriate balance that allows parents to raise their children as they see fit while also ensuring children are protected.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. We're looking forward to any questions.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

To begin, I would like to say that we're meeting on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people. It's extremely important to recognize this because we're talking about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 6. So it's extremely important to take that into account at all times.

The purpose of Bill C-273 is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which gives justification to use “force by way of correction” towards children. Section 43 was codified in 1892, having descended from English common law, which allowed parents and schoolmasters to inflict physical punishment “for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child”.

Section 43 violates children's basic human rights to protection under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1991. Nine years ago, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called physical punishment “a relic of a discredited past [that] has no place in Canadian schools or homes”, and called for the repeal of section 43 to remove the green light that has enabled so much violence against children.

The research on physical punishment is robust. Physical punishment consistently predicts solely negative developmental outcomes: higher aggression, more mental health problems, slower intellectual development and weaker parent-child relationships. More than 75 peer-reviewed studies have indicated this, and after I testify today you will hear from Professor Durrant and Ms. Butler, who will speak more to that.

Mild physical punishment easily escalates into more severe violence. Children who are slapped or spanked are seven times more likely to experience severe violence than those who are not slapped or spanked. Section 43 tells us that hurting another person is an acceptable and justifiable way to resolve conflict. Children who are physically punished are more likely to engage in dating violence and partner violence in later life because they have learned to respond to conflict with physical aggression.

Parenting groups and teachers argue that section 43 serves as a protection when they need to physically restrain a child, but defences are already available to parents, teachers and caregivers when they use force to defend themselves or another person: section 34 of the Criminal Code to protect property, section 35 of the Criminal Code to prevent the immediate commission of an offence and section 27 of the Criminal Code in response to imminent peril or danger when there is no available legal alternative, which is the common law defence of necessity.

There's strong support for change. Seven hundred organizations across all sectors support the repeal of section 43. They include all major organizations in health care, dentists, doctors, nurses and all of the major organizations in Canada that have taken on the development of kids as their fundamental role.

To date, 65 countries and 18 other regions have prohibited all physical punishment of children. In countries where research has been carried out, there has been no increase in criminal prosecutions or child welfare apprehensions in minor cases. Decreases have been shown in the support for and use of physical punishment. That is important. Why are we lagging behind in banning the physical punishment of children?

My bill has also received support overseas. Members of this committee would have received from organizations in the past few weeks support for Bill C-273, including Human Rights Watch and the World Health Organization. We also have a number of international individuals who have written to this committee expressing support for Bill C-273. It's important to note that countries and regions like Wales, New Zealand and Ireland did not see an increase in prosecutions against parents and teachers since the passing of their legislation to ban physical punishment to children.

Finally, I'd like to quote the Honourable Murray Sinclair, who spoke to this issue seven years ago when we were looking at a previous iteration of the same bill. Murray Sinclair said the following:

At one Indian residential school in Alberta, a teacher was charged with assaulting a student by punching him three times in the face, causing serious injury. The teacher had been convicted of assault at trial but was acquitted on appeal by a court which held that the degree of force that he used was reasonable. That case set the tone for how all children in residential schools were treated thereafter.

It's time to repeal section 43. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Madame Gladu.

(Motion agreed to)

That's unanimous. Thank you so much. I love this. I hope it will continue throughout the morning.

Welcome to meeting number 100 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 14, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study of Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne's Quest and the protection of children).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 15, 2023. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Those on Zoom have been tested for the sound, and it is in order.

First, I want to welcome Peter Julian, the member of Parliament for New Westminster-Burnaby and the sponsor of Bill C-273.

Welcome to the committee. You have five minutes to present to the committee, which will be followed by questions, in the normal course, from members of the committee.

Mr. Julian, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good morning, everyone.

I have one small item before we start the normal meeting. That is to approve the budget request for the study we are starting today on Bill C-273, which has been circulated to all members.

Children's Rights

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-273 passed, by a vote of 209 to 115, this week for a second reading in Parliament. I thank all those MPs who spoke up for this bill and for the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code.

Canada is finally taking our first steps in joining 65 other countries around the world that have banned the use of force against children. More than 700 organizations across Canada, including every major organization that works for children's health and well-being, have called for the repeal of this legalized use of force against children.

The repeal of this provision of the Criminal Code was one of the first recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Call to action no. 6 of the TRC calls for repeal of the provision, which legalizes the use of force against children. This provision was put in place in 1892, when all kinds of abuses were legal. It is high time to change that and time to repeal section 43.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry to interrupt the current affairs of the chamber. I am back again, this time with a tie and jacket on as per House rules. I tried to tell you before, when I was not dressed appropriately, that I had a technical issue on the last vote being held today, which was on Bill C-273, and my intention is to vote in favour.

Therefore, I am asking for unanimous consent from the House to register my vote in favour of Bill C-273, and I apologize for the delay that this has caused in House proceedings.