The defences that would continue to exist, and they continue to exist right now alongside section 43, are those that exist generally for any types of physical contact with anyone, not specific to children. That would include self-defence, a force that's used in defence of one's self or a third party in a case of imminent danger, and the defence of necessity that I referred to, when you take action in an urgent moment, for instance to prevent someone from running onto the street. Those would remain. However, outside of that, non-consensual touching beyond a de minimis level, beyond a minimal threshold, would be considered assault.
I think proponents of repeal hope that the message will be that all forms of physical discipline are wrong and unlawful, but I think we also have to be attuned to the message that will be sent to police, child welfare workers and prosecutors, which will be that—like my example of striking the child's leg in the car seat—all of those forms of contact are assault, and for particular families, especially those most marginalized, I would expect to see further cases of that kind that actually go through the system.