Justice Committee on April 29th, 2024

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Actually, that's kind of a shocking and troubling development. Should this legislation pass, it would be a big mistake, based on the testimony we heard around parents and around teachers in particular. Even the Liberals' own witnesses came to this committee and said that removing this section will put teachers at risk, and by extension will put students at risk, because of teachers then being told by their superiors not to intervene in any physical conflicts that are happening between students who are being unruly in the classroom. The advice that we heard would be given to teachers by their administration and by their unions would be not to intervene at all without the protection of this section.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of witnesses, some of whom were Liberal witnesses.

The way this works is that should this bill pass this committee, pass the House and then pass the Senate, it would become law, irrespective of what Minister Virani has said he would do. It's quite unprecedented to say, “Don't worry about passing that law, because at some point”—a point that I'm certainly not privy to, and I don't know if anyone on this side of the table is privy to—“we're going to fix the mess that passing this bill would create.”

What we've heard here today is that even Minister Virani acknowledges that it would be a mistake to have the law in Canada be such that section 43 does not exist without any of the protections that are needed for parents and teachers. Minister Virani has apparently given assurances that at some point he's going to bring in legislation. If that legislation should not pass before this bill, then this bill will stand alone. Section 43 will have been struck down. Parents and teachers will no longer have the protections afforded by it.

Contrary to the notion that we might somehow feel comforted by this news, I'm actually quite alarmed by it. It means that Minister Virani's advice from his department is that passing this legislation would leave gaps in the law and put teachers at risk. Otherwise, why on earth would he commit to legislation to address teachers' concerns? The time to do that is now. There's government legislation. There are private members' bills. A private member's bill has the same effect as government legislation. Once it's passed, it is the law. It makes no difference whether a private member's bill amends the Criminal Code or whether government legislation amends the Criminal Code. If the Criminal Code is amended by this Parliament, then that is the law of the land.

I think hearing what Mr. Maloney just said reinforces my position. I've heard from Mr. Fortin on his motion. I'm unable to support his motion, because as the chair said, should his motion pass, then our Conservative motion could not be dealt with.

I don't want to get ahead of myself, but I'll just briefly state why I prefer our Conservative motion to Mr. Fortin's. Our motion re-establishes in the code what the law is today, following a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision that considered section 43, upheld it constitutionally and defined section 43—what it means and what it does not mean. We heard really outrageous illustrations and examples by the proponent of this bill, and from some witnesses, about a paddle being used and about a student being punched in the face. Anyone who's taken the time to read the Supreme Court decision from 20 years ago would know that those actions are absolutely not protected by section 43 today. Section 43 has been narrowed and defined by the Supreme Court. The Conservative amendment would put into the code the language that the Supreme Court used.

I prefer our amendment. I think our amendment is more robust. Our amendment is certainly constitutional, because the very language of our amendment has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I prefer our amendment. Therefore, I have to vote against Mr. Fortin's, but we'll get to that if we get to it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to speak a bit generally, and then I'll come specifically to the amendment.

I am concerned when, around this table, we don't take seriously the commitment that all of us made to truth and reconciliation in this country. Recommendation 6 was carefully considered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I believe all of us around this table have expressed support for those calls to action.

If we go to the calls to action and say, “Yes, we support them, but...”, that's not really reconciliation. That's substituting our judgment for the judgment of indigenous people on the impacts of this section on indigenous communities.

We may have a second and competing concern here, which is that of teachers. I am glad to hear Mr. Maloney say there's a commitment to solving that problem, but we can't solve that problem at the expense of reconciliation in this country. I think it diminishes the arguments that were made about the impacts of this section on indigenous communities to say that we can't proceed without protecting some other group at this point.

On the specific amendment, my problem with Mr. Fortin's amendment is the last phrase, which says, “or for the child’s upbringing.” If you just take it most simply, it says reasonable force can be used for the child's upbringing. That was exactly the problem with section 43, and that's why I believe this is out of order. It restores the very problem that the call to action is trying to take away, which is the idea that reasonable force can be used for a child's upbringing.

For that specific reason, I'm voting against this amendment, and I would urge all members to pass this bill unamended to repeal this section, which was the purpose and intention of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It will uphold our commitment to reconciliation in this country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Van Popta.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, too, am troubled by this last-minute development from the governing party, saying they will now introduce new legislation around corporal punishment. We haven't seen it at all. We're trying to have a fulsome debate here at the justice committee, and now we have a promise of some new legislation that might come in down the road at some time. The timing doesn't contribute to a good, productive discussion, and I'm deeply troubled by that. The government has had lots of time to think about this in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, which has been with us for many years, yet, at the last minute, they're dropping it on us and telling us they're not going to support common-sense amendments that both parties are putting forward.

I want to speak about Mr. Fortin's motion and his talk in support of it.

I agree with much of what he said. However, I believe that the competing amendment CPC-1 is better, in that it codifies a very thoughtful decision from the Supreme Court of Canada of 20 years ago, which explained what section 43 does and does not do. I think, with that clarification, people can rest assured that section 43, which is itself a codification of the common law defence against charges of assault for teachers and parents....

I think it's a shame that Parliament at that time did not introduce new legislation to amend section 43 to further explain this. I suspect that, had that amendment been made in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision of 20 years ago, the discussion around the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation number 6 might have been quite different. Without that amendment and without reading in the clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada, many people have been confused about the difference. As one person said, it does not adequately distinguish between physical punishment and physical abuse. What happened at residential schools was physical abuse, not physical punishment. That's what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendation number 6 talks about. Had section 43 been clarified in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision, I think that discussion would have been much different.

CPC-1, which, hopefully, we'll get to, basically goes step by step through what the Supreme Court of Canada said and captures all the main highlights. CPC-1 also makes a clear reference to schoolteachers in part 4. That is in response to evidence we received from educators here at this committee. I think CPC-1 is more responsive to testimony that we received at this committee and to jurisprudence that has developed around section 43.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to start by saying that I'm very much of the mind, coming out of committee, that we need an amendment in a different section of the code to deal with the very valid concerns that teachers and others have brought related to parental authority.

However, I'm also very mindful of the fact that repealing section 43 itself is a very important goal of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and we don't achieve that goal by replacing section 43. That amendment, as the teachers themselves recommended, has to be in a different section of the code. We're not able, at this committee, to have a receivable amendment. I drafted one that is similar to the Conservatives' amendment reflecting the Supreme Court judgment, which would be receivable, because we can't amend a different section of the code from the one that is actually being debated at committee. I didn't submit it, because I figured it was not receivable. There's no point.

I'm very comforted by the fact that the minister has undertaken to put forward an amendment to a different section of the code to deal with the very valid concerns teachers have raised. I think that not having the codification of the Supreme Court interpretation of the original section is a problem. I hope that what we can do today is pass the bill, have a later coming into force date of the bill, and work to ensure the minister tables it and we get something passed that comes into force simultaneously with this bill. That would be my hope.

As to the amendment itself, I agree with Mr. Garrison's comments about the last part of Mr. Fortin's amendment. Therefore, I wouldn't have supported this amendment regardless.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am also a little concerned. I am pleased to hear that the minister shares our concerns and that he wants to amend the Criminal Code. However, I am worried because, from what I understand, people are improvising or becoming apprentice legislators who are learning on the job, as we say.

I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Virani. He told us that he has heard our concerns and that he would amend the code accordingly. That's good, but when will he do it? We know that an election will be held in a year or a year and a half. Will he have time to do it before then? We don't know.

In the meantime, almost all the parties recognize that society is on a slippery slope. If the bill is passed, section 43 of the Criminal Code will be repealed. I don't want to speak for the NDP, but what I'm hearing is that the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc think that repealing section 43 mindlessly is a mistake.

I'm proposing one alternative solution, and the Conservatives are proposing another. We could discuss what the best solution is, of course. The Liberals simply told us that they agreed with us, but that they would deal with this at some point, when it suits them. However, I don't think that's acceptable when we have such a serious and important mandate for the population as a whole.

What will we say to teachers or parents who are going to be charged with a crime when the majority of members of Parliament recognize that this should not be the case? Will we tell them that we didn't think it was urgent? Will we say that we agree with them, but that we have other things to do first? Not only do we have other things to do, but we preferred to abolish the old rule that protected everyone.

I don't understand that. I repeat, I feel that is improvisation. This morning, we were told that they agreed with us; okay. I am proud to say that I can change my mind. Give me something. I will stand firm on my position, but if you manage to convince me, I will change my mind. If I change my mind, I won't continue down the wrong path. The government recognizes that it's not right, but it's still going to continue along this path. Here is the underlying question: Why continue along this path? With all due respect, I would say that the picture is not very pretty.

The report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada raised concerns that were shared by everyone. We want to respond to it, but right now, the government is not committed to doing anything. Indigenous representatives have said that their children have been victims of violence at school. Everyone agrees that it makes no sense. Now they want to change the law for everyone—not just for teachers, but for anyone who exercises parental authority. I'm not sure that all indigenous communities agree on that. It may have been worthwhile to listen to those communities. They may have told us that things that don't make sense took place in schools attended by indigenous youth and that they need to be corrected, but the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater.

This is being done to respond to the report and to respond to a request from our respected NDP colleague, Mr. Julian—and I am not questioning his good faith. Mr. Julian is proposing something. The Liberal government is living on borrowed time. The government can fall at any time. If Mr. Julian decided that the plug should be pulled, it would be over.

The Liberal government has said that it accepts Mr. Julian's proposal. Mr. Julian reminded us that some indigenous representatives told us that it would make sense. But we are about to change the legislation for everyone. Everyone agrees that we are putting ourselves in an uncomfortable situation. However, we will do this to prevent the Liberal government from falling because it would no longer have the support of the NDP.

The request is being satisfied haphazardly, in a way that does not address the real problem that was raised in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

I find that deplorable and worrisome for Canadian society as a whole, and even for Liberal voters who may recognize themselves in what Mr. Maloney just said this morning. The Liberals recognize that a situation needs to be corrected and that this could be done elsewhere in the Criminal Code.

I have no problem with it being dealt with elsewhere in the code, but for the time being, let's look at section 43. If we want to be serious, let's keep section 43 as it is. Ideally, let's amend the provision based on what the Bloc Québécois is proposing or, at the very least, based on what the Conservatives are proposing.

In a month, in six months or in a year, when the Minister of Justice decides that all this needs to be reviewed, he can propose in a new bill to repeal section 43 and adopt another provision. That way, we can look at a complete solution to the problem and not a piecemeal solution that is an embarrassment to everyone.

Let's not forget that this is being done at the expense of all Canadians. Whether we are talking about parents, teachers or children, no one has anything to gain from this bill, except for one or two egos.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Moore, the floor is yours.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Here we go again. The Liberals are trying to be on both sides of the issue, and that is why we're in this situation.

You take what was said today, and it becomes very clear that section 43 is where it is because that's where that section has to be. It says:

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

Why is that section there? It is there because, otherwise, if you were to grab somebody and take them to the principal's office or if you were to restrain your child, if you did that to someone else, that would be assault, and that is why it is in that section.

What the Liberals are saying now, then, is that for people who want to get rid of section 43, they're going to get rid of section 43. For people who recognize that completely eliminating section 43 is problematic, they're going to put the good parts of section 43 back in, just in a different part of the Criminal Code, where no one will notice.

That is the outrageous position of this government, and the opposition parties are doing the homework on this. The NDP brought in the bill. It's a flawed bill. It's trying to accomplish something, but it goes too far and it would criminalize teachers and parents.

The Supreme Court has already considered this issue and not only upheld the constitutionality of section 43 but very helpfully narrowed it in so that basically every example that was used by the proponent to justify his private member's bill is criminal in Canada. He talked about punching someone in the face. That's criminal. He talked about strapping someone with a paddle. That's criminal. That is not protected under section 43 as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Our amendment establishes in the code the language that the court used. The Bloc have a different amendment to try to accomplish some of the same goals, but what the government's doing is saying, boy, we want to be able to say we got rid of section 43, but we know we can't get rid of section 43, so what we're going to do is we're going to say yes, we got rid of it here, but now we're hearing you teachers and parents so we're going to do something somewhere else.

You couldn't be more crass than that, Madam Chair. Our job here is to take the bill as presented. I cannot base my actions today on fourth-hand knowledge that maybe the minister told someone who told someone that they recognized this bill is a problem and at some point yet to be determined they're going to bring in legislation to address a problem that this bill creates.

If we are not prepared to address the problem that this bill creates, as a committee, then we're not doing our jobs. Conservatives have done their jobs. We have an amendment that would uphold the important parts of section 43, the parts that say that a teacher who's breaking up a fight and physically involves themselves in that fight while one person is maybe being assaulted, is not going to get charged with an assault.

Am I making up that scenario? No. Those very scenarios have gone before the courts, and the teacher's defence and the reason the teacher was not convicted criminally, is section 43. That is why teachers' organizations appeared at this committee and sat there as witnesses and testified that removing section 43, as this bill does, would put them in danger and would also put their classrooms in danger: Students are in danger if teachers are going to be charged criminally for intervening in an ongoing assault.

Now we could have other people say that would never happen, but the only problem with saying that would never happen is that it has happened; it does happen. That's why the teachers were here. We can deal only with what we have in front of us, and what we have in front of us is a flawed bill and a couple of amendments that would try to improve upon the bill. We haven't gotten to CPC-1 yet, our amendment, which I'm more convinced now than ever is necessary.

I was talking to our witnesses earlier, and I said I didn't have any questions. I was being absolutely truthful when I told you I didn't have any questions, because I didn't, but now I do. I do have questions now, because of the way this debate has unfolded.

I will put this to either witness from the department who wishes to answer it.

In his opening remarks, the proponent of the bill used at least four examples that would be criminal, in my understanding of the court decision.

He used the example of a teacher punching a student in the face or a parent punching a child in the face.

In your understanding of the Supreme Court leading decision in this case on section 43, would a parent or teacher punching a child in the face be protected under the code, as interpreted by the court?

[Matthias Villetorte, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

The Supreme Court majority decision in the Canadian Foundation case laid out a couple of guidelines to determine what reasonable force is under section 43. One of them is that the force should not be applied to the child's head. In the circumstances that you're talking about, it probably would not be considered reasonable force, as the child would be struck in the face by a punch.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay. I don't have a ton of these, but I'm going to ask another one.

One witness brought a paddle. Is applying a big, wooden paddle to a child's hand, for example, protected activity in Canada, based on the Supreme Court decision?

[Matthias Villetorte]

Again, as part of the guidelines to determine what reasonable force is—striking the head is one of the examples—the Supreme Court mentioned that force applied with an object would not meet the threshold of reasonableness under section 43.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

That's right.

What we have is a bill that the proponent is advertising and justifying using scenarios that are already criminal. The concern that witnesses have and the concern that the Minister of Justice, Arif Virani, has is the effect of passing this bill on conduct that is not criminal now.

What kind of conduct is not criminal and is protected by the Supreme Court decision? It is the scenario I expressed to you, Madam Chair, of a teacher breaking up a fight or being assaulted. We heard—and I know you know many teachers; I think one of them was from your riding or was at least from your province of Nova Scotia—that teachers are increasingly under threat in the classroom and are having to deal with increasing violence in the classroom. Those are not my words; those are the words of the witnesses that we had on this bill.

As Conservatives, we heard that testimony and we crafted an amendment based on the Supreme Court decision that would protect parents and teachers from being criminally charged. This is serious.

At a time of escalating gang violence, drug violence and all the things that are happening, we're dealing with a bill that targets teachers and parents. Let's be clear about that as well. It applies only to section 43. Section 43, which this bill strikes down, applies only to parents and teachers. It says, “Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent”. We're not talking about the general public. We're talking about teachers and parents. They are the only people protected from assault charges based on this section of the Criminal Code, which this bill will strike down. Now the alarm bells are going off in the department or with the minister, and they realize the teachers are right. The parents are right. This bill is a problem.

We want to be able to say that we eliminated that clause, so now we have to put that clause somewhere else in the Criminal Code. Madam Chair, these are games, and they are the worst kind of games.

I do have one more question for our witnesses. I know the answer to it, but I want to get their perspective as well.

The minister apparently, through Mr. Maloney, has indicated that he will pass legislation at some point. If this private member's bill passes into law and the minister doesn't introduce that legislation or the minister's legislation follows some time after, in that intervening time, are the protections afforded to parents and teachers under section 43 lost with the passage of this bill?

[Matthias Villetorte]

It is hard to determine what the real impact will be of the repeal of section 43 in and of itself. The case law has obviously adapted and applied what the Supreme Court has decided and given as guidelines for the use of reasonable force by parents and persons standing in place of parents and teachers.

One thing I would mention is that without section 43, what we have seen in case law is that we're also bringing up certain common law defences. You would have de minimis the defence of necessity, and maybe others could at one point have recourse to the defence of implied consent in those cases. Those defences are very specific to certain circumstances. It isn't clear whether those would apply to the same extent as the section 43 defence currently applies.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Absolutely, I agree with you 100%. That is why the case law you mentioned that has flowed in the last 20 years since the Supreme Court decision upholding section 43 and narrowing its application is based on section 43 being there. With section 43 gone—if this Parliament decides to eliminate that section 43—then all of that goes out the window as well.

I am more convinced than ever that we need to pass CPC-1. We know there's an agreement between the NDP and the Liberals. This isn't the way to go about things, to put parents and teachers at risk. If there's more information about the timing of the passage of this private member's bill and the coming into force of some hypothetical legislation from the minister, I think that is really important right now.

The minister apparently wants to be able to go to teachers and say, “Don't worry; we're looking after you,” but we're not privy to that. All we have is the bill that's in front of us, and the minister has indicated now that those of us who have been saying this is a problem are 100% right; it is a problem.

There's going to be some kind of sleight-of-hand fix in a less appropriate section of the Criminal Code. There's going to be an amendment maybe at some point that addresses the fallout for parents and teachers of the passage of this private member's bill. That's putting the cart before the horse, Madam Chair. That's not how we are to conduct ourselves at these committees.

Based on the legislation that's before us, based on the law as it stands and based on the Supreme Court decision, we have no alternative than to either reject this private member's bill or at least pass the protections that teachers and parents need in CPC-1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, as always, to Mr. Moore for his comments.

I'm reading now from the brief from the Canadian Teachers' Federation, because the Canadian Teachers' Federation is what we're talking about here. They represent the majority of teachers across the country. They're asking the Government of Canada, not the committee, to ensure the continued protection of teachers and students in their care while respecting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. That is their number one request.

Then they're asking us to amend section 265 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is not within the committee's purview under this bill, unfortunately, to amend section 265, or I would have proposed an amendment to amend section 265, but the Government of Canada, to whom they're making the appeal, can amend section 265 or another part of the code to deal with the very valid concerns raised by teachers. That is what we have had an undertaking from the Minister of Justice to now do.

In my view, opposite to trying to play two sides or anything, as Mr. Moore is saying, we're responding to exactly what the teachers have asked. We're fulfilling the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action. We understand that there are stakeholders who, for whatever reason, symbolically believe that section 43 needs to go from the code. That is what was in the TRC recommendation. At the same time, we will be having a bill or part of a bill that will deal with the protection of teachers, which, again, the committee cannot do in the context of this private member's bill. It cannot amend a section of the code that's not referenced in the bill.

I also welcome Mr. Maloney's comments. I look forward to more clarity on it, but I am comfortable that we are doing exactly what the CTF asked us to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Madam Gladu, please go ahead.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

What I would say is that when the Teachers' Federation was testifying and brought forward this suggestion that they would take away section 43 and put in amendments to the Criminal Code, they didn't understand that the private member's process didn't allow that. When Mr. Garrison and I pointed that out to them, I specifically asked those witnesses, if we can't amend the Criminal Code, then what about section 43? They said they would not be happy to not have that protection.

Again, I think it would be irresponsible to take a bill that, as Mr. Moore correctly pointed out, has been brought forward on a false premise. The examples that were presented were clearly abuse that's already criminal, and that is not what we're talking about in section 43. To then pull this bait and switch on truth and reconciliation to say, “Oh, we'll take out 43, but we'll put it in somewhere else,” is disingenuous at the minimum.

Not only that, but I have no confidence this government can bring a bill in the time remaining before the next election. Bills, even if they're not controversial, can take about 18 months to get through the whole process, and we haven't even seen a draft of this bill. I think there's no way we could responsibly say, “Oh, yeah, we'll pull out section 43,” on the off chance the government gets it right in the legislation that actually gets passed. I don't think we can do that. We have to stand up for parents, and we have to stand up for teachers and provide them protection until such time as the government actually brings legislation that could do it in an alternative method. That's my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Van Popta, you have the floor.

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

I'm deeply concerned about the messaging that will come out of the work of this committee today. If this bill passes unamended, which is what it seems the Liberals want, then the messaging is going to be clear that this government does not stand with teachers.

We had Dr. Kelly, a law professor, here to give evidence, and she was asked exactly that question: “What would be the message to the public of repealing section 43?” She said, “I think proponents of repeal hope that the message will be that all forms of physical discipline are wrong and unlawful”.

We had witnesses here from the Canadian Teachers' Federation give evidence strongly in support of retaining section 43, with amendments. They actually put forward thoughtful amendments to a different section of the Criminal Code, which would have more or less the same effect as the motions that the Conservative Party is putting forward. Their written submission said, “When it comes to education and the safety of children, careful consideration of all eventualities is vital. In its current iteration, Bill C-273 ignores the [present-day] realities facing students and teachers. We urge you to amend and pass this bill to work towards reconciliation while keeping classrooms safe.” They also said that educators are deeply committed to serving children and that “protecting students from themselves and from one another is a key component” of educators' work in schools. “Stopping classroom violence should be supported, not policed.”

Repealing section 43, which is what Bill C-273 would do, would do exactly that. It would not support schools, but it would bring in police enforcement instead. I think that is just the wrong way to go, and certainly the Teachers' Federation thinks that would be completely inappropriate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much to all members for your thoughtful comments.

I am now going to remind you that CPC-1 cannot be moved if BQ-1 is adopted.

Shall BQ-1 carry?

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

I request a recorded vote, Madam Chair.