Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-251 — and I thank Senator Kutcher for introducing it — An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6).

In addition to being Call to Action No. 6 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, efforts to repeal section 43 have been a multi-decade campaign.

Section 43 of the Criminal Code permits a defence and justification for violence perpetrated against children by teachers and parents in the name of “correction.”

When this provision was created 130 years ago, in 1892, the use of physical punishment was authorized by men to discipline their property: animals, employees, wives, prisoners and children. The effects of physical violence as disciplinary punishment have been proven to be so deeply harmful that the practice has since been rendered both draconian and barbaric.

The long-term effects of physical punishment are well documented, and the negative impacts were well articulated by Senator Kutcher.

When one looks to the research on the effects of physical punishment, the message from the research is very clear: The risks and harms associated with physical punishment are rife and sometimes irreparable.

A major 2002 meta-analysis of 88 research studies found associations between lawful physical punishment by parents and 10 negative outcomes. Another major meta-analysis in 2016, which reviewed 75 research studies published over 50 years, involving a total of over 160,000 children, confirmed the findings of the earlier meta-analysis and found evidence of associations with five more negative outcomes.

Of these outcomes, one is that physical punishment is associated with increased aggression in children. The research demonstrates that children who have experienced physical punishment are more likely to be aggressive toward their peers, approve use of violence in peer relationships, experience violence from their peers, use violent methods to resolve conflict and be aggressive toward their parents. One of the reasons for this is that by being subjected to physical punishment, children learn — from their parents — that violence is an appropriate method of getting what you want. Presumably, we do not wish to perpetuate such lessons.

The many negative effects of assaulting children are now undeniable. Indeed, even in the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada case, the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, not one single expert witness in the case suggested that there was any benefit to physical punishment. The Supreme Court also reiterated in this case that physical punishment is not of any benefit to children.

Then why keep this provision, you might ask? Why didn’t the Supreme Court of Canada rule it unconstitutional? It must be that there exists cases in which it is in the best interests of the child.

The Supreme Court’s conclusion was not that physical punishment could be in the best interests of the child; rather, the court clearly held that the best interests of the child, which would be served by preventing physical punishment, may be subordinated to other concerns in appropriate contexts. That is the context where they set confusing and seemingly arbitrary criteria in which it may still apply.

In attempting to provide protection for teachers and guardians who apply physical force to children in minor cases, the court allowed this defence to continue.

To illustrate this point, I told this story in the previous iteration of this bill, when it was advocated by our dear former colleague, the Honourable Murray Sinclair. At the time, I discussed the reaction of my eldest child to that court case in 2004 — my now‑adult children were of the age targeted by the decision. My wonderfully astute son, Michael, was 13 years old, and my equally wonderful daughter, Madison, was 5. My son had watched the case with interest, and had his own older brotherly interpretation of its outcome, particularly the rule restricting the availability of the defence to those inflicting physical punishment on children between the ages of 2 and 12. What was Michael’s concluding pronouncement? “Nobody can hit me,” he announced, “but we can all hit Madison.”

What my son zeroed in on then, and what we must also now recognize, is an absurd and atrocious reality at the core of section 43. No child should have to wait until they are a teenager for the right to have legal protection — from harm — that we now enjoy as adults; nor do we want to risk children learning that they deserve to be assaulted, and that, worse still, it is for their own good. By the time they are older, children — who are routinely assaulted as an intended means of correcting their behaviour — may suffer in ways that significantly and permanently negatively impact them and future generations. Why are we even leaving a remote possibility that this defence can be used, or perpetuating the myth that this is okay in any case?

The TRC’s call for the repeal of section 43 emphasizes the role that physical punishment played — and the belief that it should be inflicted on children, with impunity — in the abuses perpetuated in residential schools.

The trauma experienced during childhood by survivors of Canada’s residential school system has been ongoing and intergenerational — continuing to have negative and, sometimes, devastating consequences for their families and communities.

This is the eighteenth iteration of this bill, and we still have a gap in our law that allows children to be assaulted. With each iteration of this bill, the evidence in favour of its passage mounts.

We owe it to all children — past, present and future — to remedy the continued condonation of the assault of children. It is time to enact the Calls to Action from the TRC and the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, as well as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. It is long past time to repeal section 43. It is also time to provide the supports with and for children. Alas, this is not the focus of this bill, but it certainly underscores the need for far more work to remedy many inadequacies in the nature of our lack of support for children and youth in this country. Meegwetch. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Minister, in a State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Biden promised yet another round of Buy America policies, with new standards to require all construction materials used in federal infrastructure projects to be made in America. The trade group of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters said, this is “bad news” for manufacturing in our country and for “integrated North American supply chains.” They called for a “strong response” to “push back and protect Canadian access to the U.S. procurement market.”

Minister, since President Biden’s protectionist comments earlier this week, what specific actions have you or your government taken to counter this latest threat to Canadian jobs? Have you spoken to your American counterpart? Have you reached out to any of the trade unions, especially unions and construction trades that represent workers in both of our countries?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, that is time for Question Period. I am sure that you will all want to join me in thanking Minister O’Regan for being with us here today. Thank you, minister.

Hon. David M. Wells: Thank you, Minister O’Regan. I will go to the second part of my earlier question. This is in relation to your duties as regional minister. Your cabinet colleague Associate Minister of Finance Boissonnault said the transition — the phasing out — of the oil industry will take $100 billion to $125 billion per year up to 2050, given that Canada’s carbon dioxide emissions represent only 1.5% of global emissions — 1.5. Essentially, if Canada disappeared from the map, there would be zero impact on global emissions. Where on earth does this expenditure make sense on any scale?

Hon. Seamus O’Regan, P.C., M.P., Minister of Labour: First of all, senator, with all respect, it is not my jurisdiction. I do not have a specific and ready answer for it, other than to say that nobody wants damage done to what I think is a very proud industry in this country, and one that is only increasing based upon the craft breweries that I see erupting all over my province. One of two things will happen — presumably, you see it — workers may be affected through streamlining or it is passed on to the consumer. Neither is particularly pleasant.

I do not have a ready answer for that, but I will check in with the office of the finance minister. I do know about that letter, though.

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of February 8, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, February 14, 2023, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Thank you for your presentation, senator. My question is quite general. What will happen in 10 or 20 years if this bill is not passed?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we welcome today the Honourable Seamus O’Regan, P.C., M.P., Minister of Labour, to ask questions relating to his ministerial responsibilities.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, senators do not need to stand. Questions are limited to one minute and responses to one-and-a-half minutes. The reading clerk will stand 10 seconds before the expiry of these times. Question Period will last one hour.

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Seamus O’Regan, P.C., M.P., Minister of Labour, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Ian Froude, Councillor for the City of St. John’s and Rob Nolan, CEO of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Ravalia.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Welcome, minister.

A recent documentary entitled Essentiels really resonated in Quebec. It is about temporary foreign workers who work hard to harvest our fruits and vegetables, and who are essential to our farmers. It shows migrant workers to whom the Canadian government has issued closed work permits, which don’t allow them to change employers. These captive workers often find themselves at the mercy of unscrupulous employers, who are in a position to abuse their workers.

As minister, you have the power to change the regulations and issue open work permits that would let workers change employers and provide a path to permanent residency. Why not do that? This is about human rights.

[English]

Hon. Percy E. Downe: My question is about the impact of the transition to a low-carbon economy, which others have raised as well. Obviously, the impacts of this transition will be felt throughout our economy.

As you know, as part of the Paris Agreement which the Government of Canada signed, we need to work toward the creation of decent work and quality jobs. Minister, how does your department — and the government in general — propose to foster the growth of these well-paying jobs as the economy changes?

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a beloved colleague and friend. Alan Baxter Fleming, known to his friends as Al, passed away on January 7, 2023, surrounded by his adoring wife Beth and family.

I’m really pleased that Beth accepted my invitation to be here today.

For 15 years, Al was an important member of the Senate of Canada family. I first got to know Al when he worked for Senator Brazeau, who was the deputy chair when I served as the chair of the Human Rights Committee. I fondly remember engaging with Al during our regular steering committee meetings, and was always drawn to both his quick wit and gentlemanly charm.

Even though we sometimes found ourselves on opposing sides of issues, Al would always go out of his way to be warm and collaborative. He never shied away from a challenge, and was always there to lend a helping hand. I am so grateful for the kindness he extended to me and my team.

Honourable senators, most recently, Al worked as Director of Parliamentary Affairs for Senator Christmas, who retired last month. Senator Christmas wanted to share the following message with you:

Al was a one-of-a-kind person. He was always so enthusiastic, a bit over the top at times, but that was Al. He genuinely loved everyone no matter who. He was also a hard worker and a natural problem solver. He always wanted to make things better for those around him. He especially loved his family and he often spoke about them. But more than anything, Al had a very special place in his heart for Beth. We will all miss him. You’ve earned your rest, my friend. . . .

Honourable senators, for his entire adult life, Al was a devoted public servant who served in various capacities within the Government of Canada and its institutions.

Beth, Stephen, Anne, Nathan, Sarah, Rebekah and Leah — Al loved you and your families with his whole heart and would speak of you often. Thank you for sharing him with all of us.

For those of you who had the pleasure of knowing Al, you may recall that whenever he was asked in passing, “How are you doing?” he would respond, “All the better for seeing you.” Whenever he said this, it always warmed my heart. The truth is, Al, that we are all the better for having known you. Rest in peace, my friend.

(1420)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Bill Williams, Executive Director of the Nunavut Economic Developers Association and Economic Development Officers from across Nunavut. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut).

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Beth Fleming, Vivian Fleming, Sarah Shirey, Rebekah Shirey and Nathaniel Shirey. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Jaffer.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.