Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6). This bill proposes to repeal the law that authorizes the use of corporal punishment on children as a means of correction in Canada.

Today I will add to our debate with the following: additional information on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s justification for this change, a few comments on policy details and thoughts on the Senate’s role in answering this Call to Action.

First, thank you to the sponsor, Senator Kutcher, for championing this legislation to answer Call to Action 6. Your knowledge and compassion as a leading psychiatrist are cause for optimism that we can finally succeed in repealing section 43. This change will advance reconciliation and benefit children across Canada.

Senator Kutcher laid out a comprehensive case for passing this evidence-based bill. This includes scientific research indicating that the practice of hitting children for discipline — such as spanking — increases the risk that children will become aggressive and develop mental health problems.

Senator Kutcher told us that, by passing this bill and promoting parenting supports, we can both protect children from this form of violence and help Canadian parents in learning and applying effective and much less damaging parenting practices.

We also heard that Bill S-251 will enable Canada to join 63 other countries that have enacted laws prohibiting physical punishment of children in all settings.

By passing this bill, Canada would live up to the international legal commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by our country in 1991.

In her speech, Senator Moodie, as an esteemed pediatrician, bolstered the case for Bill S-251. Senator Moodie further explored expert evidence and international experiences relating to this subject. She noted that in countries that have banned corporal punishment on kids — such as Sweden, Germany and New Zealand — the bans have resulted in a significant drop in reports of the practice. In Germany and Finland, for instance, that reduction was nearly 50%.

Senator Moodie highlighted that these countries acknowledge the need for public education and adequate family supports as a complement to banning corporal punishment. This is a point requiring Parliament and the government’s attention that I hope we can attend to through a Senate committee study on this bill, perhaps toward recommendations accompanying the repeal of section 43.

Colleagues, Bill S-251 can be summarized in three words: Every child matters. This is a principle that Canadian society is learning and working to uphold.

In the media, we have collectively witnessed the truth of our country’s history at places like Kamloops, Cowessess First Nation, Cranbrook, Penelakut Island, Saddle Lake Cree Nation, Williams Lake First Nation and Keeseekoose First Nation. We keep in our hearts the thousands of children who never came home from residential schools and the survivors who were scarred for life.

We always keep them in our hearts.

Corporal punishment was a significant part of life at these institutions. Experiences of colonial forms of discipline traumatized Indigenous peoples in Canada, contributing to a legacy of multi-generational harms.

We know that section 43 of the Criminal Code connects to the values of the relatively early days of the residential school era. As Senator Kutcher told us:

Section 43 is an anachronism — an historical holdover from laws written in 1892 that permitted corporal punishment of employees, wives and children.

Senators, I would like to quote two passages from The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to help inform our debate from a historical perspective. From Volume 4, Missing Children and Unmarked Burials, a passage explains the culture shock to Indigenous peoples who were subjected to corporal punishment:

The churches and religious orders that operated Canada’s residential schools had strong and interrelated conceptions of order, discipline, obedience, and sin. They believed that human beings were fallen, sinful creatures who had to earn salvation through mastery of their nature by obedience to God. The approach to discipline used in schools was based in scripture: corporal punishment was a Biblically authorized way of not only keeping order, but also bringing children to the righteous path. In their use of corporal punishment, church leaders had the support of nineteenth-century educational bureaucrats such as Egerton Ryerson, who believed that opposition to corporal punishment was “contrary to Scripture.”

The report further states:

Corporal punishment did not historically have this same level of acceptability among Aboriginal people. The large number of recorded parental complaints, coupled with the ongoing difficulty in recruiting students, is evidence of occasions where discipline imposed by the schools exceeded what would have been acceptable in either Aboriginal or European communities.

Students were punished for not finishing their lessons, for bedwetting, talking out of turn, throwing rocks at the school fence, immorality, refusing to eat their meals, speaking their own languages, neglecting their chores, and theft (often of food).

From Volume 5, The Legacy, we learn how colonial punishments conflicted with traditional Inuit parenting:

Traditional Inuit parenting is based on kinship relationships and cultural and spiritual beliefs. Inuit believe that a newborn named after a deceased relative takes possession of that relative’s soul or spirit, and this is reflected in the parents’ relationship with the child. According to the national Inuit women’s association, Pauktuutit, it “would not be considered appropriate ... to tell a child what to do, as this would be the equivalent of ordering an elder or another adult about, thus violating an important social rule in Inuit culture.”

Ignorance of this aspect of Inuit culture caused many non-Aboriginal people, including residential school administrators and child welfare officials, to make culturally biased judgments. They often saw Inuit parents as extremely permissive and indifferent to discipline. At the residential schools, in contrast, teachers attempted to control a child’s behaviour through corporal punishment and other harsh disciplinary measures distasteful to Inuit parents.

Honourable senators, in recommending the repeal of section 43 in Call to Action 6, the TRC concluded, as noted by Senator Kutcher:

The Commission believes that corporal punishment is a relic of a discredited past and has no place in Canadian schools or homes.

In answering Call to Action 6 by repealing section 43, we can denounce the historic imposition of foreign corporal punishments on Indigenous children by colonial authorities. Such a decision by Parliament would be an important act of reconciliation — following the Senate’s unanimous apology on September 29 of this year for Canada’s role in the residential school system, through a motion from Senator McCallum.

In addition, with Bill S-251, the federal legislature would act to protect all kids across Canada today from the fear, pain and embarrassment of corporal punishment. A key role of the Senate is to protect vulnerable persons in Canada, and the time to act is now.

I will add what I hope are a few common-sense comments about the legalities: In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada found section 43 to be constitutional, and interpreted the section to restrict forms of corporal punishment allowable on children. The Supreme Court stated that section 43 allows “only minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature.” It can only be used on children between ages 2 and 12. Teachers can apply force to remove a child from a classroom. Lawful corporal punishment cannot involve blows or slaps to the head, or hitting a child with an object, and cannot be inflicted in anger, or on a child with a cognitive disability.

On debate, Senator Plett raised concerns that repealing section 43 could criminalize picking up a child who is throwing a tantrum, and putting them in the car or in a car seat. My reaction to these comments is optimism for common ground. I would not wish to criminalize the behaviour Senator Plett describes, which sounds to me like acceptable parenting. Rather, with repealing section 43, as I understand the issue, the goal is to eliminate the use of force for the purpose of correction. For example, this bill would ban spanking and similar actions aimed to influence behaviour through a negative imposition of force, involving fear, pain or embarrassment.

However, the purpose of Bill S-251 is not to criminalize the incidental use of force by parents or teachers in fulfilling their legitimate responsibilities, such as safely transporting children. To me, the examples raised on debate are in the latter category — rather than being a punitive or deterrent use of force on children.

In 2017, on debate of Bill S-206 — the last version of this legislation — the replacement sponsor, former Senator Sinclair, offered the following clarifications:

. . . we must not forget that minor touching is not criminalized anyway, on the principal of de minimis. If it is something so minor, it is unworthy of the criminal law’s attention and sanction.

The law also recognizes that some applications of force are socially and legally acceptable. In order to get someone’s attention, for example, sometimes you have to touch them on the shoulder or on an arm. Engaging in a boxing match or body checking in hockey are not assaults on the basis of consent. Accidental touching is not illegal, nor is the use of reasonable force to defend or protect yourself or another person or even your property.

Section 43 says that if you assault a child for the purpose of correcting a child’s behaviour, you have a special defence if you use reasonable force. Society is beginning to accept that no amount of force is reasonable.

Colleagues, it seems to me that practical concerns could be addressed through committee observations, or perhaps even through an amendment to convey greater certainty in the Criminal Code about what is — and is not — intended as allowable, while repealing section 43. However, the repeal is required to eliminate the negative impositions of force on children that we want to target, such as spanking which is currently lawful under section 43. A committee could undertake such a constructive effort to ensure the Senate is not proposing a law at odds with common sense, while at the same time effectively banning corporal punishment on children. I, therefore, urge the timely referral of Bill S-251 to committee, as the Senate did with Bill S-206 in 2018.

I turn now to the role of the Senate in answering this Call to Action. Legislatively, Call to Action 6 is perhaps the most straightforward call to answer. Along with the House of Commons, the Senate is one of two bodies with decision-making authority and responsibility on this matter. We are in the driver’s seat — and if we don’t act, no one can.

In recent years, the Senate has delivered results in answering the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action: We have passed legislation to protect and renew Indigenous languages; to restore Indigenous jurisdiction over child and family services; to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; to establish the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation; and to realize a new Oath of Citizenship.

We have also received — from the other place — Bill C-29, a government bill to establish a national council for reconciliation, addressing Calls to Action 53 to 56, sponsored by Senator Audette. Many senators have expressed their personal determination to do more. I wish to do more. With Bill S-251, we have our chance. Let’s show Canada, and the world, that every child matters. Thank you. Hiy kitatamihin.

Hon. Victor Oh moved second reading of Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as sponsor of Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents), introduced in the House of Commons by Mr. Kyle Seeback, Member of Parliament for Dufferin—Caledon.

I have the privilege to support a bill that would advance the rights of family reunification for parents and grandparents with children and grandchildren who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada.

Bill C-242 aims to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, in regard to the super visa, brought in by the Conservative government in 2011. In its current state, this super visa is a multiple-entry visa for 10 years that allows grandparents and parents to reunite with their Canadian children and grandchildren here in Canada.

To be approved for the super visa, applicants must first have a signed letter from their child or grandchild that officially invites them to Canada. The child or grandchild must be able to prove that they can financially support the applicants for the duration of their visit.

The applicants must also be admissible on medical grounds through a medical exam and have private medical insurance from a Canadian insurance company. This insurance must have at least $100,000 emergency coverage and be valid for one year from the date of entry. Proof that the insurance is paid in full is also required.

Bill C-242 makes two amendments to the IRPA regarding the super visa. The first amendment is to allow the applicants to purchase health insurance from a company outside of Canada. Of note, these companies would have to be pre-approved by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. As a result, this would allow increased competition between Canadian and foreign insurance companies, thus reducing the price of premiums.

One of the reasons why reducing these prices is important is the fact that the cost of private health insurance can be expensive, particularly for lower-income people. This cost is on top of the application fee for the super visa, plane tickets and the medical exam, plus other expenses. Taken together, these costs could serve as an impediment for parents and grandparents to reunite with their children and grandchildren here in Canada.

It’s important to note that in order to be eligible for the super visa, applicants must pass a medical exam. Applicants will have passed this exam and proved they do not have any pre-existing health conditions, major issues or concerns that could consequently place a burden on Canada’s health system.

I would also like to note that this bill addresses any potential issue of the foreign insurance company not paying the Canadian health care system or health provider by requiring the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to approve the health insurance policy prior to the approval of the super visa. This measure will significantly mitigate the risk of any unpaid claims.

In addition, this amendment would lower the cost of insurance for those trying to use the super visa, and the proposed safeguard would ensure that Canada’s health care system and its health providers are protected from any unpaid claims.

The second amendment being proposed is to extend the authorized time a grandparent or parent is allowed to enter and remain in Canada from the original two years to five years over a ten-year span.

It’s important for me to note that there was a recent change. If applicants applied on or after July 4, 2022, they may be eligible to stay for up to five years at a time. Further, some applicants may also be able to stay for five years if they applied before July 4 but didn’t arrive in Canada until after this date. For those who received the visa or entered Canada before July 4, their time remains two years. This amendment to make it permanent for five years is important so that all future applicants may share this benefit.

This amendment would provide additional time for the parents or grandparents to spend time with their family without worrying about having to leave Canada so often. Further, this allows the grandparents to save money by not having to purchase a plane ticket to leave Canada and instead contribute to their family. Again, this consideration becomes even more important when we think of lower-income people in or visiting Canada.

Another improvement this bill requires would be for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to prepare a report on reducing the minimum income that the child or grandchild of a foreign national must have to be approved for a super visa.

I strongly believe that this element deserves our thoughtful consideration given the potential impact on many new Canadian families. As you are no doubt aware, it is not uncommon for new immigrant families to struggle at first when they move to Canada. Perhaps the jobs they qualify for don’t pay enough, or their credentials from their country of origin don’t translate here, and they have to take a job that pays lower wages. Whatever the reason, there are many immigrant families who cannot apply for the super visa because they simply don’t meet the income test.

Some might argue that grandparents or parents would not contribute to the Canadian economy. However, having grandparents does help the economy by providing support to families and allowing Canadian parents to go to work. Many of the families who sponsor their parents or grandparents for the super visa are in the Canadian workforce or own their own family business. By having the parents or grandparents here in Canada, they are able to watch the children while the parents go to work. They could even directly help with the family business.

That support allows the parents to continue contributing to the Canadian economy because of that extra help and aid. Further, parents who otherwise couldn’t afford childcare and who, therefore, would not be able to work are now able to leave their children with the grandparents and go to work.

According to the study What do Sponsored Parents and Grandparents Contribute? by Madine VanderPlaat, Howard Ramos and Yoko Yoshida:

. . . not only is the family good for the well-being of the individual, it is good for society as a whole because access to family relationships and networks can support and mitigate the settlement and integration process. By providing child care and/or labour to family owned businesses, sponsored parents and/or grandparents can contribute to the overall economic well-being of the family and support the educational pursuits and labour market activities of other family members. . . . In addition, the possibility of sponsoring relatives may be an important element in attracting and retaining immigrants.

Colleagues, Bill C-242 is important for our country and for Canadians with families across the globe. If passed, this bill would reduce barriers to family reunification so that Canadians can benefit from familial support while also contributing more actively to the Canadian economy.

The benefits of this bill are significant to those families. That is why I rise today to support Bill C-242. I encourage you to do the same.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Omidvar, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, Pericles, a politician born in ancient Greece in approximately 495 B.C., said, and I quote, “Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us.”

The Greek capital, Athens, undoubtedly owes its most brilliant period to this statesman. In addition to his support for the arts, architecture, philosophy and the introduction of democracy, he had a vision that can surely serve as inspiration for us today.

It is with this in mind that I rise to speak to Senator Paula Simons’ inquiry, drawing the attention of this chamber to the challenges and opportunities facing Canadian municipalities and the importance of understanding and redefining the relationship between municipalities and the federal government.

I want to begin by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation, a place where many municipalities were born.

Colleagues, we are all aware that Canadian municipalities are currently facing many challenges, be they economic, social or cultural. I’m particularly concerned about how these issues relate to human rights.

Growing poverty, the number of homeless people in some of our cities, including here in Ottawa, the affordable housing shortage, violence against marginalized communities and women — let me take a moment in remembrance of the women at l’École Polytechnique de Montréal — public transit needs, the impact of climate change on our lives, these are all issues that demand concrete action to strengthen cities’ ability to ensure that their citizens can live safe, healthy, full lives.

[English]

While Ottawa is our workplace where we collectively serve the best interests of all Canadians, our communities from coast to coast to coast play pivotal roles in our lives. Whether it be my hometown of Caraquet, New Brunswick, Kelowna, British Columbia or Iqaluit, Nunavut, our municipalities help to shape our cultural and linguistic identities. Those are the places we call home — the places where we live, work, celebrate, raise our children, love and imagine our futures.

As a more proximate level of government to citizens, municipalities are also the places where we can express our grievances on a myriad of issues, such as public transit, water and sewer services, animal control, road maintenance and waste management.

Colleagues, it is simply appalling that those democratic bodies are facing so many challenges today.

[Translation]

The first such issue is undoubtedly the unequal status of municipalities in relation to the provinces, a status enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and reaffirmed by the courts.

The term “creature of the provinces,” commonly associated with municipalities, derives from the division of legislative powers under section 92.8 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that municipalities are under the authority of the provincial legislatures.

It is therefore provincial legislation that “creates” these entities by defining their powers of intervention. Legally, the provinces have the power to change the structure and governance of municipalities, whether it be the composition of a municipal council or even the powers of a mayor.

This lack of political autonomy can impede their development, and that’s unfortunately not the only issue facing Canadian municipalities. In particular, they have to deal with limited revenue sources, with the primary source being property taxes. This has a disproportionate impact on the delivery of public services.

From that perspective, many municipalities face challenges in the delivery of cultural and linguistic services. There’s also no denying that federal government support in these matters is crucial and expected.

I want to draw your attention today to the vital role that Canadian municipalities play with regard to official languages and the arts and culture sector by giving a few examples from my province, New Brunswick, and highlighting how the federal government can and must be a true partner to municipalities.

Our municipalities have a leading role to play in protecting and promoting our official languages.

Some provincial and territorial language regimes set out specific official languages obligations for municipal institutions.

For example, in New Brunswick, if the official language minority population of a municipality is at least 20% of the total population, the provincial legislation on official languages requires the adoption and publication of municipal ordinances, including services and communications set out in regulations, in both official languages.

Dawn Arnold, Mayor of Moncton, New Brunswick — the only officially bilingual city in the country — said the following about the impact of official languages on the economic, social and cultural development of her city, and I quote:

Moncton puts a great deal of emphasis on respect for its two linguistic communities and our bilingual status is a source of great pride. Moncton’s economy is flourishing in great part because of the presence of a bilingual workforce to support the ability of businesses to provide exceptional service to their clientele, generate greater economic activity and promote job creation.

[English]

Bilingualism also leads to infrastructure development as schools, post-secondary institutions, hospitals and more are built to accommodate this unique population. A market segment for products and services in French is also created, such as cultural activities, restaurants, services like translation, customer service, banking, et cetera, thus allowing a community to fully prosper.

[Translation]

The federal government also contributes to the prosperity of Canadian municipalities through the Official Languages Act, which, it is important to remember, is quasi-constitutional in nature.

Part VII of the act is vital to ensuring the sustainability and survival of official language minority communities, which are an integral part of our country’s municipalities. It sets out the federal government’s explicit commitment to enhance the vitality of French and English minorities and support their development.

In New Brunswick, for example, the implementation of this commitment resulted in a federal government investment of $776,000 in 2018 to support a governance initiative to improve the provision of French language services through municipal group projects. That is a positive measure that recognizes the contribution that municipalities make to the development, vitality and growth of the Canadian francophonie.

It is important to note that the current modernization of local governance in New Brunswick is the biggest reform the province has undertaken since the Equal Opportunity Program in the 1960s under the government of Acadian Premier Louis J. Robichaud.

Prior to that reform, approximately one-third of New Brunswick’s population lived not in municipalities, but in local service districts administered by the Department of Environment and Local Government, a structure that enabled the administration and delivery of local services to unincorporated regions of the province with neither mayor nor councillors.

This long-awaited reform, which strives to attain a higher democratic ideal, is radically transforming governance in my province by reducing the number of local entities and devising French versions of the names of certain entities, thereby affirming the importance of our communities’ linguistic and cultural heritage. This initiative explicitly recognizes municipalities’ contribution to the linguistic, cultural, political and economic development and vitality of our province and its Acadian regions.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Government of New Brunswick for undertaking this important reform, and I extend my heartiest congratulations to the recently elected members of the municipal councils of these new entities.

[English]

Going back to the Official Languages Act, I will highlight that Part VII of this act also provides that Canadian Heritage can take measures to:

. . . encourage and assist provincial governments to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities generally and, in particular, to offer provincial and municipal services in both English and French . . . .

The implementation of this provision has notably resulted in the signing of agreements with provincial governments to help municipalities provide services and communications in both official languages, such as the translation of municipal bylaws. Notwithstanding Part VII, under Part IV of the act, members of the public have a right to receive services from federal institutions in the official language of their choice, notably if there is significant demand for these services in that language or if the nature of that service justifies it.

As we all know, colleagues, the federal government is in the process of modernizing the Official Languages Act to better attain substantive equality between Canada’s official languages through Bill C-13, which includes some provisions that touch, directly or indirectly, on the vitality of municipalities.

[Translation]

Bill C-13 clarifies the nature of the duty of federal institutions, including federal departments, to take positive measures to implement certain federal government commitments, such as enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities in certain strategic sectors.

[English]

Honourable senators, taking positive measures to support sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities equally helps to make municipalities more vibrant and robust. In other words, the development of official language minority communities is a catalyst for growth for Canadian municipalities whether it be economically, socially, culturally or politically.

[Translation]

Our Canadian municipalities, especially in the regions, are also facing a major challenge with regard to declining populations in the regions. Immigration is a key factor in addressing this problem, which is only getting worse, year after year.

Bill C-13 provides for the adoption of a francophone immigration policy. This provision, which will undoubtedly help counteract declining populations, will likely have an impact on the operations of municipalities, including francophone associations, whether at the stage of welcoming, integrating or retaining immigrants.

Beyond official languages, there’s no doubt that the arts, culture and cultural industries are true vectors for the development, growth and promotion of our Canadian municipalities, and that the federal government also has an important role to play in this area.

Before coming to this place, I had the privilege of leading the États généraux des arts et de la culture dans la société acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick, a major social project aimed at promoting the cultural development of the province’s Acadian jurisdictions. This approach centred on ensuring that all sectors of society were involved in developing and implementing initiatives to integrate culture, the arts and heritage in their jurisdictions.

This major project, carried out by the Association acadienne des artistes professionnels du Nouveau-Brunswick and funded by the federal and provincial governments, sought to develop a global strategy for integrating the arts and culture into New Brunswick’s Acadian society. In other words, a national cultural policy had to be created for the Acadian people.

Today, the implementation of this global strategy is under way and has resulted in significant changes in Acadia. Municipalities in New Brunswick of varying sizes have adopted cultural policies with the help of a training and support project partially funded by Canadian Heritage. These cultural policies have embedded the arts and culture in several key sectors within municipalities, such as tourism, health, education and the economy, thus contributing to the economic, social and cultural development of our regions.

Guy Chiasson, Mayor of Balmoral, in New Brunswick, participated in this project and created a cultural policy. He said, and I quote:

The creation of a cultural policy for and by the people has made it possible for our municipality to develop in several areas at the economic, social and cultural level.

One thing is clear: Federal government support for the community partners of municipalities is a concrete way to contribute to the development and success of our municipalities.

I would be remiss if I concluded this speech without recognizing the role that Canadian municipalities can play in Canada’s cultural diplomacy. In 2019, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade conducted an important study on this. In its report entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy, it recommends, and I quote:

That the Government of Canada explore opportunities for greater and more effective collaboration and coordination with provinces, territories and municipalities in its cultural diplomacy activities.

The use of cultural resources in our municipalities from one end of the country to the other can and must be at the heart of the federal government’s cultural diplomacy initiatives.

In this regard, while we often tend to focus on large cities, I want to reiterate how important it is that the federal government do everything in its power to support and help small and medium-sized cities, which are found throughout Canada. They are the true engines of cultural, economic and social development for our country.

Colleagues, these are all ways in which the federal government can support our Canadian municipalities. There is much more to be said about the fundamental role that these municipalities play in our country’s development.

Federal, provincial and territorial relations are key to ensuring that municipalities continue to develop. It is my hope that the various instruments available to these different levels of government will fully meet the needs of our municipalities.

In closing, I would like to quote Pericles once again: “To be happy means to be free and to be free means to be brave.” May we be brave enough to work together to strengthen the relationship between the federal government and our Canadian municipalities, so that our constituents can live happily and freely. May we create, as Senator Audette suggested, spaces for meeting, rebuilding and co-creating, where together we can dream of the country we call home. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On Motion No. 68 by the Honourable Frances Lankin:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be authorized to examine and report on the impact of subsection 268(3) of the Criminal Code, enacted in 1997, including but not limited to:

(a)the reasons why there have been no prosecutions under this provision since its enactment 25 years ago; and

(b)the extent to which female genital mutilation is currently occurring in Canada and to Canadian girls taken abroad for such procedures;

That the committee make recommendations, as appropriate, to ensure the Criminal Code provision has its intended impact of ending such crimes being perpetrated against girls in Canada; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I have a few questions if Senator Audette will accept them.

Senator Audette: Of course.