Hon. René Cormier: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, in preparation for the renewal of the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-28, yesterday the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, published a brief entitled Éviter le point de rupture or “Avoiding the breaking point,” describing an exceptionally critical situation within francophone minority organizations.

This brief, based on a poll of 188 organizations, reveals, in a very worrisome way, the precariousness of Canadian francophonie organizations. It reveals that 90% of the organizations offer a lower salary than the Canadian average and that more than half the organizations consider the lack of competitive salary critical to achieving their mission.

The FCFA estimates that your government will need to invest an additional $300 million for francophone minority organizations in the next action plan.

How does your government plan respond to the data and findings of this brief, especially in the context of the renewal of the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-28?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for the question.

The brief published by the FCFA identifies a number of challenges, and I am told that the minister had a chance to review the brief during the recent Canada-wide consultations on official languages.

As part of the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018-23, the government increased funding for official language minority community organizations, or OLMCs, by 20%. However, it’s clear that several issues remain.

As you pointed out, the government is currently working on a new action plan for official languages to support OLMCs, implement our language reform, and protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec.

The government is grateful for the contributions made by community members and advocates in the discussions on the action plan. It intends to respond to the challenges raised, which are described in the brief and which you mentioned. It will respond in greater detail in the action plan to be announced shortly.

Senator Cormier: Senator Gold, as I’m sure you would agree, Canada’s francophone organizations, in all regions of the country, are tireless leaders when it comes to defending and promoting our two official languages. How does the government plan to respond to their grievances in the context of the current modernization of the federal language regime?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I sometimes pause, and perhaps my body language betrays me, because I am trying to ensure that my answer is factual, responsible, that it isn’t misleading and certainly doesn’t contain assumptions which I regularly have to remind you I do not accept.

I do not accept that this government cannot count. I do not accept what I think is a rather irresponsible allegation of deliberately trying to deceive Canadians.

The ArriveCAN app was designed and implemented to protect Canadians, to make sure that we had the best tools available in as quick a time as possible to be aware of and track cases of people infected with COVID coming into Canada.

As is the case with so many measures that were introduced quickly — both by the government and, in some cases, through legislation that we passed quickly in this house — it was imperfect. There is no question that this will be true of this app and many other apps.

The government still believes that it played a useful purpose, and the money invested in it was money invested for the safety of Canadians.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, the only people who feel betrayed in this country are Canadian taxpayers who have been betrayed by this government for a number reasons.

Senator Gold, now that the mandatory use of the ArriveCAN app has finally and rightfully been scrapped by your government — that is how useful it has been — why does the CBSA still expect to use the full amount that has been budgeted for this fiscal year, which doesn’t end until March 31, 2023? It’s a simple question.

Also, will your government do the right thing and forgo enforcing financial penalties wrongfully levied against Canadians because of their inability to use this flawed app?

There have been a number of hard-working Canadians who reached out to my office and who have been fined up to $18,000 for the simple fact that there was a glitch or they did not have access to ArriveCAN. At the end of the day, don’t you think it is only responsible to remove these fines, or has this flawed app become another tax grab at the expense of these betrayed Canadian taxpayers?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of the YWCA from my region of Atlantic Canada. The YWCA, as you know, is dedicated to, among the many things that it is dedicated to doing, ensuring the provision of housing solutions that meet the needs of women, gender-diverse people and their families.

Our guests cited several troubling statistics about the gendered housing crisis and they brought those to my attention. For example, one in four women-led single-parent households live in unsuitable, inadequate or unaffordable housing. Also, women and gender-diverse people are more likely to experience hidden forms of homelessness, such as couch-surfing or staying with friends and family, meaning that the full scale of the gendered housing crisis is not fully understood.

Senator Gold, will the government heed the call of the YWCA and increase funding under the National Housing Strategy through a grants-based system to fully fund shelter, transitional housing and permanent affordable housing specifically dedicated to women and gender-diverse people?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for the question.

Not every home is a safe home. The pandemic has only intensified this very sad and altogether too often tragic truth.

That is why the government took swift action to support women and children fleeing violence by providing $100 million to women’s shelters, sexual assault centres and other gender-based violence support organizations across the country.

As well, the importance of transitional housing cannot be overstated. The government has made sure, through the National Housing Strategy, that 25% of this 10-year, $70-billion plan is being dedicated to women and children. That means at least 7,000 spaces will be created or repaired for survivors of family violence. In March of this year, $30 million was announced to build 160 new affordable housing units in Regina, 39 specifically designated for women and children fleeing domestic violence. Half of those 39 are second-stage transitional housing.

The government will continue to evaluate emerging needs in terms of financing.

Senator Gold: All of the government’s work in this area takes into account the diversity of needs and the diversity of profiles of those in need of this. That said, through the government’s initiative entitled Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy, the government is supporting the most vulnerable Canadians in maintaining safe, stable and affordable housing, and also, of course, to try to reduce chronic homelessness.

The government acknowledges that homelessness has an impact in every community in Canada. It affects individuals, families, women fleeing domestic violence, youth, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities. No one escapes.

The Reaching Home initiative continues to support efforts to increase the understanding of homelessness in Canada and to ensure that communities have the information and tools they need to prevent and reduce homelessness, and this is a first step toward raising the issue, not only at the federal level but at all levels of society.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, in July, the NDP-Liberal government announced its plan for reducing emissions in the oil and gas sector by 42% in eight years, which included a policy option for a cap-and-trade system. To meet these targets, your government would have to halt all new oil and gas projects, in addition to delaying existing ones.

I can get into many reasons why this is misguided, but in a recent National Post article, Robert Merasty, former chief of Flying Dust Cree Nation, argued that this policy will particularly harm Indigenous communities that have already invested in these projects.

As you know, leader, Truth and Reconciliation Day was last week. Your government, again, verbally affirmed its commitment to reconciliation efforts many times, and yet your actions do not reflect this. Mr. Merasty stated that your government’s efforts often fall short of real self-determination for Indigenous peoples.

Leader, knowing that a majority of Indigenous peoples support oil and gas development, as reflected in our Environics Research poll in June, why then would your government propose a policy that would wipe all of that away and take them a step backwards from self-determination?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan moved third reading of Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-224, which aims to facilitate the conviction of those charged with human trafficking-related offences. This bill will amend the Criminal Code’s definition of exploitation in human trafficking offences so that the Crown is no longer required to prove that a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances feared for their safety or the safety of someone they know. This will put the onus on the perpetrator rather than the survivors.

I would like to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for showing support for this bill and offering suggestions to strengthen the bill while highlighting the necessity to first change the wording of the current definition of exploitation in human trafficking offences in the Criminal Code.

Human trafficking is a modern form of slavery that is on the rise worldwide, with an estimated 40 million victims. It is a practice that relies on abuse and coercion to exploit young victims for sexual purposes or work. Traffickers will approach victims in various ways, either by convincing them that they are a potential friend or boyfriend, contacting them on social media, posting ads for jobs or even threatening or kidnapping them. Victims often do not realize that traffickers don’t have their best interests at heart.

In Canada, the geography and layout of the highways makes it easy for traffickers to avoid detection by law enforcement and maintain control over their isolated and disoriented victims. Although there is a popular belief that victims of human trafficking are brought into the country, most victims are young Canadian women. Among the most at-risk groups are women and girls, new immigrants, children in the welfare system, persons living with disabilities, members of the LGBTQ2+ community and migrant workers. The most vulnerable are Indigenous children who live with the impact of hundreds of years of ongoing trauma.

It is incredibly difficult for a victim to break free from their trafficker, and it is a practice known as low risk with high reward among traffickers. Very few cases have been successfully prosecuted in Canada: According to Statistics Canada, less than 8% of perpetrators charged with human trafficking have been prosecuted.

Too much responsibility is put on the shoulders of people who have endured unimaginable things. Most survivors do not identify as victims as a result of manipulation and gaslighting, and yet they are usually the only evidence against traffickers. Without their testimony, the Crown has no case.

Sadly, testimony shows that the fear-based model is the biggest issue when dealing with convictions and that the experience is more traumatizing than being forced to work in the sex trade. During cross-examination, it is common for the defence lawyer to twist their words and call them a liar. This can lead to survivors recanting or simply dropping charges.

According to the current Criminal Code, the offence rests more on a victim’s ability to perform on the witness stand rather than on what the perpetrator has done. Hence, human trafficking charges are often dropped, and traffickers are charged under related crimes such as prostitution-related offences, kidnapping, assault, sexual assault and sexual exploitation. This is not justice.

Honourable senators, by removing this barrier — the element of fear — we will finally be able to tackle bigger challenges in human trafficking in Canada. This is the first crucial step to putting an end to this horrible practice in our country. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, Senator Ataullahjan.

I rise to once again support, at third reading stage, Bill S-224, which is sponsored by my colleague, Senator Salma Ataullahjan.

As she clearly stated, I’m the critic for the bill to amend the Criminal Code in respect of trafficking in persons. I agree with its objective, as I explained at second reading stage.

[English]

According to the International Justice and Human Rights Clinic of the University of British Columbia School of Law, asking victims to prove reasonable fear may be a barrier to a conviction for human trafficking. The requirements of the human trafficking offence are more onerous than those of other offences of a similar nature. For example, in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trafficking in persons is also prohibited, but it does not require that an individual believe that their safety would be threatened. That is a more appropriate standard.

The new section proposed by Senator Ataullahjan has the great merit of sticking to the vocabulary of the Palermo protocol, and therefore focuses on the actions of the trafficker and not on the fears of its victims. The change in language proposed in Bill S-224 is even more necessary because this crime has a disproportionate effect on Indigenous women and girls, who are 10 times more likely to be victims of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation than non-Indigenous women and girls.

I strongly believe it is time that we adapt our Criminal Code to the reality of women and girls who are the victims of human trafficking.

Thank you very much, senators. I hope we pass to the next step.

Senator Plett: Senator Deacon, thank you for your explanation. It would have been nice if the sponsor of the bill had been able to give an explanation yesterday; we probably wouldn’t be discussing this today. However, we did not get that yesterday.

I do have a question before I ask for the adjournment. I am told that there are two Liberal members of Parliament in the House of Commons who have completely opposing views on this. Both of them are from Prince Edward Island. If this is something that all Islanders want, why would those two members have completely opposing views? There is something there that we are not seeing, I think. I might be wrong.

Senator C. Deacon: I think it’s good when parties can have members with differing views on situations. I view that as a positive thing. This is a situation where there is a lack of fairness. Yes, one side is benefiting in a manner that is not justifiable. Certainly in the eyes of the commissioner it is not justifiable and hasn’t been for quite some time, and another side is being penalized for sure. Those MPs are doing a good job of representing their constituents.

We’re talking about having a system that delivers greater fairness across a very small area, and that the change itself was not justified and how it was justified was not accurate. The Employment Insurance system has evaluated that through the Commissioner for Employers for several years and the recommendation keeps being ignored.

Is it a politically divisive issue, and does that benefit one politician and not another? Potentially, but that’s not our job here. Our job here is to try to bring as much fairness to those that are not being properly represented.

Senator Plett: Well, I won’t bother asking another question because I’m getting exactly what we got yesterday. It’s not an answer to a very simple question. Instead I’m being schooled in politics. Clearly, Your Honour, you asked a simple question yesterday and did not get an answer; I asked an equally simple question today and got absolutely no answer. I’m not sure whether Senator Deacon believes the same as Senator Duncan did about Question Period. You don’t answer questions. This is not Question Period.

Nevertheless, in light of the ambiguity here and in light of some of the issues, there are some of us who would like a little more information that we are clearly not going to get in this chamber. I’m not sure how we’re going to do that.

I want to assure this chamber the Conservative caucus will in no way try to delay this bill, but we do have a one-week break coming, so I’m going to ask for the adjournment for the balance of my time and we will deal with this when we come back in a week’s time.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Would Senator Deacon take a question?

Senator C. Deacon: Yes.

Senator Patterson: Senator Deacon, since there are apparently concerns in the other place, according to Senator Plett, would you agree that, rather than trying to deal with those concerns in this chamber, the best way to deal with any concerns that may be extant in the other place would be to give the bill third reading now and let the House of Commons deal with any concerns they might have when the bill is referred to the other place?

Senator C. Deacon: I don’t know how to answer the question because I couldn’t have said it better myself. The reality is we can only deal with what we have control over. The issue raised by Senator Ringuette is one we feel we addressed in committee. It’s one that doesn’t actually affect our chamber. If there are disagreements in the House of Commons — and I gather they occur from time to time, even within given parties, even within the Conservative Party and within the Liberal Party — that happens. That’s not our job to fix, and I still encourage my colleagues to call the question on this today. Thank you very much.

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the second reading of Bill S-218, An Act to amend the Department for Women and Gender Equality Act.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Stan Kutcher moved second reading 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).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today in this chamber, situated on unceded Algonquin Anishinaabeg territory, as a representative of the Province of Nova Scotia within the lands of Mi’kma’ki to speak to second reading 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).

I begin by stating that this act addressing the TRC’s Call to Action number 6 is only a small but very necessary step on the path of reconciliation — or, as our colleague Senator Christmas has more eloquently put it, reconciliACTION.

I also do not view this repeal as a cure-all for ending all violence against children. I strongly wish that such a cure-all were possible. That said, repealing section 43, which currently provides protection for persons who use corporal punishment as a parenting tool, will be one step on this important journey here at home. I think every member of this chamber wishes that all violence against children would stop. We can do a small part in achieving that goal by supporting the rapid passage of Bill S-251 through this chamber.

Senators, physical punishment is defined as “the application of force to induce pain or discomfort for the purpose of correcting or modifying behaviour.” And, as you will hear from me today, physical punishment is neither necessary nor helpful in guiding and disciplining young people.

Indeed, the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the TRC’s Call to Action number 6, so let us move forward to make that recommendation a reality.

Journalist Carl DeGurse recently penned a piece for the Winnipeg Free Press on the issues around what some have called “corrective violence” or “corrective punishment” and parenting. He reminds us how difficult parenting is — and I can speak from personal experience that he is absolutely correct — and that those who spank or otherwise hit their children are not evil or acting out of cruelty. They may have learned this parenting technique through their own experiences or seen it practised within their communities.

What I will lay out today is that there are much better ways to provide guidance and discipline to children, ways that promote good physical and mental health without putting children at risk for poor outcomes. These corrections can be firm and comprehensive. But these techniques do not depend on violence or other types of physical punishment. We also now know that spanking and other types of violence against children often result in the opposite of what a parent is trying to achieve. And we now know that such use of so-called “corrective violence” or “corrective punishment” actually causes harm.

Through repeal of this section of the Criminal Code — which provides protection for those who use violence as a parenting tool — and through the pan-Canadian promotion of evidence-based parenting supports, we can both protect children from violence and assist all Canadian parents in learning and applying effective and much less damaging child-rearing practices.

I also believe that the repeal of section 43 is a necessary step in our continued evolution toward the type of society we strive to be — one that provides safe and secure environments for the next generations to grow and to thrive. It is a society that is working on acknowledging and righting historical wrongs, a society that puts the welfare of its children as a top priority, a society that stands up for those who are not yet able to stand on their own and a society that has evolved its parenting practices from corporal punishment to guidance and positive discipline.

Achieving passage of this bill is to uphold the commitments our country has made to abide by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — which Canada ratified in 1991 — and to address all 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. It also responds to the numerous reports calling for this repeal over the past several decades, including the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights’ 2007 report, which called for this repeal by 2009. Honourable colleagues, we are 13 years past that date.

As a reminder, section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada states:

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, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

This clause was the subject of a Charter challenge in 2004. At that time, the Supreme Court ruling — which was a split decision, six to three, and which was accompanied by much public confusion about the meaning behind “not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances” — included a set of guidelines to be followed with regard to hitting children. These guidelines noted that teachers may reasonably apply force to remove a child from a classroom; imposed an age range of 2 to 12 years in which hitting a child was allowed; and disallowed hitting a child with a cognitive disability, hitting with an implement, hitting a child on his or her head and hitting while angry.

Of interest, the court did not make any unique mention of human services providers — such as youth care workers, child care workers, corrections officers, police officers, child psychiatrists and psychologists, and many others — who must deal, day in and day out, with young people who demonstrate some of the most challenging, disruptive behaviours. These providers do not seem to be able to access the protections offered by section 43.

As one legal expert told me in discussing this ruling, “Happy second birthday. Now we can hit you.” Another commentator said:

It’s okay to hit a child, as long as the violence is premeditated and nothing larger than a fist is used.

Also, section 43 provides little — if any — additional protection that can be provided by alternatives already existing under the law, such as those used in defence when charged with assault.

Section 43 is an anachronism — an historical holdover from laws written in 1892 that permitted corporal punishment of employees, wives and children. Today, we’ve moved well beyond that. Employers are not legally protected from assaulting their employees. Husbands are not legally protected from assaulting their wives. However, it is still permissible, in our Criminal Code, to assault children.

Colleagues, as many of us know, this is not the first time a bill addressing this issue has been tabled in this chamber. The last time we saw a similar bill was in 2017. At that time, the bill passed second reading and was waiting for committee study when Parliament was prorogued. You will remember that the last senator to champion the repeal of section 43 was the Honourable Murray Sinclair, who had been chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He had taken on this bill from the former Senator Hervieux-Payette, who had introduced this bill eight times. I am privileged to be able to continue this work.

In further context, various versions of Bill S-251 have been introduced in the House and in the Senate since 1989. Actually, this will be the eighteenth time this bill has been brought forward. I am hopeful that we can finally see it through. Auspiciously, the number 18 is considered to be lucky in the Jewish tradition. It is synonymous with the word chai, meaning “life.” I feel that that this is a fitting omen. In this chamber, we can promote a better chai for our children by repealing section 43 this time — the eighteenth attempt.

As many of you know, thoughtful speeches on the repeal of section 43 have been delivered in this chamber, but it has been five years now since our last debates. Canadian society has changed substantially since 2017. I would ask you to consider how much more we, as a society, now know about the legacy of residential schools. How much more do we, as a society, now know about the negative impact that hitting has on children’s development and their subsequent health, including their mental health? How much more do we, as a society, now know that parenting techniques that include corporal punishment are no longer popularly supported, even by some organizations that had condoned or even promoted such approaches in previous decades?

Simply put, in a modern and equitable Canada, there should be no special legal protection for people who hit children. There already exist legal remedies against assault. Why should those legal remedies not also apply to children? Why should children have less protection from violence than any other group of Canadians?

Many Canadians are asking these questions and have taken up the cause of repealing section 43. Civil society groups, such as UNICEF Canada, Corinne’s Quest, Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates, as well as over 650 organizations and prominent Canadians have currently endorsed the Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth and have been imploring the federal government to repeal section 43.

Recently, nine national child service organizations, including the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and the Child Welfare League of Canada, put forward a comprehensive rationale for this repeal. It can be found on the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, or CHEO, website. This rationale lays out the issues surrounding children’s rights and protection against assault, as well as the evidence for long-lasting personal and societal harms of violence against children, changing Canadians’ attitudes toward hitting children, international developments and legal contexts.

I will touch on these issues that have taken place since our last debates five years ago. First, I will talk about children’s right not to be hit or — put into more poignant language — children’s right not to be assaulted. Let us remember what the definition of “assault” is in Canada, as noted in section 265.1 of the Criminal Code, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person without their consent.

When we say “physical punishment” or “corrective discipline,” we might be using a sanitized code phrase for “assault.” Internationally, Canada is falling behind on protecting the rights of children and falling behind on their commitments to reducing violence against children.

In 1979, Sweden led the way in outlawing “corrective violence” against children in any setting. Since then, 62 other countries have enacted laws prohibiting physical punishment of children in all settings. Eleven of those countries have moved to do so since this chamber last debated a bill to repeal section 43. This includes Nepal, France, South Africa, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Colombia.

We were privileged to host Senator Jillian van Turnhout from the Republic of Ireland in the chamber today. She played an important role in having Ireland become one of the countries to prohibit physical punishment of children. That occurred in 2015.

We should be embarrassed by how our country is not keeping up its international commitments to end violence against children. Canada has signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC. Section 1 of Article 19 states:

States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

Since ratifying the CRC in 1991, Canada’s progress has been frequently reviewed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, most recently this year for the combined fifth and sixth report. Each review has noted failings in Canada’s action on children’s rights, and reports have repeatedly called for the repeal of section 43.

Further, in 2015, Canada committed to supporting the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In that document, target 16.2 calls for an end to all forms of violence against children. In 2018, Canada signed on as a pathfinding country under the Global Partnership and Fund to End Violence Against Children. Canada is signing on to international agreements to prevent violence against children and saying the right things, but where is the action? The purpose of the pathfinding countries is to be leaders in the prevention of violence against children. How can Canada be among this group if we still permit our children to be hit?

We must question what it will take for us to repeal section 43, which the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, report describes as “. . . a relic of a discredited past and has no place in Canadian schools or homes.” Call to Action 6 simply states, “We call upon the Government of Canada to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.”

This Call to Action is placed in the education section of the report, which demonstrates the significant, long-lasting impacts on Indigenous people that occurred in educational institutions. The shameful legacy of residential schools has had substantive negative impacts on Indigenous communities and families for decades.

Many parliamentarians from all sides have stood in this place and in the other place condemning what happened in residential schools and apologized. Many have pledged their support to seeing all 94 Calls to Action moved forward.

Prime Minister Harper rose in the House of Commons on June 11, 2008, to deliver an apology on behalf of Canada for its role in the establishment of residential schools. He remarked on how new legal remedies would be applied to address the impact of these schools and how such remedies would form part of a “new relationship” between Indigenous peoples and other Canadians.

Upon receiving the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau’s statement referenced the previous government apology and included these words:

 . . . we will, in partnership with Indigenous communities, the provinces, territories, and other vital partners, fully implement the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission . . .

Other federal leaders such as Tom Mulcair, Elizabeth May, Yves-François Blanchet and Jagmeet Singh have addressed the importance of the Calls to Action and the necessity of their implementation. Former leader of the Conservative Party Erin O’Toole called for a plan to tackle all Calls to Action, and said:

We’re going to make progress on the TRC calls to action because they’re very important and they should be beyond politics.

Some have called for action beyond apology. As former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash said, “An apology, once made, is only as good as the actions that come after it.”

Let’s take these words to heart, honourable senators. We can act to repeal section 43.

This inglorious legacy itself merits this chamber moving forward to the repeal. Responding to this TRC Call to Action is, to my mind, enough reason for parliamentarians to move this bill expeditiously. There is, however, additional considerations for the rationale of appeal, and these considerations strongly support the TRC call.

Senators, there is substantial evidence demonstrating the enduring negative impact of physical punishment of children. Hundreds of research studies from many different countries conducted across decades have consistently demonstrated that physical punishment places children’s physical and mental health at risk, and that it worsens behaviour over time. Furthermore, and very importantly, there is simply no substantial body of research evidence that demonstrates that corporal punishment of any kind is actually helpful for children or that it has a positive effect on child health and mental health outcomes.

This evidence informs shifts in thinking and practice about physical punishment, similar to social shifts in seatbelt use and the impact of exposure to second-hand smoke based upon evidence of harm. These realizations hit a tipping point, and we acted. I believe we are now at another tipping point for physical punishment of children, and we have the power to act.

Indeed, a recent study has shown the negative impact of corporal punishment on child brain development. Children who are hit become more highly reactive to perceived threat, which is part of why physical punishment is consistently linked to increased child aggression. Being hit translates into hitting others.

Good evidence compiled since 2015 now clearly demonstrates that what was once called “mild corrective force” also has substantial negative impacts on children. In 2016, researchers Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of 75 scientific studies related to non-injurious spanking that was intended to correct a child’s misbehaviour. This was the kind of punishment that is consistent with the guidelines of the 2004 Supreme Court ruling. Such force does not leave a mark, is not applied to the head or to the area around the head and is not applied with an instrument. This is the type of assault that is colloquially called spanking. Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor showed that, across the board, spanking children is associated with more aggression, more mental health problems, greater negative relationships with parents and lower cognitive ability. In their concluding statement, they said:

. . . there is no evidence that spanking does any good for children and all evidence points to the risk of it doing harm.

More recently, in 2021, an analysis of 69 prospective longitudinal studies of child spanking and its impact on subsequent behaviour was published in the leading medical journal The Lancet. Some have argued, in support of spanking, that there is a chicken-and-egg problem — we don’t know if spanking causes bad child behaviour or if bad child behaviour elicits spanking from parents. That is an important issue. The 2021 study was conducted to address this question head-on. They analyzed studies that followed children over time to see if spanking predicted changes in their behaviour, taking into account — importantly — their initial levels of problematic behaviour. These researchers found that spanking consistently predicts worsening child behaviour problems over time and that this relationship is robust across different child and parent characteristics. They conclude that spanking is harmful to children’s development and well-being.

Some have argued that the evidence against spanking is not strong enough because it can’t definitely show that spanking is the cause of all these negative outcomes. It is true that experimental evidence — the bedrock of science — is difficult to obtain with regard to spanking because our ethics committees do not allow experiments in which children are randomly assigned to be hit.

However, numerous researchers have used quasi-experimental statistical methods to get as close as possible to an experiment. Separate studies using these methods with data collected from Colombia, Japan and the U.S. have universally found that, after they are statistically matched on family and individual demographic characteristics, children who are spanked have worse behaviour and worse performance on cognitive tests than children who are not spanked. These studies provide strong evidence that spanking does lead to worse outcomes for children.

Another argument that I have come across is that hugging children after spanking helps reduce any potential harm. Research has indeed indicated, over and over again, that showing children love and warmth is good for their development. However, such love and warmth are not enough to counteract the harms of spanking. Research has shown that spanking predicts increases in child aggression over time, regardless of how warm parents are to their children.

Colleagues, there is no solid research evidence that mild physical punishment is effective in improving behaviour or is in any way consistently beneficial to children. There are, however, numerous studies showing that hitting children increases the risk that they will become aggressive and develop mental health problems. In short, spanking makes the parents’ job harder, not easier.

Also in my research, I came across some arguments that it is biblically directed to hit children as a form of correction. In my assessment, as the son of a Presbyterian minister and a long-time churchgoer, this is not the case. Is there any place in the Bible where the words of Jesus Christ encourage parents to hit their children? No. Indeed, quite the opposite. Jesus Christ recognized the responsibility of kind and considerate parenting, and that did not include hitting children.

The King James Bible version of Luke 11:11 says:

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

Or in Mark 10:15:

Truly I tell you, anyone who does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

Or Matthew 19:14:

But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Does that sound like spanking to you?

Are there passages in the Bible that have been interpreted as encouragement to hit children? Yes, there are, mostly in the Old Testament, particularly in the Book of Proverbs.

Before I address that, let me be clear: The Book of Proverbs is not a child-rearing manual.

Proverbs 13:24 states:

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

That is the basis for the saying that many people think is written in the Bible, “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” Well, that statement actually does not appear in the Bible. It was created by one Samuel Butler, a 17th-century poet. It appears in a poem called Hudibras, where a love affair is likened to a child, and spanking is mockingly commended as a way to make love grow stronger. The verse reads:

What med’cine else can cure the fits

Of lovers when they lose their wits?

Love is a boy by poets stil’d;

Then spare the rod and spoil the child.

But if we unpack even that verse in Proverbs, does it really mean that parent misuse a rod to beat a child? Not at all. On the contrary, the use of the rod in the Bible is not as an instrument of corporal punishment. The shepherd uses the rod to guide, to protect and to count the sheep.

Recall the image of the rod in Psalm 23:4:

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death . . . thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

“To spare the rod” doesn’t mean to beat the child. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the parent to guide, discipline and protect. The rod is an instrument of guidance, discipline and protection, not a tool to hit with. “Chastise” does not mean to hit. It means to correct or chasten.

Numerous Biblical commentators and Christian parenting organizations support this perspective. Some don’t. The rod is a metaphor for guidance and discipline. It is not a directive to hit a child. Children can be disciplined without spanking.

As Thomas Haller, a Christian parenting and relationship expert notes, they can be treated with “grace, integrity, and love.”

Part of the process of ending child-rearing approaches that encourage parents to hit their children should be the work of legislators, such as ourselves. We can end the special protection given by section 43 to people who hit children.

We — and this is so important — can support the dissemination of best available evidence-based interventions that help parents and other adults use different, non-violent and effective forms of discipline and guidance. We have that knowledge now, much more knowledge than we had five years ago. We can right this wrong now.

Senators, it is time to act on Call to Action number 6. We’re coming up close to 10 years since the final TRC report was presented. Providing safe and secure environments in which children can grow and flourish is what we all want to have. These environments must include the home as well as all other places. We have many tools in our child guidance tool box that we can use to improve the lives and outcomes of all the children in this great country of ours. Repealing section 43 is an essential and much-needed tool for this tool box.

I ask all of you today to work together to quickly move this piece of legislation through our chamber to detailed study at committee, to help us live up to the commitments that we, as a nation, have made to protect the rights of our children and to advance the process of reconciliation that we are all committed to.

It is important to see this bill through so that we can say, once again, the Senate of Canada has acted to help the children of our country grow up safely and flourish.

I end today with the words of Marvin Bernstein, the child and youth advocate for Prince Edward Island:

. . . we must all take a stand to say emphatically that physically striking children is wrong under any circumstance. It is a matter of ensuring protection for the fragile bodies and tender hearts of our most vulnerable citizens.

Meegwetch. Wela’lioq. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator Boehm, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?