Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for spelling that out.

Am I correct that of those five Indigenous organizations you spoke of, four are included in this bill on the council, but the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is not? I also believe that they were inserted as an amendment at one point in the House of Commons process, and then, all of a sudden, I think that amendment was taken out. Could you shed a little bit of light on that?

As well, could you tell us your understanding of the approximate number of people that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents? Thank you.

Hon. Patrick Brazeau: Honourable senators, we’re already on Bill C-29, so we are moving at lightning speed here.

I have just a couple of comments on Bill C-29. In the preamble, it states:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with Indigenous peoples through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership . . . .

Colleagues, that sounds very nice. Those are beautiful words. I have seen this before and I have seen it too often.

If we move along to clause 10 of the proposed bill, we have the proposed directors of the board of this new organization, namely representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and the Native Women’s Association of Canada.

Colleagues, the last time that I checked, there were five recognized and funded national Indigenous organizations in Canada. I don’t know if it’s by design or just a simple omission, but there is no proposition to have on this board any member of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which I used to lead as national chief.

Like I said, section 35 of the Constitution gives us a definition of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. It says that the term “aboriginal peoples of Canada includes . . .” — is not limited to, but includes — “. . . the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.”

Now, it doesn’t say that these peoples are going to be represented specifically by Indigenous organizations.

Colleagues, for those who don’t know, on June 11, 2008, the former government and the former prime minister offered an apology in the House of Commons. I was able to be there, along with four other Indigenous leaders at the time.

On June 12, 2008, the next day, Indigenous leaders were to give speeches in the Senate — on the original Senate floor. Colleagues, I had to fight my way to make sure that I was able to speak the next day because we were not on the list. The Senate at the time had to introduce a motion to allow the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to speak.

I do not know what is going on with political parties, but they are playing partisanship politics with Indigenous peoples. There will be a time where I will speak more in depth about the political relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada since Confederation. But, colleagues, I think that when this bill goes to committee, it is absolutely necessary that the Minister of Indian Affairs appear before the committee — not bureaucrats — and tell us why they have excluded one of the national Indigenous organizations, one that has been in existence since 1971.

For those of you who do not know, we often talk about the “big three” organizations: the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council. Well, colleagues, the Métis National Council came out of what was originally called the Native Council of Canada, which is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples today. Many of the people who are on the Métis National Council today broke off from the Native Council of Canada in the 1980s.

I will just remind you, colleagues, that, in my view, being a former elected Indigenous leader of an organization in this country, there are five organizations, and it is up to the minister to tell us why he has excluded one of them. If there is an exclusion of one recognized Indigenous organization, I fail to see how there is any respect, cooperation or partnership here.

At the end of the day, these organizations are not the organizations that are going to be negotiating nation-to-nation partnerships with the Government of Canada. They don’t have that right. They are Indigenous organizations, so this nation-to-nation concept is not going to happen with those organizations. The nation-to-nation concept will happen with the Algonquin nation, the Mi’kmaq nation, et cetera.

To conclude, these five Indigenous organizations — four, in particular — were created because of the 1969 white paper that was introduced by the current Prime Minister’s father. We must not forget that these organizations are also funded by the Government of Canada. It is unfortunate that I have to say this, but if these organizations decide not to play ball with the government of the day, sometimes they are punished. I certainly hope this is not the case for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. They are one of the recognized organizations, and they deserve to be there. If they are not there, hopefully we’ll hear from the minister as to exactly what the reason or reasons are why this organization, which has been around since 1971, has not been included. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 6:54 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 2, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

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

Hon. Michèle Audette: Thank you very much for your presentation, senator. Would you agree that we are now mature enough in this chamber for the committee to get together to study important issues, like the Supreme Court decision? Not many people know that there was a time when only five organizations were recognized. Through the diversity of the First Peoples, the First Nations, I want to be represented by my own community. However, I don’t want to overshadow anyone. Our diversity is distinct, and certain things belong to each of us. The decisions we make here will have an impact on the important organizations that work with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on Bill S-201.

Before I make my points, it is worthwhile to put a little bit of background on the record.

The bill was introduced here in this chamber on November 24, 2021. The concept — in a number of bills — has an interesting history that I think bears consideration.

The bill was introduced the last time — before this time — in the Senate in the last session. It was sent to Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for study, but the committee had no meetings because of dissolution. This is the third time — maybe the charm — that Senator McPhedran has introduced this particular bill in the Senate.

What is interesting, though, is that this bill has been introduced in the House of Commons nine times through introductions and reinstatements after prorogation, dissolution, et cetera. In all of the nine times, it has made it to second reading once. That actually happened in this session of Parliament.

The House of Commons version of this bill is called Bill C-210. On September 28, 2022, the House defeated Bill C-210 at second reading by a healthy margin, 77 for and 246 against.

Again, this is the only version of this bill that made it to second reading in nine attempts in the House. All this is to say that the House of Commons has, on nine separate occasions, made it pretty clear that they are not inclined to support this idea, including defeating the proposal at second reading in this particular Parliament with these same MPs who are there now. That is some background I thought was interesting enough to be put on the record as we considered the second reading of Bill S-201.

It is also worth reminding us all that when the Senate passes a bill at second reading, it has effectively agreed to the principle of the bill and that they wish to send it to committee for further study and scrutiny. The alternative to passing at second reading is to vote no. We always have the opportunity at second reading to vote no. That would be a signal that we don’t accept the principle of the bill.

I will read from page 131 of Senate Procedures in Practice:

Debate at second reading focuses on the principle or merits of the bill. This debate is intended to address questions such as: “Is the bill good policy?,” “Is it worth pursuing further?” and “Will it be a good law?” The general issues raised in the bill, and not the specific content of its parts and clauses. . . .

It is rare for the Senate to defeat bills at second reading, but I would submit to you, senators, that if there were ever a bill that we should consider defeating at second reading, it is this one. And I will outline my concerns.

The first one is the practicality of it. We have a limited amount of time in committees to study private members’ bills, so I question why we would spend time studying a bill on a subject that has already been defeated in the other place on this exact same topic with the exact same MPs sitting in their chairs in the House of Commons.

There is a legality question as well. If we pass this bill all the way over there, it would likely be ruled out of order, because there is a concept of something called “prior question.” You can’t ask the same question again in the same session of Parliament. So it’s at least likely that the Speaker would rule the bill out of order and we would have wasted a bunch of time — committee time, debate time — on something that the House would send back to us saying, “We have already considered this. What are you doing?”

Third is the principle. I believe the subject matter of this bill is not one that the Senate should be initiating. It deals with elections to the House of Commons, and we should reserve ourselves to sober second thought on matters that pertain to federal elections. It is, in my mind, disrespectful for the Senate to proactively seek change to election processes for members of Parliament, but that’s my opinion.

Again, given that the very elected colleagues who populate the House of Commons right now have recently rejected this proposal by an overwhelming majority, I think they would question our respect as well.

Colleagues, it gives me no pleasure to present such a negative position on a bill proposed by one of our honourable senators, but there are situations, I think, where we as a Senate need to take some decisive action on matters like this. I know that Senator McPhedran would like to see this bill come to a vote. In fact, she has been asking, through scrolls, over the past number of months as to when we might be ready to vote on the bill. I am ready to vote no on this bill whenever it pleases the Senate to call the question, including today. Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of April 25, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, introduced in the House of Commons on April 20, 2023, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;

2.in addition, the following committees be separately authorized to examine the subject matter of the following elements contained in Bill C-47:

(a)the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy: those elements contained in Clauses 118 to 122 concerning cryptoasset mining in Part 2, and Divisions 1, 2, 6, 7, 26, 33 and 37 of Part 4;

(b)the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources: those elements contained in Divisions 20 and 36 of Part 4;

(c)the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans: those elements contained in Subdivisions A, B and C of Division 21 of Part 4;

(d)the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade: those elements contained in Divisions 4, 5, 10 and 11 of Part 4, and in Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4;

(e)the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: those elements contained in Divisions 30, 31, 34 and 39 of Part 4, and in Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 4;

(f)the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs: those elements contained in Division 24 of Part 4;

(g)the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: those elements contained in Divisions 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35 and 38 of Part 4; and

(h)the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications: those elements contained in Division 2 of Part 3, and Divisions 22 and 23 of Part 4;

3.each of the committees listed in point 2 that are authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill C-47:

(a)submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 2, 2023; and

(b)be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting;

4.as the reports from the various committees authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill C-47 are tabled in the Senate, they be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting, provided that if a report is deposited with the Clerk, it be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting following the one on which the depositing is recorded in the Journals of the Senate;

5.the aforementioned committees be authorized to meet for the purposes of their studies of the subject matter of all or particular elements of Bill C-47, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto; and

6.the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to take any reports tabled under point 3 into consideration during its study of the subject matter of all of Bill C-47.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would you take a question, Senator Tannas?

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Housakos. I ask for leave of the Senate that, following my intervention, the balance of his time to speak on this matter be reserved.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

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

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise to also speak in support of Bill S-244, Senator Bellemare’s bill proposing an Employment Insurance council. I believe the thoughtful measures this bill contains will play a key role in reforming Canada’s Employment Insurance system. This bill will help create a more resilient, adaptable, responsible and practical social safety net for Canadian workers.

The EI system was established in Canada in 1940. The federal government used to be one of the financial contributors to the program alongside employers and labour. However, in 1990, the federal government’s financial contributions were eliminated as the fund became self-financing. That is to say that the entire cost of the program is now shared between employers and employees. The system continues to be administered through Employment and Social Development Canada. I note this so that we understand how little feedback and involvement businesses and employees have in the design of Canada’s EI program.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought to light where our social safety nets and service delivery systems underperformed, albeit in extraordinary circumstances — I will give them that. Canada’s EI program was one of those safety nets that failed to live up to expectations. The system was not equipped to deal with the sudden decrease in labour force participation caused by the pandemic. As our country grappled with the situation, the EI system struggled to provide benefits for those who needed them the most. The federal government stepped in to respond to the urgent economic needs of Canadians by implementing the temporary Canada Emergency Response Benefit, also known as CERB, which provided financial support to employed and self-employed Canadians directly affected by COVID-19. Applicants received $2,000 for a four-week period, or $500 a week.

That was helpful, but the CERB did not solve the problems with EI. While the pandemic was perhaps the most recent example of the system failing to work for those who need it most, in truth, it has operated for decades without fully considering the realities of the changing labour market. In a recent op-ed published in the March 25 edition of the Toronto Star, Senator Bellemare argued that the government’s decision to create the CERB was a necessary response to an unprecedented crisis, but that the need to have to create the program at all highlighted long-standing problems and inefficiencies with our EI system.

Many papers and reports have been written on this subject, among them the 2021 House of Commons report titled Modernizing the Employment Insurance Program. Here are some of the issues that report identified: inadequate eligibility criteria that excludes many workers; long wait times for benefits; a lack of support for workers in non-traditional employment arrangements such as the gig economy; inadequate training and education programs that may not equip workers with the skills needed for emerging industries; inflexible maternity and parental benefits and insufficient support for caregivers. The report concluded that the program:

. . . no longer reflects the realities of today’s labour market and is not well-positioned to respond to sudden labour market disruptions, such as those that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. . . .

Our long-term resilience requires a more flexible and responsive EI system that can meet the needs of Canadian workers and employers, regardless of their location or industry. We need a system that can adapt to changing needs and the ever‑increasing demand for new skills and education. A flexible and functional Employment Insurance program will undoubtedly be a crucial component of Canada’s preparedness for future crises that may disrupt economic activity. It could provide financial stability to workers who have lost their jobs due to a crisis or due to the impact of automation and AI — artificial intelligence — replacing repeatable jobs. It could, or should, also promote fiscal recovery by continuing to stimulate the economy, support social cohesion by reducing the social and economic impacts of a crisis and provide support to vulnerable groups such as low-income workers, women and marginalized communities.

The federal government, seemingly in agreement with this argument, recently reached the end of extensive consultations aimed at modernizing EI for the post-pandemic period. However, it is Senator Bellemare’s belief, which I and many others share, that to create a resilient and adaptable system, reforms and new solutions must be informed by a continuous dialogue where there is an exchange of ideas and information between government, employers and employees. The main difference between consultations undertaken by government and continued social dialogue is that consultation is usually a temporary event aimed at gathering information for a specific purpose, unlike continued social dialogue, which is an ongoing process of engagement aimed at building relationships and promoting mutual understanding, which leads to building trust and promoting transparency.

Continued social dialogue is the most conducive to fostering long-term collaboration between stakeholders and policy-makers. Continued social dialogue involves regular meetings, consultations, negotiations and other forms of engagement to ensure that policies reflect the needs and interests of all stakeholders across dynamic and diverse regional economies. In the case of EI reform, continued social dialogue is crucial because it allows us to take a holistic approach to the issue. We can involve all stakeholders in these discussions, listen to their concerns and develop solutions that are practical, effective and sustainable. For example, by involving employers in the discussion and by identifying ways to provide more training and support to Canada’s diverse workforce, we would effectively reduce the need for EI in the first place.

Involving the labour force in the discussion will identify ways to also improve access to training and education which, in turn, will help workers find new employment quicker than otherwise — contributing to their household finances and our economy, as well as the tax base and shared prosperity.

Furthermore, continued social dialogue helps to ensure that policies are fair, inclusive and effective. When all parties feel that they have been heard and that their needs have been considered, they are more likely to support reforms and to implement them successfully.

Senator Bellemare’s bill seeks to address the imbalance between employers, employees and the EI regime itself. The bill takes a holistic look at the system, and recognizes that for the reform to effectively address the challenges that Canada faces, the government must treat employers and workers as true partners in finding and implementing solutions. The bill proposes to create a council that would act as an advisory body to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, or CEIC, which is the commission that oversees and sets policy for the Employment Insurance program. This new council would be comprised of an equal number of labour and employer representatives. It would be co-chaired by the Commissioner for Workers and the Commissioner for Employers, both of whom sit on the CEIC. It would not alter the membership or structure of the CEIC itself, but would be an advisory council that could provide advice and make recommendations.

The rationale for creating this advisory council is to give labour organizations and employers a formal structure to provide feedback to the CEIC on matters related to Employment Insurance. Currently, many labour groups and organizations that represent employers feel that they do not have enough opportunity to provide the CEIC with the necessary feedback, which underscores the need for this new advisory council.

This bill is being supported by labour groups, including Unifor, the Canadian Labour Congress and Canada’s Building Trades Unions, among others. On the employer side, it is being supported by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, among others.

Honourable senators, this bill seeks to address one of the key issues with the Employment Insurance regime: It doesn’t work as well as it should for both employers and labour. Continued social dialogue can help us develop a more flexible, responsible and sustainable EI system that can meet the demands of all employable Canadians. It can also help to build consensus and trust between different stakeholders, and ensure that the reforms are implemented and embraced successfully.

Establishing a council such as this one is a positive step that will benefit the entire system. For that reason, I support Bill S-244, and I respectfully ask all colleagues to support this initiative in its speedy referral to committee. Thank you. Hiy kitatamîhin.

(Debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the 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).

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, first of all, I would like to thank Senator Kutcher for bringing this bill forward.

This has been triggering for me, and that is the most important time to speak: when your voice shakes.

Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die.

If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol.

That is from Proverbs 23:13-14.

The little girl of eight years old looked at her white blouse where a spot of blood had dropped from her bleeding nose. She hoped that her look of disbelief and astonishment of where the blood came from — and how it could be on her shirt — would forestall what she knew was to come. Of course, she would be blamed for the accident. She couldn’t have known she was going to have a nosebleed. She was hit with a closed fist on her back between her shoulder blades. She was a thin girl, and the fist easily found her bones. She started to cry from pain, from fear and from shame.

She was told, “Stop crying, stop crying,” with every hit of the closed fist. She knew she had to stop if she hoped the beating would stop. And for many years, it was difficult for me to cry.

Honourable senators, the following information that I share is taken from a piece entitled “I Was Spanked and I’m OK: Examining Thirty Years of Research Evidence on Corporal Punishment” by Joan E. Durrant. When we look at the advocacy and research done around the safety provided by seat belt legislation, we made that change to ensure that we no longer placed our children at undue risk. Systematic research across different countries found that seat belts reduced the risk of injuries and fatalities to drivers and occupants, which led to mandating the use of seat belts in cars. Public education campaigns accompanied these legal changes to raise public awareness of the risk.

Today, very few of us would say, “I survived without a seat belt so my child will too.”

By 2020, there were more than 100 studies on corporal punishment. They consistently show that corporal punishment places children at risk, and not one study has shown corporal punishment to have positive, long-term impacts. Corporal punishment does not promote the healthy, long-term outcomes that most parents hope to nurture, and it places children’s developmental health at risk.

Colleagues, what follows is the research on three developmental outcomes: prosocial behaviour, non-violent conflict resolution and positive mental health.

Prosocial behaviour, such as helping, sharing, co-operating and comforting, benefit others. When intrinsically motivated, these behaviours reflect empathy, altruism and compassion for others. They are key indicators that predict successful adolescent development. Prosocial development is fostered through the attachment between the child and at least one caregiver. The child learns to trust and rely upon the caregiver for support. By the age of two, the child exhibits rudimentary prosocial behaviours. Their concern for others becomes visible in their facial expressions, in their voices and sometimes in their behaviours.

Children’s capacities for behaving positively in the social world emerge from positive experiences in close relationships within the family. As children grow and inevitably act in ways that hurt others, effective parents use those opportunities to draw attention to the impacts of the child’s actions on the other person. In psychological terms, this is known as “induction,” which entails providing an explanation that helps children understand the effects of their behaviour on others.

Induction promotes internalization of values because it facilitates the child’s deep processing of their parents’ message.

What is the impact of corporal punishment on prosocial development? Parental responses that arouse stress, anxiety or fear interfere with internalization because the child’s capacity to process their parents’ message becomes impaired. The child instinctively concentrates on dealing with the perceived threat.

Punitive, threatening or painful parental and, in my case, institutional responses also undermine attachment, which is critical to moral learning. With sustained negative parenting, the child’s learning is impeded — and moral development becomes replaced by hostility and resentment.

Honourable senators, in her 2002 research on corporal punishment, Elizabeth Gershoff concluded that:

. . . corporal punishment can impel children to avoid misbehaviors in order to avoid future punishment but cannot on its own teach children the responsibility to behave independently in morally and socially acceptable ways.

Bernadette Saunders’ studies on children in Australia — these are children who were in residential school — found that children tended to experience corporal punishment as humiliating, intimidating, frightening and damaging. The children spoke of feeling powerless, vulnerable, helpless, unjustly treated and of wanting to avoid those parents or institutions.

Now imagine, colleagues, if you lived in residential school and you had no supports to counteract the negative and violent ways you were raised by complete strangers for simply demonstrating innocent, childlike behaviours. Children and adolescents were indeed powerless, vulnerable, helpless and unjustly treated by church representatives and teachers with no recourse to fairness or ability to be heard. Many learned to shut down and become invisible, which negatively impacted communication skills.

Honourable senators, another attribute that most parents hope to cultivate in their children is non-violent conflict resolution. Social scientists referred to one’s ability to read others’ emotions and use that information to guide actions, inhibiting aggressive impulses and regulating anger as emotional intelligence.

And how is this non-violent conflict resolution postured? Emotional competence depends upon the ability to recognize, identify, monitor and regulate one’s emotions rather than denying, suppressing or controlling them. These abilities grow out of a secure parent-child attachment in which children feel safe expressing their emotions and parents respond sensitively and supportively. When parents help their children connect their emotions to their growing reasoning capacities, neural pathways are formed that will become increasingly strong if they are repeatedly activated.

What is the impact of corporal punishment? When children are physically punished, they are placed in a situation where they are unable to express their emotions. They are stripped of their voice and their power of expression. Corporal punishment ends the conversation, discouraging and suppressing the child’s emotional expression. What the child learns is simply how to impose one’s will upon another person.

Every study conducted on the relationship between corporal punishment and aggression has found that corporal punishment predicts higher levels of aggression among children and youth. The aggression may be physical, verbal, relational, instrumental — whether it is intentional and planned or impulsive and reactive — direct or subtle. This aggression may be directed towards siblings, parents, peers or intimate partners or carried out in person through social groups or social media.

Longitudinal studies following a group of children over a number of years found that corporal punishment increases children’s aggression over time and has an increasingly powerful effect on anti-social behaviour as children get older.

Imagine the students in residential school who have been taught that aggression and violence are normal in relationships. Do you wonder why this engrained violence lands many Indigenous people in the prison system today? If you were taught throughout your formative years that violence in its many forms was acceptable, role modelled by nuns and priests, isn’t that what you would then role model to your children and they to theirs? This is what we call intergenerational trauma.

Honourable senators, positive mental health is an overall feeling of satisfaction with life, the capacity to enhance our enjoyment of life and a belief that we can deal with challenges as they appear. When we face adversity, we can continue moving forward if we believe that we have agency — the ability, power and efficacy — to overcome obstacles and take new directions in life. This is a part of self-determination. It was self-determination that was removed from us systematically in residential school.

Some central concepts in mental health research are coping and resilience. Coping is the capacity to manage the stress of adversity, obstacles and potential failure. Resilience is the capacity to move through and surmount adversity, processing its pain and moving forward into life.

How is positive mental health fostered? Positive mental health is developed within interpersonal relationships. A critical component is the belief that one can have an impact, elicit a response and effect change. This belief begins to form in infancy when parents respond to their baby’s cries and meet their baby’s physical and emotional needs. This is the beginning of a sense of efficacy, self-confidence and self-worth. With parents’ help, their toddlers learn and practise self-regulation within a secure and trusting relationship, as young children come to learn that they can tolerate and even master frustration and solve problems.

What is the impact of corporal punishment on mental health? The prerogative to strike is solely the parent’s. The child’s role is to submit to the punishment. This contributes to a loss of agency. The more these experiences are repeated over many years, the more powerless the child feels. This can lead to learned helplessness, a state in which the child comes to believe that they have no control over outcomes. This belief can manifest itself in anxiety, addictions, suicidal tendencies and other difficulties indicative of compromised mental health.

When I left residential school, I believed I had no agency over my life, and that is what places many of the missing and murdered women at high-risk.

In the book Decolonizing Discipline, edited by Valerie Michaelson and Joan Durrant, the editors state:

Based on British common law allowing corporal punishment “to correct what is evil in the child,” the text of Section 43 justifies the use of corporal punishment by parents and those standing in the place of parents. It has been used to defend the assault of children in homes and schools for more than a century and allowed those operating the residential schools to inflict violence on children with impunity.

Honourable senators, today we know that corporal punishment poses dangers to children’s emotional and overall development. We also know that section 43 has permitted gross physical punishment in the past. If we know that discipline is really about teaching and guidance and that we can promote children’s health and development more effectively without corporal punishment, why would we want to continue to permit it or allow children to be placed in such a vulnerable position?

Colleagues, even after section 43 of the Criminal Code is hopefully repealed, unless the underlying narratives that enable the rationalization of abuse against children are addressed, children will still be vulnerable to other manifestations of these same narrow, theological frameworks that justify the power and control of one group over another. Society needs to confront the ways that these very colonial systems that have helped to shape this country continue to enable various oppressions to this day.

Honourable senators, I urge you to support the swift passage of Bill S-251 and, by doing so, stand in support of the defenceless and vulnerable children who will greatly benefit from the progress that this bill will bring about. Kinanâskomitin.

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Kutcher, but Senator McCallum’s time has expired, unless she is given five more minutes to answer a question.

Are you asking for five more minutes to answer a question, Senator McCallum?

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Loffreda, for the second reading of Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting. I hope we can move this bill through committee and the Senate with your full support.

Before I get to my remarks, I invite each senator and your staff to watch the recently released Canadian documentary BURNED: Protecting the Protectors. This film tells the story much better than I can. It provides a hard-hitting and emotional examination of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAs for short, used in firefighters’ protective gear.

When you take into account the other chemicals they breathe in and are covered in whenever they run into a burning building, there is no surprise that their risk for cancer is so high. That said, our fire departments and firefighters conjure different images for each one us: small volunteer teams, large urban units, some with frequent and simultaneous runs, some in rural regions with tremendous access challenges, and some even from our families. We all know the tremendous importance they play in our communities. We need them.

As the first senator from Waterloo region in 71 years, spending time with our firefighters and first responders has been a priority for me in ensuring that I understand the needs of this community, which includes seven diverse townships. At the height of the pandemic, I visited the fire halls when able and had Zoom calls with the platoons to listen to their ongoing issues.

A few weeks ago, thanks to the last-minute efforts of our Black Rod and his officer Chasse Helbin, we were able to give a group of eight Waterloo firefighters a once-in-a-lifetime tour of the Senate Chamber. They were here for the International Association of Fire Fighters Legislative Conference. These firefighters returned to Waterloo with a very informed understanding of the Senate and were deeply moved by the work we do. I left understanding just how important this legislation before us today is to them.

The bill focuses on occupational cancer, of which our firefighters are at a severely heightened risk. I would like to get some of what I have learned from them since their visit on the record today.

First, from one of the firefighters on his return to Waterloo:

While lobbying for cancer coverage in Ottawa, I returned home, and one of our members died from occupational cancer within the week.

From another:

A common occurrence in our departments is that if members with occupational cancer do make it to retirement without having their careers cut short, or passing away on active duty, then they are dying very soon into retirement.

Firefighters are dying, and dying young, from occupational cancer. These cancers can come from years of exposure to toxic chemicals and gases that are products of combustion. In some cases, this cancer can be directly linked to one incident, such as the Horticultural Technologies fire in Kitchener. This was a large-structure chemical fire in 1987.

Colleagues, for a moment, let’s focus on the impact of this one fire I just referenced, on the lives of those who confronted it. I quote the following personal experiences from Ed Brouwer, an instructor who has diligently researched the devastating effect this one fire had on the lives of those firefighters on duty, years after the flames had been quelled. As he writes, Dave Ferrede:

. . . was a fitness and health nut. He was often teased for eating nuts and berries. He was an avid cyclist, driving his bike through the winter using studded tires. Ferrede . . . played hockey in the Southern Ontario Firefighters Hockey League. . . . In April 1989, in a divisional title game near the end of the third period, Dave scored the winning goal, locking up the division title. Two weeks later, Dave, 32, went on sick leave and was subsequently diagnosed with primary liver cancer. He died within six weeks.

Dave’s death was followed by that of Capt. John Edward Stahley, who:

. . . after being diagnosed with primary liver cancer died in July 1990 at age 57.

During the summer of 1989 —

— all within a few years —

— Sgt. Lloyd MacKillop of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, who had been the supervising police officer at the fire, developed cancer. He died in May 1990 at age 48.

Firefighter John Divo, who was the local union president, was diagnosed with terminal cancer in his lungs and spine. He died in April 1990 at age 46.

Firefighter Henry Lecreux was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. He died in February 1993 at age 52.

The following spring, William Misselbrook, who was the day-shift platoon chief at the fire, died of liver cancer. He was 64.

Several other firefighters who attended the blaze have skin cancers, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease and many other health problems.

Information gained from the website for firefighters with Parkinson’s disease showed that 23 of the 69 firefighters called to the blaze have either cancer or Parkinson’s disease. The site also reports that the two Kitchener firefighters, a Waterloo Regional Police constable, and a female paramedic all fathered or gave birth to children with birth defects after their attendance at the fire.

Colleagues, on a global note, last summer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, declared firefighting as a Group 1 carcinogen, meaning it found sufficient evidence to link the job to the risk of certain cancers. It is one of only five occupations to receive this designation. While firefighters were validated by this announcement, it has taken decades to lobby to get presumptive workers’ compensation coverage. It still does not go far enough.

In Canada last year, 95% of on-duty deaths of Canadian firefighters were linked to cancer. In 2018, a study found cancer killed Canadian firefighters about three times more often than the general population.

What is the greatest exposure that is causing the greatest risks? There are several sources of carcinogens that firefighters regularly encounter. They are chemicals released during fires, smoke and soot, asbestos, exhaust and firefighting gear. Yes, the gear they wear is carcinogenic. You can see the subtle changes if you know where to look. Remember when you or your children posed with firefighters in their gear? This is no longer done, as firefighters keep their protective gear on for as little time as possible.

The bill before us today is the request for the minister to develop a national framework designed to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting, with the goal of improving access for firefighters to cancer prevention and treatment. The framework should be the result of robust and inclusive consultation. Finally, through this bill, the month of January will be known as firefighter cancer awareness month.

As I close today, I am reminded of my own experiences and curiosity as a young person. At the age of nine, in the wee hours of a snowy December morning, I awoke to the smell of smoke and the sense of heat. I ran from my second-floor bedroom and tried to wake up my brothers and get them out of the house. As we watched our rented farmhouse rage in flames, we waited for the local rural firefighters to arrive. Following the fire, as we tried to salvage some items, even after industrial cleaning, the smell of smoke continued to be so strong — so much that we had to throw away most of what we salvaged. From those days forward, as a curious young person, I always wondered what it was like to fight fires and what the impact of smoke and toxins was. Today, I have a much better idea.

Honourable senators, I ask for your support in getting this bill to committee as soon as possible so we can get the support where it is needed most. Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Yussuff, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material).

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Thank you, Senator Patterson, for your cogent and penetrating speech. I support the change in terminology. I want to ask you, though, about whether there may be an unintended consequence of changing the term away from “child pornography” to suggest that there may be forms of child pornography that are acceptable. This, in effect, creates a category that we all agree is, in fact, exploitation, but by saying that the old term was inadequate, are we saying it is acceptable?

Senator R. Patterson: Thank you for the question. I think you have a very good point.

In Canada, pornography is not illegal. If you keep that term in there, you focus on that and not necessarily the child.

That is why I think it is very important that this bill goes to committee in order to carefully explore terminology that is being used and to look at what I would say in my old life as second- and third-order consequences of changing this language. I think your point is very good. Thank you.