Hon. Leo Housakos: I would like the government leader to focus on today’s candle, and we’ll worry about Rapporteur Johnston for another time.

Back to MP Michael Chong, he and his family were targeted by the Beijing regime because he moved a motion in the House of Commons recognizing the Uighur genocide. A similar motion, sadly enough — it was a sad day in this institution when Trudeau-appointed senators defeated that motion.

Now, if Prime Minister Trudeau did not take action to protect Michael Chong because he is a Conservative and because of partisan reasons, that’s shameful. If it’s because of utter incompetence — as he hasn’t shown any ability to protect Canadians from foreign interference — that’s just as shameful.

Now that the Prime Minister has been called out by the media with concrete information, what does he do, colleagues? He calls for another investigation where now that everyone has resigned from the Trudeau Foundation, he is running out of people he can appoint to investigate all of his various failures. Who is he going to appoint now to investigate this particular failure? Will it be his mother or his brother? Or maybe, colleagues, he might appoint himself. I can just see it now: What did I know? When did I know it? Who told me? Why didn’t I do something about it?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, thank you for your question. As I mentioned in my response, Senator Woo, my understanding is that the RCMP is continuing to investigate these matters and, to the best of my knowledge, have not released the findings or the results. Therefore, I’m really not in a position to answer your question.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Senator Gold, you have just heard Senator Housakos make a grave and baseless allegation against Chinese Canadians in Montreal who are associated with certain community organizations. He was referring, of course, to Minister Mendicino’s declaration that all of the so-called Chinese police stations in the country have been shut down, including one alleged to have been located at the Service a la Famille Chinoise du Grand Montréal and another at Centre Sino-Québec de la Rive-Sud in Brossard.

Senator Gold, what evidence did police find to substantiate the claim that there were Chinese police stations in Montreal? What illegal activities have been stopped?

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Senator Gold, you have just heard Senator Housakos make a grave and baseless allegation against Chinese Canadians in Montreal who are associated with certain community organizations. He was referring, of course, to Minister Mendicino’s declaration that all of the so-called Chinese police stations in the country have been shut down, including one alleged to have been located at the Service à la Famille Chinoise du Grand Montréal and another at Centre Sino-Québec de la Rive-Sud in Brossard.

Senator Gold, what evidence did police find to substantiate the claim that there were Chinese police stations in Montreal? What illegal activities have been stopped?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, I didn’t hear a question, but —

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, and thank you for acknowledging the work that the government is doing with our allies in trying to get as many Canadians out as possible. Regrettably, circumstances on the ground have made it too dangerous, but efforts are ongoing. As we know, the minister is in Kenya working with allies.

Our traditions teach us that everything has a season. Right now, the focus of the Canadian government is on securing the safety of Canadians in the area. I will make inquiries as to what longer-range plans may be in place to help bring an end to the violence. It’s not obvious that the moment is ripe right now for those efforts as the fighting rages on, and the focus has to be on the safety and security of Canadians, but thank you.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: My question is again to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, I want to congratulate the government in the quick way it has evacuated so many people from Sudan and then asked for help from other countries in the evacuation effort.

Canada has led the way in Sudan with mediation. I know that people will think this time is not the right time to mediate between the warlords, but last time it was even worse. What is Canada doing to bring peace in that area?

Hon. Patricia Bovey: This question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, you know that Winnipeg is hosting the 2023 World Police and Fire Games this July and August. Planning is coming along well, the venues are ready and the hotel rooms are booked, as the city is poised to welcome the second largest international sporting event — second only to the Olympic Summer Games. The athletes are professional police, firefighters and paramedics. In other words, Winnipeg is welcoming first responders and their families to these games — it is an important tourist event, and doubly so coming off COVID.

But they have hit a problem.

Many of the athletes from India are being denied visas out of the apparent fear that they will stay in Canada. Senator Gold, these are professionals with professional careers in their home country. India is looking to host these games in several years and will be sending organizers as well as athletes. Of course, we will want our Canadian police and firefighter athletes to go there.

Can you assure the organizers that visas will be accorded to these athletes so that the games can carry on? When will the visas be given? Time is of the essence, as the games open in less than 90 days.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, colleague.

The government placed its trust in the collective bargaining process because it is the best way to protect the workers’ interests as well as Canada’s social fabric.

As you know, negotiations take time. There were more than just financial issues at play. There was also the important issue of telework. It took some time for the government to come to a responsible, fiscally prudent position and eventual final offer to avoid a domino effect on the provinces and other talks. It also took some time for the union to realize that the government’s offer was fair. I don’t think it took 20 days, but the process took time.

In the end, we reached a conclusion that is good for Canadians and good for public service workers. The result is also good for Canada, because it gives us a period of stability that I hope will last at least four years.

The government is pleased with the outcome, but also recognizes that strikes are always inconvenient for Canadians.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator.

The government does understand the disappointment and concerns over the delays of the applications and, indeed, the visa refusals to which you referred. The government is working closely with the organizers of this event, as well as all large events and conferences, in order to provide guidance on the processes surrounding the application for visas. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has put into place measures to facilitate the entry of delegates and participants of large events such as this one.

Colleagues, it’s undeniable that the current public service job action has affected the processing capacity of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, over the last few weeks, but — through me — the government is reaffirming its commitment to minimize that impact and to return to service standards.

Concerning the event, and to answer your question more specifically, the government has assured me that they are aware of the issue, and they are looking at ways to be facilitative for the participants of the event — to the fullest extent possible.

Hon. Victor Oh: My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, a recent report from the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada details the struggles that many Canadians are facing just to pay for their daily life. Their report entitled Consumer Vulnerability: Evidence from the Monthly COVID-19 Financial Well-being Survey shows that 38% of Canadians say they have to borrow money to cover their daily expenses — up from 26% in 2020.

The use of online moneylenders or payday loans by Canadians to manage daily expenses has more than tripled, and almost a third of Canadians reported that they are short on money at the end of the month. Leader, recent immigrants, Indigenous people and women were particularly vulnerable in each of these findings.

In light of this report, why did the Trudeau government believe that this was a good time to increase taxes?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): As I have answered to you, honourable colleague, previously, the meetings took place in the Langevin Block, not in the Prime Minister’s Office. Let’s be clear because — it’s the office building in which the Prime Minister’s — the meetings were with public officials. There was no evidence in the Prime Minister’s itinerary that there was such a meeting. The Prime Minister has said that he was not aware of such a meeting, and others who have attended such meetings in Langevin have also testified to the fact, or spoken publicly to the fact, that it is not necessarily the case at all that the Prime Minister would be aware of every meeting that takes place in that building.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Downe after Question Period on March 30, as well as a subsequent point of order raised by Senator Housakos on April 25.

In terms of the point of order of March 30, the remarks made during Question Period, which gave rise to the concerns, alleged that a member of the other place, holding a key position in public office, had misled Canadians. Then a very strong term, best avoided in parliamentary business, was used. Following a request from a senator, several other senators offered input on this matter on April 19.

Rule 6-13(1) deals with the language used in debate. It states that “[a]ll personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.” As indicated at page 85 of Senate Procedure in Practice:

There is no definitive list of words or expressions that are deemed unparliamentary. Determination of what constitutes unparliamentary language is left primarily to the judgment of the Speaker and the sense of the Senate. The circumstances and tone of the debate in question play important roles in this determination.

This is, of course, not the first time such issues have been raised. I note, in particular, a similar point of order raised on December 3, 2020, concerning remarks made during debate on a motion to authorize a committee to study a government contract.

I once again urge honourable senators to be mindful of the need for caution when participating in proceedings. In particular, parliamentary practice holds that “[d]isrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House [of Commons] and the Senate individually are not permitted.” This is at page 620 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which then goes on to emphasize that “Members of the House and the Senate are also protected by this rule.” In speaking of our colleagues, whether in the Senate or the other place, we should therefore be guided by the need to show respect and to avoid intemperate personalized attacks, including impugning motives.

Senator Housakos’ related point of order of April 25, dealt with remarks and actions that took place between senators following an exchange in the Senate. He argued that a particular senator had been “maligned and injured” and made reference to rule 2-9(2), which states that “[s]enators who consider themselves to have been offended or injured in the Senate Chamber … may appeal to the Senate for redress.” On the other hand, some colleagues claimed that the language and actions at issue were not excessive and not without precedent in the Senate.

Honourable senators, with the privilege of sitting in this house comes responsibility. We all work together for the good of our country. We can certainly disagree, and can even disagree strongly. Indeed, the exchange of conflicting ideas is vital to the health of our parliamentary system. We should, however, always act with civility and respect towards our fellow parliamentarians, and all persons we deal with or mention. All of us are responsible for ensuring the proper functioning of this institution, and we must avoid undermining it or each other.

Language and actions are powerful. Parliament should provide an example of productive and respectful debate, of a type that we do not always see elsewhere in society. We have a role to be leaders and must choose our words wisely. More practically, I am concerned about how such issues could harm the culture of the Senate and risk having deleterious effects on our work.

In light of all this, I am sure that honourable senators will understand the concerns that have been raised. Senators could have shown their strong views in ways that were less inflammatory. I strongly urge moderation and restraint by senators so that we can best fulfil our work on behalf of all Canadians. Collaboration from all colleagues is essential; the Senate must remain a forum for respectful debate while also retaining its characteristic as a body where each of us assumes responsibility for maintaining order and decorum.

In these specific cases, I must find that the events of which Senators Downe and Housakos complained did go beyond the limits of proper parliamentary behaviour. I ask colleagues to be mindful of these factors in the future. Specific actions relating to these cases would, however, require a decision from the Senate, in keeping with our collective responsibility for how our Senate functions.

[English]

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. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): You know, leader, every time we raise something, you question our integrity instead of questioning the integrity of the people who broke laws and who are lying.

Before the House committee on Friday, the former president of the Trudeau Foundation said its board members attacked her for her wanting to look into the truth behind Beijing’s $200,000 gift. You say Mr. Rosenberg is a respected person. He misled. He misled when he said something that was not true.

Government leader, it’s ridiculous for you to keep saying the Prime Minister has no links to the foundation.

On April 11, 2016, a meeting took place, leader, between deputy ministers from five departments and the Trudeau Foundation. This meeting was held, Mr. Leader, down the street, on the fourth floor of the Prime Minister’s Office building. It took place six months after Justin Trudeau became the Prime Minister and three years after he claimed he no longer was involved in the foundation.

There are dozens of boardrooms throughout Ottawa where that meeting could have taken place, but it wasn’t held in any of them. The reason why it was held at the Prime Minister’s Office, leader, is obvious to everybody, even to you, leader. How can you defend that? I have some very simple questions, leader, and please answer them. Don’t tell me how respectable everybody is.

Leader, it shouldn’t take you very long to find these answers. Was this the only meeting with the Trudeau Foundation and the Prime Minister’s Office, or have there been others? If not, how many were there? When? And why did they take place in the Prime Minister’s Office?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Downe after Question Period on March 30, as well as a subsequent point of order raised by Senator Housakos on April 25.

In terms of the point of order of March 30, the remarks made during Question Period, which gave rise to the concerns, alleged that a member of the other place, holding a key position in public office, had misled Canadians. Then a very strong term, best avoided in parliamentary business, was used. Following a request from a senator, several other senators offered input on this matter on April 19.

Rule 6-13(1) deals with the language used in debate. It states that “[a]ll personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.” As indicated at page 85 of Senate Procedure in Practice:

There is no definitive list of words or expressions that are deemed unparliamentary. Determination of what constitutes unparliamentary language is left primarily to the judgment of the Speaker and the sense of the Senate. The circumstances and tone of the debate in question play important roles in this determination.

This is, of course, not the first time such issues have been raised. I note, in particular, a similar point of order raised on December 3, 2020, concerning remarks made during debate on a motion to authorize a committee to study a government contract.

I once again urge honourable senators to be mindful of the need for caution when participating in proceedings. In particular, parliamentary practice holds that “[d]isrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House [of Commons] and the Senate individually are not permitted.” This is at page 620 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which then goes on to emphasize that “Members of the House and the Senate are also protected by this rule.” In speaking of our colleagues, whether in the Senate or the other place, we should therefore be guided by the need to show respect and to avoid intemperate personalized attacks, including impugning motives.

Senator Housakos’ related point of order of April 25, dealt with remarks and actions that took place between senators following an exchange in the Senate. He argued that a particular senator had been “maligned and injured” and made reference to rule 2-9(2), which states that “[s]enators who consider themselves to have been offended or injured in the Senate Chamber … may appeal to the Senate for redress.” On the other hand, some colleagues claimed that the language and actions at issue were not excessive and not without precedent in the Senate.

Honourable senators, with the privilege of sitting in this house comes responsibility. We all work together for the good of our country. We can certainly disagree, and can even disagree strongly. Indeed, the exchange of conflicting ideas is vital to the health of our parliamentary system. We should, however, always act with civility and respect towards our fellow parliamentarians, and all persons we deal with or mention. All of us are responsible for ensuring the proper functioning of this institution, and we must avoid undermining it or each other.

Language and actions are powerful. Parliament should provide an example of productive and respectful debate, of a type that we do not always see elsewhere in society. We have a role to be leaders and must choose our words wisely. More practically, I am concerned about how such issues could harm the culture of the Senate and risk having deleterious effects on our work.

In light of all this, I am sure that honourable senators will understand the concerns that have been raised. Senators could have shown their strong views in ways that were less inflammatory. I strongly urge moderation and restraint by senators so that we can best fulfil our work on behalf of all Canadians. Collaboration from all colleagues is essential; the Senate must remain a forum for respectful debate while also retaining its characteristic as a body where each of us assumes responsibility for maintaining order and decorum.

In these specific cases, I must find that the events of which Senators Downe and Housakos complained did go beyond the limits of proper parliamentary behaviour. I ask colleagues to be mindful of these factors in the future. Specific actions relating to these cases would, however, require a decision from the Senate, in keeping with our collective responsibility for how our Senate functions.

[English]

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. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Morris Rosenberg was a distinguished public servant who served the country well and whose report and the conclusions of the report were accepted across all quarters.

I am not aware of what was known at the time and what was communicated to him or others at the time that the donation was made. We now understand and know much more than may have been known at the time. Just because someone uses the term “misled,” which I have heard in this chamber directed at me, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, it’s clear that the $200,000 gift the Trudeau Foundation received from the Communist regime in Beijing was part of their plan to influence Trudeau and to interfere with our democracy.

On Friday, Pascale Fournier, the former president of the Trudeau Foundation, told a House committee that her predecessor, Morris Rosenberg, misled Canadians when he said Beijing’s $200,000 gift to the foundation was Canadian money and not foreign money. Ms. Fournier says there are emails and receipts that reveal the truth: that an association tied to Beijing dictated the terms for transferring those funds.

Leader, in light of Ms. Fournier’s testimony last week, does your government still stand by its choice of Mr. Rosenberg to write the report on foreign interference in the 2021 election, when he, in fact, misled the people on where the money was coming from?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and, again, for underlining the fact that so many Canadians are still experiencing difficulty with the basic necessities of life.

Yes, it’s true that inflation is continuing to fall, but not at the grocery store to the same extent, and not in other areas. But the Government of Canada has been and continues to be there to provide assistance to Canadians in this regard. We are in second‑reading debate on Bill C-46, which will continue this week, which will provide 11 million Canadians with assistance with putting food on their table. The budget implementation act and previous economic statements have also provided a suite of measures to assist Canadians.

It’s also the case that the government continues to move forward, and does so unapologetically, with measures in place to put a price on pollution to make sure that we strike the right balance between providing assistance to those Canadians most in need now and making sure that we do the right thing for their children, their grandchildren and, indeed, for this planet.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise to support Bill S-251, Senator Kutcher’s bill proposing to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. This provision authorizes schoolteachers and parents — and persons standing in the place of parents — to use reasonable force by way of correction.

The bill before us continues long and determined efforts to achieve this reform. Over the past 30 years, there have been 17 previous bills, in both houses, aimed at repealing or amending section 43, including one by our former colleague Senator Hervieux-Payette.

Why should this attempt succeed when so many have failed? I will suggest five reasons.

First, repealing section 43 is no longer just a question of children’s rights. As the bill before us recognizes, repealing section 43 is a necessary step in meeting Canada’s commitment to reconciliation, as recommended by Call to Action 6 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Second, in doing so, Canada will join an ever-increasing number of states. In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision on section 43 in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Attorney General in Right of Canada. At the time, 15 states prohibited all forms of corporal punishment of children. Today, that number exceeds 65, and an additional 27 states have:

. . . publicly committed to enacting legislation to explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment of children, however light, in all settings including the home, without delay.

Third, repealing section 43 is a necessary step to place Canada in compliance with its international obligations. It is true, as the Supreme Court majority observed in 2004 in Canadian Foundation, that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child does not “explicitly require state parties to ban all corporal punishment of children.”

However, it is also true that, two years later, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child clarified that the convention requires states to remove all provisions that allow some degree of violence against children, whether in their homes, their families or in any other setting.

Indeed, the committee specifically referred to the example of provisions for “reasonable correction” as a type of provision that should be removed — which is precisely what section 43 of our Criminal Code does. As the committee explained, the convention, “like all human rights instruments, must be regarded as a living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time.”

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the evidence around the efficacy of corporal punishment — or, rather, inefficacy — is clear and compelling. The corporal punishment of children and youth “plays no useful role in their upbringing and poses only risks to their development,” as mentioned by previous speakers on this bill. Indeed, the wealth of research around the “adverse lifespan consequences for children and the societal harm associated with physical punishment” should give us pause.

This brings me to my fifth and final reason why this attempt to repeal section 43 must succeed. It is the fact that public acceptance of section 43 is heading in only one direction: downwards.

Since 2004, 673 organizations from coast to coast to coast have signed the Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth. This statement, developed by “a national coalition of organizations facilitated by the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario,” recommends various actions, including “provision of the same protection of children from physical assault as is given to Canadian adults . . . .”

This means repealing section 43, which denies children — and only children — equal protection vis-à-vis the assault provisions of the criminal law.

At this juncture, it is perhaps helpful to spend a moment reflecting on the history of section 43 to understand that its sources are no longer relevant and by far obsolete.

Section 43’s immediate antecedents lie in the Parliament of Canada’s original codification of the Criminal Code in 1892, slightly after Confederation. At the time, section 55 was the codification of the common law rule that recognized the concept of “reasonable correction” as being part of the English common law. However, “reasonable correction” is far from a Canadian invention. As I said, it was a common law principle.

This principle was established in a case rendered in 1860 called R. v. Hopley. That decision dealt with the manslaughter charge against a teacher who, in the course of administering corporal punishment, beat a teenage pupil to death.

Although the teacher was convicted, the Hopley case endorsed the permissibility of inflicting “. . . moderate and reasonable corporal punishment . . .” for the purposes of “. . . correcting what is evil in the child . . . .”

It is interesting to note that Hopley’s reasoning rests on Roman principles, including the principle of patria potestas, whereunder fathers held the power of life and death over their children.

William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England stated:

The ancient Roman laws gave the father a power of life and death over his children; upon this principle, that he who gave had also the power of taking away . . . .

The power of a parent by our English laws is much more moderate; but still sufficient to keep the child in order and obedience. He may lawfully correct his child being under age, in a reasonable manner; for this is for the benefit of his education . . . . He may also delegate part of his parental authority, during his life, to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the power of the parent committed to his charge, viz. that of restraint and correction . . . .

Of course, the range of conduct defensible under section 43 since the 2004 judgment of the Supreme Court is much more curtailed than what was once allowed in the name of “reasonable correction.” However, the source of that principle goes back to the Roman Empire and 2,000 years ago when we could say that a man was the owner of his house, of his wife, of his children and had ultimate power to correct because education was done through correction. Fortunately, school teachers are no longer of that class of people, as my fearless leader knows.

However, as we consider section 43’s future, it is important, I believe, not to lose sight of the past. The raison d’être of section 43 is, and has always been, about one thing and one thing only: allowing the corporal punishment of children to correct them.

I would like to conclude by addressing the apprehension around the consequences that might flow from section 43’s repeal — namely, as Justice Arbour framed it in 2004 — and she was dissenting — the concern that:

Striking down s. 43 will not expose parents and persons standing in the place of parents to the blunt instrument of the criminal law for every minor instance of technical assault. . . .

Of course, she was making fun of the threat.

To borrow one example from debate, I think we can all agree, colleagues, that no parent should face criminal sanctions for forcing a reluctant child into a car seat. However, I would also hope we can all agree that no parent should enjoy permission to give their child a whack after getting them into the car seat.

Likewise, I think we can all agree that no teacher should face criminal sanctions for intervening to stop a fight or requiring a disruptive student to leave the classroom.

That happened to me in the past. I was asked to go into the corridor a few times. I am much better now.

However, I would also hope we can all agree that no teacher should enjoy permission to whip out the ruler — or worse — as was commonplace not so long ago.

I do remember the nuns using the ruler in the classroom. They asked you to come forward, to put your hand out and then they slapped it.

Interacting with children, whether as parents or teachers, engages a range of physical contact that falls far short of the conduct that comes to mind when we think of corporal punishment. That is undeniable. The question then becomes whether the criminal law and criminal process, as currently structured, could be used to charge these people who are just preventing something from happening.

A precise answer to this question is perhaps best left to the committee in its study. However, I would like to point out that the words of the Supreme Court, as well as the experience of other countries that have done away with provisions similar to section 43, have not shown that kind of odd consequence.

In 2004, when the Supreme Court majority upheld section 43’s constitutionality, three of the nine justices disagreed. Justice Arbour, in particular, took great effort to address the question of how parents and teachers would be protected despite the removal of section 43 considering the state of the law in Canada.

She concluded that “The common law defences of necessity and de minimis adequately protect parents and teachers from excusable and/or trivial conduct. . . .”

We would also be remiss to ignore the important — and effective — role of prosecutorial discretion in weeding out trivial and insignificant cases.

Likewise, section 34 of the Criminal Code contemplates the defence of oneself or others: You intervene to protect yourself or to protect somebody. That is a defence. In the case of a teacher who intervenes between fighting students, for instance, it is difficult to imagine what protection, if any, section 43 adds to the protection already available under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

In the international context, a recent experience in New Zealand, where they got rid of a similar provision, has shown that teachers have not been sued by the Crown for having separated children that were fighting. In fact, in 2007, New Zealand went further. It amended the Crimes Act to explicitly prohibit all corporal punishment of children, including in their home. That was targeted to parents.

Similarly, in 2000, the Supreme Court of Israel did away with the defence of reasonable correction, which, until then, found expression in the country’s common law source. They said that, as for “. . . insignificant cases that do not justify enforcement within the framework of the criminal law,” the court raised the mechanisms of prosecutorial discretion, and the principles of de minimis and necessity.

In conclusion, I think our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee could look carefully at the bill and dispel the concerns raised by some teachers’ associations, try to put everything in context and remind the public that section 43 can go away and a disaster will not occur afterwards.

Colleagues, I think it’s time to send Canadians the message that the power to impose physical correction is not the right way to educate children. That’s not the way we educate our children nowadays. Maybe the Romans thought that was the way to go, but I think we should depart from these old sources. Thank you very much. Meegwetch.

(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.