Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Would you take a question, Senator Deacon?

Senator C. Deacon: Yes, thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Do we have agreement on the bell?

Hon. Denise Batters: It is very short. I’m a member of the Legal Committee, Senator Deacon, and despite the Trudeau government including this part dealing with the Elections Act in their budget implementation act, were you aware that neither the Chief Electoral Officer nor the Privacy Commissioner were consulted at all by the Trudeau government despite their including this in their budget implementation act? Were you aware of that?

An Hon. Senator: Now.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time on the following division:

The Hon. the Speaker: So ordered.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

[Translation]

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

Hon. Senators: Question.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, a former adviser to President Obama, David Plouffe, pulled back the curtain on how politicians sometimes play politics. He called it the “stray voltage” effect. He explained:

“People pay attention to and engage with controversy.” So . . . as a politician, you commit to a side . . . regardless of whether you’ve ever thought about it — then you support or oppose vehemently!

That is exactly what has become of gun control legislation, Bill C-21. Those who live a more rural life, love to hunt or sport shoot and those who live in urban centres where crime is high — two very different world views.

As Robert Freberg, Chief Firearms Officer of Saskatchewan, says, the bill will essentially criminalize thousands of Canadians despite the fact that it is the legal firearms owners that support training, licensing and registration, despite all of the things they have done to stay in compliance and promote education programs and despite following the “see something, say something” principle. The legal gun owners are now the ones being targeted by legislation.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt you.

Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock, and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock when we resume unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock. Is it agreed to not see the clock?

The Hon. the Speaker: So ordered.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

[Translation]

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, as I was saying, Bill C-21 does not meaningfully address the root causes of gun violence — the illegal drug trade, drug addiction, illegal smuggling, gang violence. Again, I will quote the words of Saskatchewan’s Chief Firearms Officer, who says:

If you . . . look at the firearms they have seized and used in crime . . . they aren’t finding these assault style firearms. They aren’t being used. It’s a great optic, they look scary, but every firearm can look scary . . . it’s really the end use.

When we look at the American news . . . they have no regulations, they have no vetting, they have no education programs, they have no safe storage requirements, those firearms aren’t registered. It’s an entirely different paradigm.

The government often uses the U.S. events and their lack of rules to make a case for Canadian law, to shore up their own base, to look tough on crime for urban voters.

But these moves sometimes backfire. The plan to freeze handgun sales in fact triggered a buying frenzy. And many handguns have gone underground, family-owned handguns, because it’s so complicated to transfer to a son or a daughter. Of course, in the end, it will shutter hundreds of small businesses across this country that employ thousands of people selling legal guns to sane, non-criminal buyers.

This bill could also set a precedent for further bans and confiscations that the government may deem necessary for, in their words, “greater good, safety, and well-being of citizens.” It is a bit of a slippery slope.

This legislation, sadly, has little to do with saving innocent lives. The bill puts hunters, collectors and sports shooters in the crosshairs, but not the criminals.

And let’s not forget that an important but always forgotten effect of this bill might actually have to do with the cost of living. Many Canadians could use a gun to go hunting. As the cost of putting food on the table skyrockets, a deer or a moose in the deep-freeze can make a real difference. And killing the coyote that’s killing your cattle saves money and also puts food on the table.

But such practical thinking is just not part of the mindset here in the halls of Parliament. Let’s hope that we can ensure that we look at all aspects of this bill, the potential collateral damage for businesses and hunters, including Indigenous hunters with the traditional and treaty right to do so.

Consider the impact on families. Treat addictions that lead to crime. Enforce the full measure of the law on those who commit crimes with guns. Don’t defund the police or underfund the firearms officers. Support their good work and support legal gun ownership. And throw the book at the bad guys.

The House of Commons had a duty and a responsibility to create a better piece of legislation, and it failed. So it now falls to us. Let’s actually try to make sure Bill C-21 does something to make the country safer. Let’s also make sure that our laws respect the rights of law-abiding citizens. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

June 13, 2023

Madam Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that on behalf and at the request of the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, Christine MacIntyre, Deputy to the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 13^th day of June, 2023, at 6:09 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ryan McAdam

Director, Office of the Secretary to the Governor General

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Bill Assented to Tuesday, June 13, 2023:

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act (Bill S-5, Chapter 12, 2023)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise to speak at second reading of Bill C-21, which makes amendments to the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

The bill proposes changes to Canada’s firearms laws designed to better protect communities from gun violence, with particular emphasis on addressing gender-based violence, combatting smuggling and cracking down on ghost guns, which are untraceable firearms often built illegally on 3-D printers.

Also, crucially, the bill formalizes the national freeze on the sale, purchase, transfer and importation of handguns, enacted last year.

I’m supportive of these measures and look forward to seeing Bill C-21 progress through the remaining stages of the legislative process, but my reason for speaking today is to discuss the role of firearms in Indigenous communities and to share some thoughts that I hope will be useful to senators as our debate and study of the legislation continue.

For many Indigenous families, mine included, hunting is central to our history, culture, livelihoods and sustenance. Indigenous harvesting rights are treaty rights and were enshrined in Canada’s Constitution in 1982. Any law affecting firearms must preserve these rights. Moreover, the right to hunt and trap is deeply connected to Indigenous food security, connection to culture, rites of passage and identity formation.

With permission from my husband and my son, I want to share one of my family stories that illustrates this. My husband, his brothers, my brother, my father and other extended family members gather for a week every fall at a family hunting camp. My youngest son, Gabe, has attended the camp since he was a small boy. He has learned so many life lessons at hunting camp, including bush skills, survival on the land, tracking, his sacred relationship with animals he harvests and gun safety.

One day he went out with his dad and my father. They had smudged earlier that morning, and as the smudge passed under the guns and over the ammo, he prayed that he would become a hunter that day. His prayers were answered when he was the first to spot a deer on the cutline, and it stayed long enough for him to convince his dad that it was his time. He did exactly as he was taught. He got out of the truck slowly and with purpose. He aimed. He took a deep breath. He aimed again, and when he was completely sure that he could make the perfect shot, he fired.

When the deer fell, he walked to the animal with tears in his eyes. He put tobacco down and he thanked the deer for giving its life so that his family could eat. His dad showed him how to make the other offerings and to ensure the cleanliness of the food he was bringing home. In this moment, with humility and gratitude, he understood the complexity of our sacred right to hunt.

Allen called me, and I was in tears. We knew Gabe had entered the next stage of his life, that this was an important rite of passage in his journey.

When they arrived home, Gabe helped his dad prepare, package and freeze the meat. The next day, we hosted a feast with four elders. Gabe helped me make the deer stew, and he offered all the rest of the meat to the elders at our kitchen table — the elders who gave him teachings about becoming a man; his responsibility to his family, his community and the animals he would harvest; and his sacred relationship with the land. A few years later, when he brought his first moose back to hunting camp, he was presented with tobacco and given his first eagle feather. He had proven that he could survive in the bush, and that he was able to feed his family.

It is with so much pride that I can say all three of our sons are capable, traditional hunters, and I will never, ever go hungry. Indeed, colleagues, hunting, fishing and trapping are activities that forge stronger community bonds, provide a vehicle for the transmission of sacred teachings and foster a sense of responsibility to our community and natural world. As the late Dr. Harold Cardinal told my husband, Allen’s formidable bush skills were transferable — and one of the reasons he was a successful CEO.

Senators, my family has a variety of guns, large and small, that are specific to the animal that will be harvested. There are also family guns that have been passed down from generation to generation. My dad has gifted my grandfather’s guns to our sons as an acknowledgment of their hard work at camp, and the fact that they are such amazing traditional hunters. Every single one of these guns is legal and is stored safely.

Allen, my husband, was the co-producer of two videos about Indigenous peoples’ hunting rights and acquiring a Possession and Acquisition Licence, or PAL. Alberta Fish and Wildlife and the RCMP were partners in these video productions in an effort to build relationships between police, conservation officers and Indigenous hunters. Every Canadian — Indigenous and non‑Indigenous — who wants to purchase a firearm must apply for a PAL. There are also long-standing provisions within the licensing process that help Indigenous people acquire their PAL and, therefore, ensure that Indigenous hunting rights are preserved.

At the same time, Indigenous communities have frequently been impacted by firearms violence — often for reasons stemming from intergenerational and historic trauma. Like other Canadians, Indigenous people want and deserve to be protected from threats to community safety, such as gender-based violence and gang violence, and to have measures in place to reduce the risk of suicide.

Senators, my husband has been crystal clear: If ever one of his guns were to become prohibited, he would decommission or surrender it because the right to hunt — a sacred right given to us by the Creator, not by the government — is not tied to the use of a particular firearm, and the right to live in a safe community is also sacred.

Senators, the truth is that Bill C-21 would not change the classification of a single firearm. Last fall, the government proposed amendments during committee study in the other place that would have made some classification changes. At the time, some Indigenous communities and organizations felt that they hadn’t been sufficiently consulted on the amendments. I’m glad that the government took a pause at that point, and spent several months having conversations with Indigenous organizations and rights holders, including the Assembly of First Nations; the Métis National Council; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami; the Manitoba Métis Federation; Tribal Chiefs Ventures Inc., which represents several First Nations on Treaty 6 territory in Alberta; the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak; the Métis Nation British Columbia; the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee, which deals with the harvesting rights in northern Quebec; the Native Council of Prince Edward Island; the Wolastoqey Nation in New Brunswick; and the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association.

From what I have heard about these discussions, several key themes emerged: First, many Indigenous people and organizations agree with the principle that certain firearms are too dangerous and not appropriate for civilian use. Second, the preservation of harvesting rights, and of the firearms used to exercise these rights, is a top priority for Indigenous communities. Third, it is important for many Indigenous people to be able to pass their firearms down from one generation to the next. Finally, it was repeatedly emphasized that Indigenous organizations and rights holders want to work with the government on matters related to regulation of firearms. Early and ongoing consultation can help maximize buy-in among members of Indigenous communities, maximize the effectiveness of the laws and minimize misinformation about what a particular law or amendment does.

The result of the extensive consultations was that the amendment introduced last fall was withdrawn. Other amendments, such as the amendments focused on combating the spread of ghost guns, were reintroduced and adopted. In its current form, Bill C-21 would enshrine the handgun freeze that has been in effect for a year; maintain the prohibition of approximately 1,500 assault-style rifles that was enacted in 2020; and establish a technical definition of assault-style firearms to be applied going forward in order to prevent newly designed or manufactured assault-style firearms from entering the Canadian market.

For hunters, the bottom line is if there is a long gun that you are using for hunting today, you will still be able to use it when Bill C-21 passes. For all Canadians, including Indigenous people, the bill will help protect us from gun violence and make our communities safer.

Colleagues, let’s send Bill C-21 to committee and study it as soon as possible. Hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hartling, for the second reading of Bill S-232, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(On motion of Senator Woo, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, for the second reading of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, I rise here today at second reading to speak to Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council). The bill’s goal, as elaborated by the sponsor of the bill, Senator Diane Bellemare, is to set up an employment insurance council within the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which would create a social dialogue on matters related to Employment Insurance, or EI.

As you may know, colleagues, our social safety net when a Canadian is without employment has been in place since 1940. At first, it was called the unemployment insurance — or the UIC, as we used to call it in my area, thanks to a popular 1755 song — to finally becoming Employment Insurance in 1990.

From 1940 to today — 2023 — the overhaul of the program has been limited. Instead of doing a modernization of the program, successive governments introduced numerous pilot projects to help the labour market find workers and, at the same time, help Canadians find jobs.

For example, right now, we have another pilot project to help Canadians who work in seasonal jobs survive through the “black hole.” I have talked about this issue before. The “black hole” is a period in the year where seasonal workers have no insurable hours left, but their seasonal jobs have not begun yet. Again, the reaction to help people right away has always been a pilot project, which is a short-term solution. Yet, all the while, seasonal workers are still waiting on a medium- to long-term solution.

I am certain that they are not the only ones who need a better safety net when the jobs are just not there. The labour market has evolved tremendously since 1990 with the internet. Since the 2000s, telecommunications have changed how we live and how we work. New technology has been good for some in the economy, but it has been disruptive to workers. Even just in recent months, the emergence of artificial intelligence could prove to be another major disruption in the labour market. Who knows where the artificial intelligence could be in two to five years.

All of that to show, colleagues, that the job market has evolved tremendously in the last decade, but our EI system hasn’t left the 20th century. It remains outdated, and it has become a patchwork solution that needs dire modernization.

We just need to look at the recent COVID pandemic in 2020: the program is very rigid and not as easily adaptable to sudden situations. Now that we are post-pandemic, we need to address how we protect and help unemployed Canadians.

That brings me now to Senator Bellemare’s bill. The idea of having a social dialogue within the Employment Insurance Commission sounds like a good idea. What we want is for decisions to be made based on what employers and employees need. Swing the pendulum too much on one side, and it hurts the economy. If we swing too much on the other side, it hurts the worker. It is a difficult balance.

For me, prior to being a senator, I was a member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick for my riding from 1999 until my appointment in 2010. My experience with Employment Insurance and social support is based on meeting with constituents in a desperate situation who have nowhere else to turn. How many times have I cried with my constituents who needed money to buy food, to pay heating, to pay for their kids’ clothing, and the list goes on.

That is where I stand: with the workers who need help to support their families. The bill before us proposes a social dialogue between the most representative employers’ organizations and the most representative labour organizations. If there is to be a proper social dialogue for EI, there must be due diligence to ensure that nobody is forgotten. My concern would be that the social dialogue focuses on where there are more workers in the bigger industries and, on the other hand, on representatives of the bigger employers. It is important that people who are not necessarily in the main industries as well as those in the areas of the country where there are fewer people also have a voice. I am concerned there will be a concentration of the dialogue where there are the most workers and bigger employers.

As well, it might be important to factor in the regional aspect of our country. I’m pretty sure when I say “the black hole,” not all Canadians would think of the four-week hole for seasonal workers of not having an income, just like I am not familiar with an issue that could be in the Prairies or Western Canada. We need to make sure that every region has a voice. The fact remains that we live in a geographically wide country, with a diverse economy true to each region. Each region’s labour market will be distinct from the other.

Finally, I would caution on having too much bureaucracy. The Employment Insurance ecosystem is wide. I understand the council would be within the commission — but as long as it does not centralize the focus and the consultation within one structure. Sometimes one thing sounds good in theory until it is applied to reality, which is where my experience as a member of the legislative assembly comes into play. I have held hands with people going through the EI system. Even though it was a federal issue, and I was a provincial legislator, I was solely involved just to help out when the time was there in any way that I could.

Hearing directly from the people who are not represented by big unions and who do not work in a big industry, they cannot be left behind. It must be inclusive so that all voices are heard.

At the end of the day, honourable senators, our EI system needs a major overhaul. Employment Insurance is part of our social safety net for Canadians, by Canadians. Future governments need to take better care of it. It needs to be bold and bring about an overhaul instead of pilot projects. We have seen too many times the EI program not answering the needs of Canadian workers in a fast-evolving economy. I trust that the committee will do a great study of the bill because, now more than ever, our Employment Insurance system needs to be modernized.

While we wait for the government to present its plan to improve the EI system, I thank and congratulate Senator Bellemare for her initiative. Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Éric Forest: First of all, congratulations on your speech, which is crucial for regions where industry relies heavily on seasonal work, such as fisheries and agriculture.

With regard to the spring gap, we are repeatedly being told that consultations are ongoing and that employment insurance is going to be reformed.

Don’t you think that the danger we’re currently facing — given the scarcity of resources and the fact that we’re competing for skilled labour — is that regions like yours and mine, where workers are tied to seasonal industries, will be taken over by other, more permanent industrial sectors? Don’t you think it is urgent to stop holding consultations and reform employment insurance to take these realities into account?

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: I wonder if the senator would take a question.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to 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). As Senator Kutcher pointed out, this is the eighteenth time this bill, or one like it, has been brought forward. I share his hope that this is the last time we will see this bill, or a bill like it, in Parliament — albeit, as I will explain, probably for different reasons than Senator Kutcher.

Colleagues, as you know, this bill will amend the Criminal Code to remove section 43, which reads as follows:

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.

In 2004, the Supreme Court was asked to consider the constitutionality of this section. In their decision, they described the parameters of the case as follows:

The issue in this case is the constitutionality of Parliament’s decision to carve out a sphere within which children’s parents and teachers may use minor corrective force in some circumstances without facing criminal sanction. The assault provision of the Criminal Code . . . prohibits intentional, non-consensual application of force to another. Section 43 of the Criminal Code excludes from this crime reasonable physical correction of children by their parents and teachers.

Colleagues, this continues to be the question before us today: Should parents be treated as criminals for using force to correct their child if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances?

I would note that the question is not, “Should parents be allowed to physically abuse their children?” Nor is it, “Should parents be permitted to physically assault their children?” Nobody is asking these questions. Nobody is asking for a statutory defence of child abuse, but you wouldn’t know it from listening to some of the speeches that we have heard in this chamber.

My good friend Senator Kutcher suggested that section 43 of the Criminal Code “. . . provides protection for those who use violence as a parenting tool . . . .” Senator Pate said section 43 “. . . permits a defence and justification for violence perpetrated against children . . . .” Senator Petitclerc compelled us to pass this bill because, in the words of Nelson Mandela, “We owe our children . . . a life free from violence and fear.” And Senator Moodie said that section 43 effectively allows “. . . children to experience forms of physical violence.”

Colleagues, the sharp rhetoric around this bill is disturbingly unfounded and misleading. Allow me to walk you through some of the facts.

In 2004, the Supreme Court laid down very stringent and specific parameters to the application of section 43. Having considered the testimony and evidence, the Chief Justice, on behalf of the majority of the justices, wrote the following:

. . . I conclude that the exemption from criminal sanction for corrective force that is “reasonable under the circumstances” does not offend the Charter. I say this, having carefully considered the contrary view of my colleague, Arbour J., that the defence of reasonable correction offered by s. 43 is so vague that it must be struck down as unconstitutional, leaving parents who apply corrective force to children to the mercy of the defences of necessity and “de minimis”.

Justice McLachlin continued:

I am satisfied that the substantial social consensus on what is reasonable correction, supported by comprehensive and consistent expert evidence on what is reasonable presented in this appeal, gives clear content to s. 43. I am also satisfied, with due respect to contrary views, that exempting parents and teachers from criminal sanction for reasonable correction does not violate children’s equality rights. In the end, I am satisfied that this section provides a workable, constitutional standard that protects both children and parents.

Colleagues, bear in mind that the attempt to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code was not just rejected once but three times. Three courts considered the matter, and three courts rejected it. First, it was rejected in 2000 by the trial judge, Justice McCombs. Then, two years later, it was rejected by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Then, in 2004, it was rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada.

This bill has already been before Parliament 17 times, and it has never made it through the committee stage. The hubris of bringing it before Parliament for the eighteenth time after 3 rejections by the courts and 17 rejections by Parliament is a bit mind-boggling to me. Why are senators challenging what has already been settled in the highest court of the land?

There was no ambiguity in the court’s decision on section 43. In fact, the parameters it set out were very clear. I quote from the Library of Parliament’s study on this issue, dated February of this year:

The justices stated that the words “by way of correction” in section 43 mean that the use of force must be sober and reasoned, address actual behaviour and be intended to restrain, control or express symbolic disapproval. They also noted that the child must have the capacity to understand and benefit from the correction, which means that section 43 does not justify force against children under the age of two or those with certain disabilities.

The justices further clarified that the words “reasonable under the circumstances” in section 43 mean that the force must be transitory and trifling and must not harm or degrade the child. They stated that the idea is to look at the need for correction in the circumstances rather than the gravity of the child’s misbehaviour. According to the decision, reasonableness further implies that force may not be administered to teenagers, as this can induce aggressive or antisocial behaviour. Moreover, force may not involve objects, such as rulers or belts, and it may not be applied to the head.

These parameters were not dreamt up by the Supreme Court. They were lifted from the decision of the trial judge, Justice McCombs, when he said that “Corporal punishment which causes injury is child abuse,” and “Corporal punishment should never involve a slap or blow to the head.” He went on the say that:

Corporal punishment using objects such as belts, rulers, etc., is potentially harmful both physically and emotionally and should not be tolerated.

Justice McCombs also stated that “Hitting a child under two is wrong and harmful.”

Justice McCombs also noted that all of the experts agreed that spanking should be defined as:

. . . “the administrating of one or two mild to moderate ‘smacks’ with an open hand, on the buttocks or extremities which does not cause physical harm.)

Colleagues, nowhere in section 43 will you find even a hair’s breadth of room for assaulting or abusing a child. To suggest otherwise is inflammatory and misleading. The Supreme Court clearly stated that “Section 43 does not extend to an application of force that results in harm or the prospect of harm. . . .”

Child abuse of any kind is among the most abhorrent behaviour imaginable, and it is also already criminal. Those who perpetrate violence against children should feel the full force of the law, and in Canada, colleagues, they do.

Rather than protecting children, Bill S-251 will carry profound negative consequences for both children and their families if it is passed and section 43 is removed.

Former Chief Justice McLachlin warned of this in commenting on the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision. She said that the decision to not criminalize corporal punishment was:

. . . not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families — a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process.

This concern was shared by the Ontario Court of Appeal, who noted that:

The mutual bond of love and support between parents and their children is a crucial one and deserves great respect. Unnecessary disruptions of this bond by the state have the potential to cause significant trauma to both the parent and the child. Parents must be accorded a relatively large measure of freedom from state interference to raise their children as they see fit.

Furthermore, colleagues, we need to bear in mind that while we are discussing section 43 in the context of spanking, the impact of removing this section is much, much broader.

Consider the following quote:

The offence of assault is defined in section 265 of the Code as “the intentional application of force to another person, directly or indirectly, without the consent of that person”.

This broad definition, standing alone, would make criminal any mild or moderate forms of physical discipline, including spanking as defined in this case. Without section 43, other forms of restraint would be criminal, such as putting an unwilling child to bed, removing a reluctant child from the dinner table, removing a child from a classroom who refused to go, or placing an unwilling child in a car seat.

The fact that such commonly accepted forms of parental discipline would become criminalized without section 43 is a very significant consideration.

Colleagues, this is not some exaggerated scenario raised as a scare tactic by opponents of this bill. This is not some conspiracy theory floated by flat earthers. These are the words of the original trial judge, Justice McCombs, in his judgment on this issue.

Former chief justice Beverley McLachlin echoed these concerns in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004, stating:

The reality is that without s. 43, Canada’s broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment, like placing an unwilling child in a chair for a five-minute “time-out”. The decision not to criminalize such conduct is not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families — a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process.

While others mock this concern and dismiss it out of hand, the concern is real. Passing Bill S-251 will not protect children; it will put them and their families at risk.

Colleagues, if my count is correct, nine senators have spoken to this bill before me. While I respect the right of all senators to hold their own views, there were a couple of points raised in debate that I would like to address.

The first was the insinuation by one senator that the Bible sanctions violence against children. This is not accurate. Nowhere in the Bible will you find a defence for child abuse — none.

Biblical references to corporal punishments are not, and have never been, an admonition for or an acceptance of child abuse. In fact, as historians and sociologists studying the early church have pointed out, one of the reasons that Christianity grew exponentially during its first 300 years was due to the exceptional way that Christians treated women and children in contrast to all of the cultures around them.

Christians believe that every person — regardless of race, sex, ethnicity or ideology — is made in the image of God. Furthermore, in God’s eyes, every person carries immeasurable value — born and unborn — so much so that God was willing to pay the price for their redemption with the life of his own son. Because of this, Christians in the early church treated everyone with respect, including women and children.

Senator Dalphond pointed out that ancient Roman laws gave the father the power of life and death over his children. This is true. Abortion was commonplace. Unwanted newborn children were often left exposed to the elements to die, especially newborn girls. But the early church resoundingly rejected these attitudes and values. They treated women and children with dignity, providing a safe haven in tumultuous times.

This is true of Christianity even today, and to suggest otherwise is to misrepresent the facts. Any biblical reference to the corporal punishment of children is not an endorsement of violence or abuse. Such a thing was never contemplated by the writers of scripture and never promoted by the followers of Christ. On the contrary, Christians carry a deep sense of responsibility to protect the vulnerable and speak up for those without a voice. This is why many are unapologetic about speaking out against abortion and assisted suicide.

I recognize that some senators may struggle with this viewpoint, but the position is rooted in the firm belief that every human life has immeasurable value. I, on the other hand, struggle to understand why we are so anxious to amend the Criminal Code in order to criminalize parents who give their child one or two gentle smacks on their backside, but won’t consider amending the Criminal Code to specify that knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman or causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman should be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.

The second thing I would like to respond to is the repeated assertion that the research indicates all corporal punishment is harmful. This is questionable at best and varies according to which research you choose to look at. I would say that the closer you look, the more the so-called evidence begins to break down.

For example, in one academic review, researchers examined 26 studies on this topic from the previous 50 years and found that, “Whether physical punishment compared favorably or unfavorably with other tactics depended on the type of physical punishment.” In essence, the review found that if physical punishment reflected the parameters set out by the Supreme Court, it was found to be as good or better than other forms of discipline.

A 2019 academic survey of the existing research on this issue confirmed these earlier findings. Furthermore, it noted two substantial problems with the studies that concluded all corporal punishment was harmful.

First of all, it found that those studies often did not distinguish between the outcomes of overly severe discipline and non‑abusive physical discipline. Instead, they grouped them together, which provides us with no useful comparison between the impact of corporal punishment which exceeds the current parameters of Canadian law and corporal punishment which is administered within the guidelines set by the Supreme Court.

Second, the studies which concluded that all corporal punishment was always harmful, “. . . failed to solve the chicken‑and-the-egg problem as to whether severe misbehavior causes physical discipline or vice versa.”

One of the strongest arguments against corporal punishment is that spanking is associated with later behavioural problems, such as aggression. However, studies have shown that this correlation exists with every type of corrective discipline. As one study noted:

Since all types of corrective discipline are associated with subsequent aggression, it cannot be uniquely attributed to spanking, except in the case of overly severe and predominant use of physical punishment.

Colleagues, much of the so-called evidence against spanking is based on simple correlations, ignores studies of conditional spanking and fails to compare the outcomes of spanking with outcomes of alternative disciplinary responses that parents could use instead. It does not support removing section 43 from the Criminal Code.

But what about the question of the Call to Action 6 as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Let me state categorically that the abuse suffered by First Nations children at residential schools was horrific. It should never have happened, and my remarks do not in any way diminish the horror of the traumatic experiences that the children and their families faced and in many cases are still facing.

Last Sunday, colleagues, marked 15 years since the Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered an apology to residential school survivors and acknowledged the profound wrongs and unimaginable trauma experienced by Indigenous children who were torn from their homes. The legacy of residential schools remains an ugly and horrific blight in the history of our country, devastating entire families and communities.

As you know, as part of the reconciliation process that followed, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued 94 Calls to Action. The sixth Call to Action called on the government, “. . . to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.” However, I would note, colleagues, that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was not given a mandate to reach into every home in the country and dictate what is appropriate or inappropriate when it comes to non-harmful, loving discipline. In fact, for a people who suffered immeasurably because of government overreach, I would be surprised if residential school survivors endorsed a Call to Action which advocates for government overreach in the lives of other families.

The terms of reference provided to the commission were to address the harmful legacy of residential schools, not to compel sweeping revisions of Canadian law with respect to legitimate parental discretion in disciplining their children. Furthermore, colleagues, I would draw your attention to the fact that Call to Action 6 appears under the heading of “Education.” The context of this Call to Action is not to impose a philosophy of discipline upon every parent in the country, but to ensure that section 43 is not used as a shield that allows teachers to strike a child in their care.

This is in keeping with what the Supreme Court decided in 2004. In their decision, the court agreed that:

. . . corporal punishment . . . is not reasonable in the school context, teachers may use force to remove children from classrooms or to secure compliance with instructions.

I would argue that an appropriate application to Call to Action 6 would be to amend section 43 to remove the words “schoolteacher” and “pupil.” This would advance the process of reconciliation by responding to the need to address the abuses in residential schools without being overly broad in its application.

Colleagues, we live in troubled times. Many families feel like their traditional, deeply held beliefs and values are under attack. You do not have to look any further than the parent demonstrations in our very own backyard here in Ottawa this past weekend, and again this afternoon, to see evidence of this. Or you can look to the battle that the New Brunswick premier is now having with the Prime Minister, as Premier Higgs tries to defend rights while Justin Trudeau dismisses them as far right.

Colleagues, let me quote an article in today’s National Post:

Parental rights are now a “far right” political issue, according to Justin Trudeau.

It may be that the prime minister didn’t mean to disparage millions of parents by lumping them in with other far-right radicals like white supremacists and fascists, but that he did so speaks to his tendency to shoot from the lip.

It is unfortunate that, once again, Trudeau, who has often denounced partisanship while urging conciliation, uses inflammatory rhetoric which will alienate a large portion of Canadians.

Trudeau’s divisive language comes in the wake of the government of New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs making controversial changes to gender rules in the province’s schools.

The purview of the provinces. Colleagues, it is one thing to ask parents to adapt to an evolving culture by being tolerant of beliefs they do not share and showing respect to those who hold different values. But when the state begins to impose these values on those who do not hold them, it tears at the fabric of society.

The Supreme Court of Canada has been quite clear that when it comes to religion and belief, the state is to be neutral. Yet today, many Canadians are struggling to see this neutrality. They feel like their governments are becoming increasingly elitist and are progressively encroaching on jurisdiction that has traditionally belonged to the family.

As I said in my speech on this bill’s predecessor, Bill S-206, I do not often agree with former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, ever. However, I do agree with his comment that “. . . there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. . . .” I also believe that there is no place for the state in the homes of loving parents raising their children in a responsible and caring manner. Thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]