Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. It is a short question, and something that troubled me for many years and I want to share it with you.

How is it that we, as lawmakers, can justify that physical assault from any one of us as an adult against another adult is illegal, but a similar level of assault by a parent against a child is legal in Canada and would continue to be so if we don’t follow through on this bill?

Senator Simons: Are you not going to answer the question I already asked?

Senator Plett: Certainly.

Senator Gold: I do not know the answers. Again, I would hope that as we address the important issue of foreign interference, we can do so — as responsible parliamentarians — without continuing to tag the participants with adjectives such as “made-up,” “cover-up” and the like. It’s a serious matter. I would hope that we could address it seriously going forward.

Senator Plett: Point of order, Your Honour. This is not a question related to anything that I said here today. I would appreciate that, if Senator Simons has a question related to the speech, she asks it and does not go on a rant. If she wants to debate this bill later on, she can do that.

Senator Plett: I agree that we can look at it every 20 years if we want. As I said at the outset, we’ve looked at it 17 times before this. It was not just the Supreme Court, it was Parliament that 17 times overturned this in a democratic fashion.

I’m not supposed to ask you the question, but this is a response: Do you believe in the democratic process that turned this down 17 times? The Supreme Court, three courts — not just one, but three courts — turned this down. Was there a dissenting view? Absolutely. There is always dissension. I welcome that here today, and I welcome hearing you speak on this bill if you think that it is a good bill. I happen to think that, as a loving parent and grandparent, I would like to give my children the right to raise their children in the way that they see fit. I have never seen more loving people. I could learn lessons from my children in the way they are raising their children, but I’m not going to interfere, and I certainly think that the Senate should not interfere.

[Translation]

Senator Simons: Senator Plett absolutely made reference to the two protests outside of schools. He clearly mentioned Blaine Higgs, who —

Senator Plett: I’m not sure, Senator McPhedran, whether you heard any of my speech or not. In my speech, I said that a slap on the bum with the hand so it leaves no mark is not assault. So, no, you and I agree. We should not assault children. Absolutely. I don’t think spanking a child with two slaps on the bum — it cannot leave a mark or it’s assault — I do not believe that it is assault.

Senator Omidvar: I don’t know that. That’s why I asked the question.

What role do provincial laws play in this?

Senator Dupuis: Senator Plett, thank you for agreeing to answer my question.

You quoted the majority decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 2004.

However, don’t you think it’s also important to recognize that there were dissenting opinions on that ruling? Justice Deschamps said the following with regard to section 43, and I quote:

 . . . s. 43 perpetuates the notion of children as property rather than human beings and sends the message that their bodily integrity and physical security is to be sacrificed to the will of their parents, however misguided. Far from corresponding to the actual needs and circumstances of children, s. 43 compounds the pre-existing disadvantage of children as a vulnerable and often-powerless group whose access to legal redress is already restricted.

My question is this. That ruling was handed down in 2004. Do you agree that mentalities change, that Supreme Court rulings are not the definitive authorities and that we can look at them differently in 2023, nearly 20 years after the ruling you referred to was handed down?

[English]

Senator Poirier: I totally agree.

Regarding the council that is going to be put in place, it will be extremely important — specifically, in rural New Brunswick and rural Canada, there are a lot of places and companies out there that are not unionized, so we need to ensure those people have a voice and that we can hear from them.

I have total confidence — I have been on the Social Affairs Committee for a long time; I’m not there right now, but I have been for a long time — and I have total faith in the committee that they will do great work and ensure all voices are heard. Yes, there are a lot of people who are hurting out there. Again, I remember when I was a member of the legislative assembly when there was nowhere else to turn, because there were not even pilot projects or anything. I would even reach out to churches and local organizations in the community to see where I could get firewood to help a family heat their home in the winter, or get food or different things.

Yes, I’m passionate about it. I really have faith that the committee will do a great job on it and make sure that our voices are all well heard. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, I draw to your attention that yesterday the Atlantic Premiers met in Prince Edward Island and issued a statement on the need for a new federal infrastructure program to address the impacts of climate change and to build infrastructure that supports economic growth.

Specifically, the premiers highlighted that the Chignecto Isthmus between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is a vital corridor at risk due to rising sea levels. Make no mistake about it: Sea-level rise is on a dramatic incline that will put at risk communities and transportation systems on all of Canada’s coasts, including the Isthmus, and, of course, this area provides the only rail and highway links from Canada to Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia to Canada. Billions of dollars in trade and tens of thousands of people cross this area every year.

Further, the Atlantic Premiers reiterated that the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to maintain links between provinces and fully fund the Chignecto Isthmus climate change adaptation project.

Honourable senators, if you recall, in April I asked Minister LeBlanc whether he would promote and support the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick premiers’ request for 100% federal funding. One solution to help in this goal is to use the declaratory power to transfer jurisdiction of the project to the Government of Canada. Considering that the four premiers are calling for increased federal support, this reinforces how the isthmus is a trade corridor of national importance and must be viewed so by the Government of Canada. Projects such as this, including, for example, the construction of the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, have been supported 100% by the federal government when in the national interest, and ensuring the security of the corridors crossing the isthmus is, without a doubt, in our national interest.

Honourable senators, when all four Atlantic premiers are united, I ask that we take note and hear their concerns. After all, it is our constitutional responsibility to promote regional interests. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Colleagues, it moves me deeply to speak about a subject that differs from my usual focus. I feel this is an important part of respecting our duty to remember.

Last week, June 6 marked a key date in our country’s history. That day commemorates a bold and decisive military operation. On June 6, 1944, Allied armed forces launched an offensive on the beaches of Normandy, a battle that changed the course of the Second World War.

At the time, France was occupied and the whole of Europe was living under the terrifying threat of the Nazi regime. The whole world held its breath awaiting the actions of one man.

Some 79 years ago, our soldiers — mostly young men, some scarcely more than boys — risked their lives with unrivalled bravery. They fought for their homeland, of course, but even more importantly, they fought to defend the values of democracy and human rights and to help Europe and the Allies free themselves from Nazi oppression.

On the eve of June 6, 1944, these 130,000 brothers in arms landed on the beaches of Normandy to open a new front in Europe. These soldiers drew their courage from their sense of duty to face the firepower of new German machine guns. However, that duty came at a cost. Many of those soldiers did not return from the beaches of Normandy. On the evening of June 6, 1944, the Allies mourned the death of 10,500 soldiers, including 1,000 Canadian soldiers, on Omaha Beach and Juno Beach.

These soldiers gave their lives to liberate Europe. Their sacrifices deserve our eternal respect.

I would like to share with you the poignant testimony of Samuel Fuller, an American solder who participated in the landing. This is what he said:

The day was starting to break and we could just barely see the coastline through the fog. We left the ship and got into the landing craft, which carried us toward the beach. I was in the 16th Regiment, 3rd Battalion, Company K. . . . The water was rough and soldiers were seasick. We were in the third assault wave. The closer we got to land, the less we could see — Smoke, fog, explosions . . . . It was hell. But that was just the beginning. . . . The whole scene was straight out of Dante’s inferno. The ocean ran red with blood and body parts were being tossed on the waves. My sergeant and I managed to get to a sandbar, but we could not find any bomb holes in which to take shelter from the gunfire. That is when everything started to slowly fall apart. Air support missed the beach and was bombing inland. We had nothing to protect ourselves with but the bodies of fallen soldiers. We tried to figure out where the mortar fire was coming from that was tearing up the beach. The sergeant was surprised by the power and quality of the enemy fire, and he told me that we were facing seasoned soldiers.

Rather than staying on the beach for 25 minutes as planned, we were trapped there for three hours under enemy fire. It wasn’t until 9:30 a.m. that we managed to open a breach in the beach defences . . . it was a nightmare.

Honourable senators, in memory of those soldiers, I want to sincerely commend their courage and recognize their sacrifices.

Let’s promise never to forget those who gave their lives for our freedom. Today, history seems to be repeating itself with the war that is raging in Ukraine, a country that is fighting for its freedom just as those soldiers fought for ours on June 6, 1944.

Thank you.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Jennifer Jones and a delegation from Rotary International. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Gerba.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, it is National Public Service Week in Canada, and I want to recognize the thousands of public servants who work hard every day at the municipal, provincial and federal levels to keep us safe and make our lives better. This, of course, includes those who work in National Defence, policing, security, nursing and teaching, and university administrators and social workers. We have a number of former senior public servants in the Senate — leaders — including Senators Boehm, Shugart, Saint-Germain, Arnot, Marshall, Anderson, Boniface, Busson and Dagenais. We thank all of you for your public service and diplomacy, which continues in this place and outside of it.

Today, I also want to recognize that public service can take many forms. We have another senator here who does great public service, even though his career peaked as one of Canada’s senior bank executives. I see that Senator Marwah has some special guests here today: his wife, Amrin, and his two daughters, Nanki and Gurbani; his son-in-law, Doug; and three grandchildren, Amrie, Rulison and, yes, little Sabi as well. Sabi is very proud of his family — I know that you understand that — and he speaks very fondly of you all, and I know you’re all fond of him too.

There’s something I want you to know about Sabi. He brought all of his senior banking skills into the Senate, and he has worked very hard to make the Senate a better place — a better place to work and a place that works well. Sabi was head of probably the most important committee in the Senate: He was responsible for managing our money, and he is really good at that, as you probably know. He was responsible for ensuring that we treat each other well and that we all come to work in a safe and healthy place every day, a place where young people can work and learn about how laws are made and how government works. Sabi has helped us understand some important pieces of legislation as well, as the sponsor of a budget bill, a very important international trade agreement whose real title is too long for me to get through in the time available and a private member’s bill on Sikh Heritage Month.

Sabi is also generous in working for and supporting many charities and other worthy causes, although he never talks about that because modesty is one of Sabi’s virtues as well. Sabi likes to help people who need our help most. He has brought members of the deaf-blind community, those who can’t see or hear, to meet with us in the Senate for the past two years so that we can understand what sort of help they need and they deserve.

And there’s another reason that Sabi is one of our favourite senators: We like his jokes. He has a great sense of humour, and I am sure he makes all of you laugh too.

Colleagues, today, as we celebrate Canada’s public servants, let’s celebrate the fantastic public servants we have right here in the Senate, which very much includes our colleague Senator Sabi Marwah. Thank you, colleagues.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Senator Marwah’s grandchildren: Amrie, Rulison and Sabi Holm. They are accompanied by other family.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Kutcher, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, for the second reading of Bill S-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (murder of an intimate partner, one’s own child or an intimate partner’s child).

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)